top of page
Search

SGA's judgement was justified by Sweden's Supreme Court Global conflict

The Spelinspektionen has received support from Sweden's Supreme Administrative Court in an ongoing legal conflict with Genesis Global; nevertheless, the size of the penalty charge must be re-determined.

SGA's judgement was justified by Sweden's Supreme Court Global conflict

This is due to a lack of information about "the concept of turnover," as well as a difference of opinion in how this is implemented, according to the nation's highest-ranking court of appeal for legal challenges.


The Swedish gaming authority filed an appeal after the Court of Appeal in Jönköping reduced the penalty while admitting "a serious violation."


It stated that the level of the penalty cost should be set based on the gravity of the infraction rather than the quantity of the company's turnover.


Genesis was fined SEK 4 million (€360,000) in March 2019, three months after the debut of Sweden's newly regulated online gambling industry, for failing to integrate its white-label brands with the Spelpaus self-exclusion system.


As previously stated, this was later reduced to SEK 2 million after it was determined that the regulator had used an incorrect technique to calculate the penalty.



Integration of Spelpaus was designated a mandatory compliance requirement for all licenced operators debuting in Sweden's new marketplace.


The Supreme Administrative Court stated in its verdict that the SGA "had grounds for its decision to issue a warning to the company," and that the "rulings of the sub-instances were upheld in that part."


A statement read: “The Supreme Administrative Court took into account the circumstances that had come to light and found, among other things, that the company had already received indications before it was contacted by the Gambling Inspectorate that the company’s control function against the self-exclusion register was not working, but gambling was still permitted – something that was deemed to underline that the violation would be seen as serious.”


Concerning how the penalty should have been determined, the court stated that the licensee's financial conditions, as measured by the magnitude of the turnover, should be one of the elements considered in assessments.


The Supreme Administrative Court, on the other hand, stated that "the Supreme Administrative Court found that what is to be understood by the concept of turnover is not clear from the legal text and that the concept of annual turnover, which is used in the bill, was not explained in more detail."


“The parties in the case had different views on whether the term referred to player contributions before or after deductions for winnings paid to the players.”


Because this application was not filed "in the manner that the Supreme Administrative Court determined," the case was sent to the Spelinspektionen for a review of the penalty charge imposed.


The regulator responded to the ruling by saying, "All guidance from the highest instance is beneficial for the authority's ongoing assessments." In practise, the judgement implies that the Swedish Gaming Authority must re-examine the matter of Genesis Global's penalty fees.


“The authority also analyses what significance the court’s conclusions may have in other cases regarding penalty fees.”

By fLEXI tEAM


Comentários


bottom of page