Lithuania’s gambling law faces setback in EU court ruling
A recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has substantial implications for Lithuania’s online gambling promotion regulations, potentially rendering recent legislative amendments unenforceable. This ruling is essential for industry operators, legal professionals, and policymakers, as it underlines the critical procedural requirements that govern gambling legislation within the European Union (EU).
Overview of the Case
The case centers on an appeal introduced by the online gambling operator Unigames against the Lithuanian Gambling Supervisory Authority. Unigames contested a fine of €12,662 tied to claims that its website contained statements that promoted gambling participation. This fine was issued following a 2021 amendment to Article 10(19) of Lithuania’s gambling law, which expanded the existing prohibition on gambling advertising to encompass "any form and by any means."
Key Findings of the CJEU
The CJEU’s ruling is grounded in the assessment that the prohibition established by Lithuania constitutes a "technical regulation" as defined under EU law. Specifically, it is classified as a "rule on services" that affects Information Society services, a category that includes online gambling operations.
Under Directive 2015/1535, member states are mandated to notify the European Commission of any alterations to their technical regulations before implementation. Lithuania’s failure to comply with this requirement has led the CJEU to conclude that the revised provisions cannot be enforced against economic operators like Unigames.
Implications for the Gambling Industry
This ruling reinforces a critical precedent established by previous EU case law: any technical regulations that are not appropriately notified to the European Commission are rendered unenforceable against individuals and businesses. This principle not only pertains to newly enacted regulations but also applies to substantial amendments of existing laws.
For gambling operators, this decision highlights several important considerations:
- Compliance with EU Directives: Operators must ensure that any jurisdictional changes to gambling regulations comply with procedural norms, including appropriate notifications to the European Commission.
- Review of Regulatory Strategies: The ruling could lead to a reassessment of marketing strategies across EU member states, particularly in jurisdictions that might be contemplating similar expansions of regulatory restrictions on advertising.
- Potential for Legal Redress: The outcome of this case permits operators to challenge penalties imposed under similar conditions, fostering an environment where legal compliance and procedural adherence are crucial.
Next Steps for Lithuania
As the case progresses back to Lithuania’s Supreme Administrative Court, it will be pivotal for the judiciary to apply the CJEU’s interpretations to determine the legitimacy of the fine levied against Unigames. The Court’s final decision could have far-reaching consequences for Lithuania’s gambling landscape and regulatory framework.
Conclusion
The CJEU’s ruling serves as a significant reminder of the importance of procedural fairness in the regulation of online gambling throughout the EU. For operators, regulators, and stakeholders in the gambling industry, adherence to established directives is paramount not only for compliance but also for fostering a transparent and fair market environment. As the landscape continues to evolve, staying informed and proactive in regulatory matters will be essential for success in the competitive online gambling sector.
