Swedish Appeal Court Upholds SEK44 Million in Penalties Against bet365
Sweden’s Administrative Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals filed by Hillside (Sports) ENC and Hillside (Gaming) ENC, the licensees operating bet365 in the Swedish market, confirming warnings and a combined SEK44 million (approximately €3.9 million) in sanction fees. The ruling closes a multi-year legal process that originated from regulator Spelinspektionen’s findings of serious breaches of Sweden’s duty-of-care and deposit limit rules.
Background to the Case
The dispute began in April 2023, when Spelinspektionen issued fines totalling SEK79 million against the two Hillside entities, along with formal warnings, citing failures in customer protection obligations. The regulator’s investigation found that, between 1 January 2019 and 18 April 2022, the operators’ platform permitted customers to select a “no limit” option when setting their mandatory deposit limit. This configuration effectively allowed players to bypass the deposit restrictions intended to protect them from excessive gambling.
At first instance, the Administrative Court of Linköping partially accepted the operators’ challenge in June 2024, reducing the total penalty from SEK79 million to SEK44 million. Under that decision, Hillside (Sports) was liable for SEK40 million, while Hillside (Gaming) was liable for SEK4 million.
Both parties subsequently escalated the matter: the Hillside entities sought to overturn the penalties entirely, while the regulator pursued a higher sanction.
The Appeal Court’s Findings
In its judgment, the Administrative Court of Appeal in Jönköping affirmed the penalties of SEK40 million against Hillside (Sports) and SEK4 million against Hillside (Gaming), upholding the warnings issued alongside the fees. The court found that the breaches of the duty-of-care requirements and the deposit limit rules were of a serious nature.
The case centred on Sweden’s duty-of-care framework, which obliges licensed operators to monitor player behaviour, identify signs of harmful gambling, and take active measures to protect affected customers. Evidence cited during the proceedings included a customer under Hillside (Gaming) who made 44 deposits and 36 withdrawals within a single month, incurring substantial losses while no meaningful intervention occurred.
The “no limit” deposit setting was identified as a central concern, as it undermined the statutory deposit limit regime for an extended period of more than three years.
