Swedish court upholds SEK 12m Videoslots sanction - but wipes out SEK 8m Roar Vegas case

Sweden's Administrative Court delivered two judgments on gambling operators' duty of care on 12 June 2026. Videoslots Ltd lost its challenge: the court found shortcomings for the majority of the customers reviewed and upheld the SEK 12 million sanction fee. Roar Vegas Ltd obtained the opposite result, with its remark and SEK 8 million fee annulled.

The contrast is striking, but it needs the right frame. These were separate appeals based on separate player records and separate regulatory decisions. The outcomes do not show that one operator was measured against a softer rule. They show that the regulator still has to prove a sufficiently clear breach on the evidence in each case.

Spelinspektionen had warned Videoslots and imposed a SEK 12 million fee after reviewing how the operator met its duty to protect players from excessive gambling. According to the regulator's account of the judgment, the court agreed that there were deficiencies for the majority of the examined customers. It therefore dismissed the appeal and left the financial sanction unchanged.

The public summary does not turn every customer interaction into the same finding. Its wording - a majority of the reviewed players - is narrower and should remain so. It supports a serious compliance conclusion about the case examined, but not a claim that every Videoslots customer was mishandled or that the operator committed a criminal offence.

Roar Vegas had also appealed a remark and a large sanction fee, this time SEK 8 million. In that case, the court concluded that the material did not show a clear and obvious failure to fulfil the statutory duty of care. The court therefore annulled the regulator's intervention rather than merely lowering the amount.

That result matters because the underlying remark disappeared with the fee. Yet annulment should not be stretched into a broader certificate of good conduct. The judgment addressed the regulator's identified case and the evidence before the court. It does not establish that every intervention taken by the operator was timely, ideal or beyond future scrutiny.

Swedish licensees must monitor gambling behaviour and take measures when there is reason to counter excessive play. Enforcement can examine whether an operator identified risk, contacted the player, applied restrictions and followed the effect of those steps. A large sanction may follow when the regulator considers the failure serious, but the decision remains open to judicial review.

The two judgments expose that review in practical terms. A court can uphold a substantial fee where the records demonstrate deficiencies across the reviewed customer cases. It can also erase a substantial fee where the regulator has not shown the breach with enough clarity. The headline amounts are important; the evidential difference is the real story.

Spelinspektionen's announcement records the Administrative Court outcomes but does not state whether either party sought permission to appeal further. Any later higher-court order could change the procedural position and would require an update. Until then, the June judgments are the latest official outcomes identified for these two sanctions.

The accurate comparison is therefore limited and useful: Videoslots' SEK 12 million fee remained after the court found shortcomings for most reviewed players, while Roar Vegas' SEK 8 million fee and remark were annulled because a clear breach was not established. Similar rule, different record, different result.

The Videoslots judgment also records a narrower disagreement inside the court. One lay judge would have reduced the sanction fee to SEK 10 million, but the majority retained SEK 12 million. The appeal itself was dismissed; “majority” in the regulator’s summary describes the reviewed players, not a partial appellate victory for the operator.