The Administrative Court in Linköping overturned a SEK 8 million sanction imposed by Sweden’s Gambling Authority (Spelinspektionen) against Malta-based online operator LeoVegas, trading locally as Roar Vegas. The court issued its decision on 12 June, granting the appeal and quashing the regulator’s ruling.
Spelinspektionen had ordered the sanction after a supervisory review completed on 25 March 2025, focused on Roar Vegas’s responsible-gaming procedures covering the period 1 January to 31 March 2024. As part of that review, the regulator sampled 12 customer accounts, selecting the highest-loss players within two age categories (18–24 and 25+).
According to Spelinspektionen’s account of the case, it alleged that Roar Vegas did not provide “sufficient assistance” to three customers. Spelinspektionen also said the operator eventually put measures in place that lowered gambling activity, but it concluded the interventions were tardy and inadequate, amounting to a serious breach.
Spelinspektionen paired the penalty with a formal reprimand, describing the sanction after a proportionality assessment. Roar Vegas disputed the decision, saying its monitoring included automated alerts and manual follow-ups aimed at detecting and curbing problematic gambling.
Roar Vegas also said it imposed deposit limits and suspensions on the concerned customers, and argued that the regulator’s indicators, including long log-in durations and rapid losses after deposits, were behavioural traits common among sports bettors. In its review of the appeal, one account of the court’s reasoning described the operator as having taken initial steps “relatively quickly,” including automated notifications, deposit limits, and direct engagement.
In describing what led to the quashing, the reporting says the court found Spelinspektionen’s decision lacked the requisite clarity and unambiguous evidence to justify sanctioning Roar Vegas. AffPapa further reported a court statement saying the appeal should be granted and the authority’s decision overturned, while also noting that the duty-of-care provision could serve as a basis for intervention in cases involving clear and obvious violations.
Spelinspektionen still had the option to appeal within three weeks of the 12 June ruling.
