The Swedish Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the Swedish Gaming Authority (SGA) against a previous court ruling regarding the interpretation of Kindred Group's deposit limits.
The SGA has filed an appeal questioning the implications for the Swedish licensed market and the ongoing introduction of online casino time limits for Swedish players, first introduced in June 2020.
It has been suggested that legal interpretation reduces the effectiveness of restrictions in protecting consumers from gambling-related harm.
“The interpretation of the Administrative Court also means that a licensee offering both commercial online games and betting can easily bypass deposit restrictions, while a licensee offering only commercial online games cannot do so,” reads the SGA Appeals.
Swedish operating company Kindred Group Spooniker was sanctioned by SGA in December for allegedly violating the deposit limit of SEK 5,000 (£440) per week for an online casino.
SGA researchers found that consumers were able to deposit funds into their linked betting accounts before transferring the money to their online gaming accounts.
This created a loophole that allowed players to spend up to SEK 50,000 of new deposits per week on online casino games.
Kindred was given three weeks to fix the problem, with a separate fine of SEK 1 million per week for each week the loophole remained in place.
At the time, the Stockholm-based operator claimed that it had interpreted the provisional rules "as written" and allowed customers to act on that basis.
“This means that it is the deposit limit set by the customer that determines his/her access to the products,” Sorodich stated.
“However, the SGA has adopted a different interpretation, according to which access to the product is determined by the actual deposits made, and this is not what is provided for by the rules,” the operator added.
Kindred filed an appeal against the SGA's decision, which it won in April when Administrative Court judges overturned the SGA's initial injunction on the grounds that its interpretation of the rules was incorrect.
“The court considers that this provision cannot be interpreted otherwise than that the deposit limit indicated by the player determines whether he can be offered a commercial online game, and not his actual deposits,” said the judges of the administrative court.
The loss of the SGA now means that this interpretation can be used in any subsequent cases where deposit limits are questioned.
English 
Russian 
German 
Polish 
Azerbaijani