bet365 Swedish Gambling Penalties Upheld in Court
Published on by Zena Grantham
The bet365 Swedish gambling penalties totalling SEK 44 million (approximately £3.5 million) have been upheld following an unsuccessful court appeal. Sweden’s gambling regulator, Spelinspektionen, confirmed that two companies linked to the UK-headquartered operator must also retain formal warnings over failures involving player protection and deposit limits.
The Administrative Court of Appeal in Jönköping delivered its ruling on 8 October 2026, with Spelinspektionen announcing the outcome on 14 October.
Swedish Court Upholds Penalties Against bet365 Companies
The ruling concerns Hillside (Gaming) ENC and Hillside (Sports) ENC, two companies operating under the bet365 brand.
Hillside Gaming faces a penalty of SEK 4 million, while Hillside Sports must pay SEK 40 million. Both companies have also received formal warnings.
The sanctions were originally imposed by Spelinspektionen in April 2023. At that time, the combined penalties amounted to SEK 79 million.
However, the Administrative Court in Linköping reduced the total to SEK 44 million in June 2024. The companies subsequently appealed, but the higher court has now upheld the reduced penalties and the warnings.
Player Protection Failures
One of the regulator’s principal concerns involved bet365’s handling of customers who displayed signs of potentially harmful gambling.
Investigators examined gambling activity from late 2021, focusing on customers who had sustained particularly high losses. Several accounts raised concerns about whether the operator had responded appropriately to warning signs.
Although Hillside had systems in place to identify potentially risky gambling behaviour, the regulator found shortcomings in the company’s interventions.
In some cases, customers continued gambling despite triggering risk alerts. The authorities also questioned the reliance on automated communications, arguing stronger intervention may have been necessary.
The court upheld the finding that the companies had failed to meet their responsibilities under Sweden’s duty-of-care requirements.
Deposit Limit Breaches Raised Further Concerns
The bet365 Swedish gambling penalties also relate to breaches of mandatory deposit-limit rules.
Between January 2019 and April 2022, customers were reportedly able to select a deposit-limit setting described as ‘no limit’.
Swedish gambling regulations require players to establish maximum deposit amounts over specified periods. These safeguards are intended to help customers manage their gambling expenditure.
Hillside argued that a technical deposit ceiling of SEK 500 million was in place, despite the wording presented to customers.
However, the courts concluded that this arrangement did not satisfy the regulatory requirements.
bet365 Challenges Regulator
During the legal proceedings, Hillside disputed several aspects of Spelinspektionen’s assessment.
The companies maintained that their systems for detecting risky gambling behaviour were generally effective. They also questioned whether the customer accounts examined provided a representative picture of their wider operations.
Hillside argued that regulatory guidance had not been sufficiently clear about the speed and nature of interventions expected from operators.
Those arguments failed to overturn the findings, although the original financial penalties were reduced during the earlier court proceedings.
What Does this Mean for bet365?
The appeal court’s decision leaves the two Hillside companies facing a combined SEK 44 million in penalties and formal regulatory warnings.
The case highlights the scrutiny gambling operators face in Sweden, especially regarding customer monitoring and the enforcement of deposit limits.
For bet365, the ruling concludes another stage in a dispute that began more than three years ago. Although the financial penalties are lower than those initially imposed, the findings concerning player protection and deposit-limit breaches remain in place.
The decision also reinforces the importance of effective intervention when customers display signs of harmful gambling. Automated alerts alone may not satisfy an operator’s regulatory responsibilities if further action is warranted.