Regulatory actions against casino operators: 46 documented measures at 22 casinos

Key findings

• 22 of 39 casinos we review have at least one documented regulatory measure against their operator or its group on record – 46 entries in total, from 2018 to 2026. Each comes from a regulator’s own notice or register; no recorded entry had to be excluded for lack of an official source.
• The 46 entries describe 37 distinct decisions: 9 entries repeat a decision already listed for a sister brand, because one decision against an operating company covers every site it runs.
• By regulator: UK Gambling Commission 24, Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego 9, Swedish Gambling Authority 6, Hellenic Gaming Commission 3, Kansspelautoriteit 3, Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner 1. A count says as much about what a regulator publishes as about the operators: some authorities keep a searchable enforcement record, others publish decisions only anonymised or not at all (see the limits below).
• By kind of measure: Fine 38, Settlement 5, Binding instruction 2, Regulatory action 1. 0 concern offering gambling without a local licence; all others concern conduct under a licence the operator held.
• By year: 2026 3, 2025 7, 2024 1, 2023 10, 2022 13, 2021 3, 2020 3, 2019 4, 2018 2. 11 entries are from the last 24 months, 10 older than five years.
• 1 entry was annulled by a court (LeoVegas) – shown, not counted. 45 of 46 entries count in the regulatory-history criterion of the Smarter Score.
• Effect on the score: for 7 of 22 casinos with a measure, the measures also set a maximum score – 4 at 59, 1 at 49, 2 at 39 (32Red, Codere, Marathonbet, NetBet (Greece), TOTO Casino, Unibet, William Hill). For the others the measures only reduce the 15 points of the criterion.
• Amounts: a penalty amount in euros is recorded as a separate field for 10 of 46 entries; for the rest the amount is in the regulator’s notice linked in each row. The legal entity named in the decision is recorded as a separate field for 12; for the others the decision names the operating company shown in the source.

What a row means – and what it does not

Each row is one published decision of a gambling regulator – a fine, a settlement paid in lieu of a fine, a formal warning, a binding instruction, a licence suspension or an action for offering gambling without a licence – that names the company operating a casino we review, or a company of its group. We call it a documented measure: the row records what the regulator published, on the date it published it, with a link to that publication. It does not say that the casino behaves the same way today, it does not add anything the regulator did not find, and it is not a judgement of the people who run the casino now. Where a court annulled a decision, the row stays and says so.

The same decision can appear more than once. A regulator fines an operating company, not a website, and one company often runs several brands; when two or more of those brands are in our catalogue, each profile carries the decision, and so does this table (37 distinct decisions behind 46 rows). The “entity named” and “relation” columns show, where we recorded it, whether the decision was against the licensee itself or another company of the group.

In the Smarter Score only verified official measures count, graded by kind, age, entity, repetition and remediation; an annulled decision stays visible but does not count. Each counted measure deducts points from the 15-point regulatory-history criterion, and recent or repeated measures set a maximum score (59, 49 or 39). The last two columns of the casino table below show the result the scoring engine computes from exactly these rows. A casino without a row here is not “clean”: its regulator may publish no enforcement record at all, which our method marks as not publicly verifiable rather than as a clean history.

The data

Per casino and effect on the score

Computed by the scoring engine from the rows above. The maximum score applies only when it is below what the casino would otherwise reach.

By regulator, kind and year

Counted from the 46 rows; a decision shared by sister brands counts once per brand.

How we checked

For each casino with a published research profile we searched the enforcement or sanctions records of its licensing authority and of the regulators in the markets its operator serves, and public court records where a decision was appealed. Each decision we found is stored on the profile with the regulator, the kind of measure, the date of the decision, its subject (conduct under a licence, or offering without one), the status – including reductions on appeal and annulments – and the captured source pages. This page is generated from those records: an entry is published only when its evidence is verified and at least one of its sources is the regulator’s own notice or register; anything else is excluded and counted in the findings. The measure label is the regulator’s own instrument (a binding instruction is never called a warning). The “counted” column and the per-casino table are the output of the scoring engine of Methodology v4.1 for exactly these rows; no number here is typed by hand, and no commercial data is read.

What this dataset does not show

• Only the 39 casinos we review are included. This is not a register of all regulatory action in the industry.
• Regulators publish very differently. Some keep a searchable enforcement register, some publish only press releases, some publish sanctions anonymised or not at all. A casino without a row may simply be licensed where nothing is published; our method then marks the clean-history check as not publicly verifiable.
• Decisions are made against companies, not websites. A measure against a group company or a former operator is shown on every brand it concerns, and the entity column says which company the decision named where we recorded it. It is not a statement about the people running the casino today.
• Amounts are shown only where they are recorded as a field; reductions on appeal are in the status column. Currency conversions are not made here.
• Records change: appeals succeed, decisions are published late. Each row carries the date we read it; a later change is reflected at the next re-check, which the profile logs.

Questions

Which casino operators have been fined by a regulator?

Among the 39 casinos we review, 22 have at least one documented measure on record: 32Red, 888casino, Bally Casino, BetMGM UK, Betway, bwin, Codere, Guts, Kansino, Ladbrokes Casino, LeoVegas, Marathonbet, Mr Green, MrQ, NetBet (Greece), PartyCasino, PlayOJO, Rizk, Spin Casino, TOTO Casino, Unibet, William Hill. The table lists each decision with the regulator, date and a link to the official publication.

Does a regulatory fine mean a casino is unsafe today?

No. A row records a decision a regulator published on a given date – often about anti-money-laundering or customer-protection procedures in a past period. It does not describe the casino as it is today. Our score counts recent and repeated measures more strongly than old ones, and an annulled decision does not count at all.

Why does the same fine appear for several casinos?

Because regulators decide against operating companies, and one company often runs several brands. 9 of the 46 rows repeat a decision already listed for a sister brand; there are 37 distinct decisions.

Can I reuse this table?

Yes, under CC BY 4.0: use it, quote it, build on it, and name SmarterCasinos with a link as the source.