For much of 2025, European authorities focused on 2 major issues: increasing gambling taxes and combating illegal services. New fiscal measures were introduced to replenish budgets and strengthen control, while stricter oversight aimed to reduce the presence of unlicensed operators.
Casino Market’s team analysed the regulatory shifts expected in 2026 and identified important areas for planning a launch or scaling in the region. We also offer practical help with opening a gambling business in Europe.
Public Expectations and Legal Norms: Balance
Additional tax burdens have become a widespread trend in 2025. Authorities viewed them as a tool capable of addressing multiple issues simultaneously.
The major tasks were:
- raising solid funding for government programs;
- reducing the risks of financial mechanism abuse;
- strengthening controls over the gambling segment;
- pushing illegal brands out of the amusement market.
In practice, the effect was opposite. Instead of the expected stabilisation, Europe faced a more complex situation.
Licensed operators began to experience:
- noticeably decreasing margins;
- larger user outflow to offshore portals;
- limited access to trusted promotion channels;
- minimal progress in improving consumer protection.
Against this backdrop, industry participants naturally wondered whether the trend toward further regulatory tightening would continue and what changes they should prepare for now. Niche experts believe this tendency will likely proceed in 2026, but without drastic, business-critical steps such as large-scale tax increases.
The next stage involves a gradual transition to accessibility controls, more profound tech requirements, and the de facto convergence of oversight approaches across jurisdictions. Nevertheless, adopting a single pan-European law is doubtful. It is more about a quieter mechanism, which could alter the industry’s operating principles and minimise fragmentation.
The reasons for introducing new standards remain unchanged:
- a moral aspect;
- public health concerns;
- countries’ financial interests.
One factor that makes coordinating regulations across the region so difficult is the divergence in tech and legal demands between EU states. It can be seen, for instance, in rules for blocking certain payment apps or restricting access to platforms due to inconsistencies in unique data processing and protection algorithms.
European brands, regardless of their country of registration, are already subject to the following requirements:
- Digital Services Act (DSA);
- customer safety norms;
- AML standards;
- GDPR.
An additional layer of oversight will be created with the entry into force of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, adopted in 2024. It addresses issues of risk assessment, personalisation of offers, and the use of algorithms based on audience behaviour.
While none of these documents were created specifically for the gambling sphere, together they are standardising a significant portion of compliance mechanisms across Europe. This model facilitates tech convergence across jurisdictions, whereas political harmonisation is likely to take much more effort and time.
Opinions of Prominent Industry Figures
Leading niche experts are actively discussing the current market situation. For instance, Björn Fuchs, the Chairman of the Dutch trade organisation VNLOK, noted there is movement toward rapprochement in the regional sector. Some results have been gained through research and strategic agreements, but much work remains to sustain and achieve a long-term effect.
Dr Wulf Hambach, the Managing Partner of the German law agency Hambach & Hambach, emphasised the caution of national authorities regarding the import of foreign standards. The reasons are clear: legal harmonisation has often proven insufficient due to local specificities and public opinion.
Other significant insights from the expert:
- Importance of a profound connection. European experience shows that building relations solely through political decrees is nearly impossible. An open and equal dialogue must be established between market participants and authorities.
- Fintech operations. Early EU frameworks for the sector were based on minimal harmonisation and the principle of mutual recognition. Common legal rules were supposed to ensure consistency. In practice, they proved to be a mistake, leading to serious consequences, such as a financial crisis.
- Data protection and iPayments. Even with maximally similar regimes, results can vary if enforcement cultures differ. Convergence occurs when oversight expectations, operational interpretations, and implementation measures are aligned. Otherwise, standardised protocols exacerbate the gaps between national regulatory approaches.
Ultimately, specialists agree: a unified gambling law is unnecessary for the EU. It is far more important to develop common tech definitions for harm indicators, risk markers, accounting patterns, etc.
Practical Implementation of Innovations: Effects
When it comes to directly monitoring compliance, standardisation agencies offering industry initiatives are stepping in. For instance, Europe’s CEN has endorsed EN 17531, which establishes reporting norms to support iGaming oversight. The EGBA has also developed a universal list of harm indicators to recognise risky behaviour in gaming jurisdictions.
On paper, such projects remain voluntary, but in reality, they are quickly becoming mandatory, as all core processes of local regulators are built around them. The gambling business in Germany is a prime example. Its authorities have implemented ISO/IEC 27001, a global standard for information security management. Initially positioned as a top practice, it is now a mandatory licensing demand.
Experts believe that a similar logic will soon extend to artificial intelligence algorithms. Pekka Ilmivalta, the Head of Nordic Legal’s quarters in Finland, said norms in the AI-based harm detection field would undoubtedly progress from an innovation to a mandatory requirement.
The only question is whether regulators will simply outline their expectations for platform owners or take a central role in integrating and creating a unified oversight system. Artificial intelligence algorithms, combined with common national and global standards, could provide a solid foundation for future enforcement and licensing.
Dutch Experience: Impact on Europe’s Gambling Policy
Morten Ronde, the CEO of the Danish iGaming association Spillebranchen, doubts that Europe is moving toward an alignment of industry requirements. In his opinion, current trends are driven more by public opinion than by compelling scientific evidence. Therefore, strict top-down controls hardly work.
Experience in the financial and data protection sectors shows that principled, technology-neutral rules are better than static thresholds, even with strict fines. As soon as authorities rely on common indicators and formal reports, legal inconsistencies will begin to disappear, eliminating divergence.
Some markets could benefit from a pan-European regulatory system. It is especially relevant, given that political attitudes towards gambling in countries like the Netherlands have worsened in recent years. In 2021, the Dutch iGaming niche was liberalised, but the government now plans to tighten oversight.
New financial restrictions, potentially tied to player funds, are at the centre of discussions in the state. Studies are being commissioned that could form the basis for future legislation.
What industry experts think about the situation:
- Mr Fuchs. The Chairman claimed that to protect consumer rights, it is important to seek the most effective methods. The accessibility-based approach proved successful. Its elements are already being implemented in some European systems. The only issue is that excessive demands on users inevitably push them toward the black market.
- Mr Ronde. The current Dutch channelisation is estimated at approximately 50%. The executive is certain that it is a serious, alarming signal. Advertising restrictions, high taxes, and other measures have played a substantial role. Other countries should consider this example as a warning and proceed with caution.
- Mr Ilmivalta. The representative hopes the Dutch experience does not become a continental model. Many laws lack sufficient data to justify the measures they implement. Instead of strict financial thresholds, it is better to use less burdensome solutions, such as AI algorithms for individual assessment and increased accountability.
The Netherlands’ precedent offers an important lesson: the gap between static limits and dynamic situational evaluation remains a serious obstacle to effective supervision.
Regulatory Burden and Shadow Brands: Forecasts
Experts believe that the European oversight agenda will remain stable in 2026. Local authorities will proceed to focus on taxes, consumer protection, and combating the grey sector.
Mr Fuchs stated that if governments continue to act as before, they will undermine the viability and profitability of legal operators. Then, the overall quality of user protection will probably decline. When licensed products become inconvenient or unappealing, players quickly migrate to other portals.
The trend is already noticeable in markets where rules have tightened most rapidly. If large EU countries, such as Denmark and the UK, adopt this approach, certified brands will find themselves at a significant disadvantage compared to offshore rivals. Even with the current regulatory burden, authorities are struggling to address the growing popularity of shadow offerings in TV, social media, and mobile realms.
If requirements continue to tighten without a viable enforcement mechanism, consumers will ultimately switch to illicit alternatives. This situation is already evident not only in the Netherlands but also in Germany: despite numerous restrictions, oversight of the online market remains insufficient. The local grey sector’s share exceeds 50%. On the Web, it reaches 70–80%.
Dr Hambach warns that any new regulatory measures, especially punitive taxation, could have the opposite effect. The consequences will have a heavier impact on the economy and will reduce consumer trust in the legal segment.
Challenges of Identifying Licensed Gaming Platforms
Most European players still struggle to distinguish between certified and illicit portals. The situation is exacerbated by the vague definition of gambling, which further obscures the market.
A striking example is an AGCO 2023 study. Ontario’s regulator achieved record levels of awareness and traffic on licensed platforms, with approximately 86% of iGaming fans aware of and using legal web resources.
Local authorities did not aim to restrict access to content. Instead, they limited the self-presentation of illicit operators and focused on supporting registered companies through a highly transparent certification scheme. This strategy helped maximise player awareness of permitted online platforms.
According to Dr Hambach, labels of regional government agencies and industry commissions cannot replace full-fledged legal oversight. Nevertheless, they do provide additional leverage. The expert believes it is the optimal alternative to total bans, which have repeatedly proven ineffective.
The Main Things About Europe’s Gaming Market in 2026
Most analysts claim the key trend of the year is a smooth, gentle convergence. Common rules, combined with existing regulatory regimes, are gradually creating a stable and flexible industry capable of quickly responding to internal and external changes.
Operators are advised to focus on the following aspects:
- compliance with pan-European standards outlined in the Digital Services Act, AML standards, and other strategic documents;
- implementation of certified AI tools that enable efficient analysis of large data volumes and risk forecasting;
- establishing a close connection with authorities to ensure harmony between law adherence and oversight processes.
When operators and regulators coordinate their efforts, the market can transform, improving user protection and control over the shadow segment.
If you would like to enlist the support of a reputable gambling aggregator, feel free to contact our specialists. We offer a wide range of industry products and services.
Have questions or want to order services?
Contact our consultants:
- e-mail: manager@casino-market.com
- feedback form.
Check the information used to contact us carefully. It is necessary for your safety.
Fraudsters can use contacts that look like ours to scam customers. Therefore, we ask you to enter only the addresses that are indicated on our official website.
Be careful! Our team is not responsible for the activities of persons using similar contact details.
