In 2025, European regulators in the gambling sector focused on increasing taxes and tightening controls to combat illegal operations and enhance consumer protection. Despite these measures, there was little improvement in tackling the black market and protecting consumers, raising questions about future regulatory directions. As 2026 begins, industry insiders predict a shift towards implementing affordability controls and technical standards across borders. This move, while not formalised through EU-specific gambling legislation, could lead to significant changes in the industry and reduce market fragmentation.
Historically, gambling regulations across Europe have been influenced by moral, health, and fiscal concerns. However, as the online gambling market transcends national boundaries, local regulations often clash with shared technological infrastructures. This scenario has led to a form of de facto harmonisation, largely driven by existing EU regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), anti-money laundering protocols, and the Digital Services Act. The anticipated AI Act will further influence how gambling operators use technology to manage risks and personalise player experiences.
Bjorn Fuchs, chairman of the Dutch trade association VNLOK, notes an ongoing shift towards harmonisation through various collaborative projects and research, even though there is room for further alignment. Dr. Wulf Hambach of Hambach & Hambach highlights that success in regulatory harmonisation often depends on aligning supervisory expectations and enforcement practices, as mere legal standardisation can highlight differences in national regulatory cultures.
Technical convergence in gambling is becoming more feasible due to shared legal frameworks. The European Committee for Standardisation has introduced EN 17531, a standard for online gambling reporting, while the European Gaming and Betting Association is advancing standardised “markers of harm” for identifying risky behaviour. Although these initiatives are voluntary, they often become de facto requirements as regulators base their processes on these standards. For example, the ISO/IEC 27001 standard for information security began as best practice but is now commonly a licensing prerequisite.
Pekka Ilmivalta, from Nordic Legal, anticipates that standards for AI and harm detection might transition from best practices to mandatory compliance requirements. He questions whether regulators will simply set expectations or take on a more central role in overseeing data-driven operations. Fuchs believes AI systems could become fundamental in enforcement and licensing with sufficient common standards, potentially improving consumer protection through real-time behaviour analysis.
Not everyone agrees that standardisation will lead to harmonisation. Morten Rønde of Denmark’s Spillebranchen doubts Europe is moving towards alignment, describing national standards as influenced by local opinions rather than scientific evidence. He argues that principle-based regulations are more effective than static thresholds. Nevertheless, there is a general trend towards convergence as shared data structures and indicators become more common.
The Netherlands offers a case study in regulatory approaches. After legalising online gambling in 2021, the country is already reconsidering its framework amid calls for tighter financial limits tied to player means. Fuchs supports an affordability-based approach for effective consumer protection but warns against overburdening consumers, which may drive them towards unregulated markets. Rønde points to the Netherlands’ low channelisation rate—around 50%—as a cautionary tale, highlighting the negative impact of advertising bans, affordability limits, and high taxes.
Ilmivalta suggests monitoring the Dutch model but hopes it does not become a template for Europe, advocating for AI-driven responsible gaming interventions instead of rigid financial controls. This distinction between static limits and dynamic assessments indicates a shift in regulatory focus.
In 2026, taxes and enforcement against black market activities are expected to remain significant issues in European gambling. Fuchs stresses the importance of balancing consumer protection with not overburdening legal operators, which could reduce consumer protection if players drift to unlicensed platforms. Rønde echoes this sentiment, noting that regulatory changes in markets like Britain and Denmark risk putting licensed operators at a disadvantage against the black market if enforcement cannot keep pace with illegal activity visibility.
Germany exemplifies the challenges, with stringent regulations yet weak channelisation into the legal online casino market. Hambach highlights that punitive measures can undermine regulators’ goals, pushing them to explore alternative solutions like affordability measures and technological advancements.
Europe’s lag in market clarity affects consumer ability to distinguish between legal and illegal offerings, undermining trust and enforcement efforts. Ontario, Canada, provides a contrasting example, where regulatory efforts focused on consumer recognition achieved high awareness of legal sites. Similar visibility measures could benefit European gambling regulation.
Overall, 2026 may witness a subtle regulatory shift towards convergence across European gambling. While taxes and enforcement will continue, the more enduring change is likely to be the adoption of common standards and collaborative efforts among regulators. Hambach emphasizes balancing the need to combat the black market with maintaining the attractiveness of legal offerings, suggesting that technical rules will play a more significant role than headline-grabbing bans. This harmonised approach could lead to a more integrated operational environment without altering national gambling laws, offering substantial implications for operators and regulators alike.