Finland’s player protection protocols at Deadlock
Finland is currently setting up its regulated gambling sector. Yet stakeholders seem to have hit a roadblock regarding some player protection measures.
On July 1st, 2027, the Finnish gambling market will officially open its doors to regulation. Once a state monopoly, players have been flocking overseas and offshore, leaving poor channelisation rates. While discussions are underway to change this, player protection has become a major sticking point. Many stakeholders believe the current proposals are too draconian and may push people elsewhere.
Finland’s player protection protocols
Proposed player protection amendments have been slammed by operators in Finland. They believe the ideas on the table could send gambling back to the dark ages of internet gaming, driving many people to black market, offshore casinos.
The measures proposed cover a wide range of concepts. Amongst them are ideas that:
- Land-based slots should have tighter loss limits than online ones.
- Loss limit triggers for daily, monthly, and annual time frames
- Limits are centralised by governments.
- A centralised government location will exist where players can view expenditure.
- Data Reports to Government Officials
Annual loss limits were also to be capped at €1,800 for 18 to 19-year-olds. For 20 to 24-year-olds, this would rise to €2,500. Notifications must also be sent when deposits exceed certain amounts. When these thresholds are met, a variety of different strategies have been proposed. These include sending a link to test for gambling risks or a review of personal gambling history.
Opposition to player protections
The country already has a wide range of offshore operators, each of whom will possibly be vying to claim a share in the small but lucrative market. One Finnish review site is https://uudetkasino.com/. They rank and review the main providers in the country, based on reliability, bonus structures, and commitment to responsible gaming. Crucially, they check that all casinos on the list have some sort of licence, usually from one of the global bodies such as the Malta Gaming Authority. Also provided on their website are handy guides on what is and isn’t legal in the world of Finnish online gambling.
The assessment group consultation period has been open throughout February. One of the main voices against these was Wildz Group. They highlighted the German market as a case study of what may happen. Their statement read that “In connection with the licensing system implemented in Germany, several studies have estimated that only approximately 20–30% of gambling (measured by gambling margin) is channelled into the regulated offer in a situation where the restriction level is set too low in relation to player behaviour.”
SkillOnNet is another operator against the proposals, which has several brands working in the country already. They stated that any forcibly closed gaming account is a negative experience, and drives people to the risk of finding a site outside the system. They then went further, adding that protection rules are too strict, and risk pushing people to unregulated sites that offer no protection. Gambling on a licensed gambling site should be smoother and more attractive than gambling on unlicensed sites.
Finland recently opened up the Gambling Risk and Harm Assessment Group (GRHAG), which works under Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. It was they who launched the consultation on the proposals. They noted that “as a tool for planning, implementing, developing and assessing measures and responsible gambling practices related to the statutory prevention of gambling-related harm”.
Increasing channelisation rates
Problems of this nature are not just confined to Finland or Germany. Many countries are struggling with channelisation rates. This is mainly because offshore casinos, in an increasingly competitive environment, are improving in many different ways. While huge risks still exist, many look similar to legislated domestic ones, and in some instances can offer more games and faster onboarding.
Finland has been fighting this channelisation war for many years. The Veikkaus Oy model, which has held a government monopoly, has not been working. It was decided that opening a regulated market, the likes of which exist in other European countries and some US states, was the best way forward.
Jari Vähänen is a Partner of Finnish Gambling Consultants, also involved in the backlash against proposals. He highlighted that “Based on Veikkaus customer data, a problem in 2018–2019 was a situation where a customer encountered a loss limit that they had set themselves or that was defined as a maximum. If the customer wanted to continue playing after this, they had to switch to playing outside Veikkaus.”
Those praising proposals
These proposals have been praised as well. The Sininauhaliittom, which translates as the Blue Ribbon Foundation, said they were backed by ‘extensive research data on the risks of gambling’. They have called for low loss limits, the main reason being that players can gamble with different operators. It also cited how many high-risk games will become available to gamblers after the launch.
There has also been criticism of how Finland has measured the gaps in its black market gambling rates. Universities from Finland itself and across Nordic countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway said there was an overreliance on data from H2 Gambling Capital.
It may be that Finland does need to look for more case studies abroad. Germany is a good example, but there are others from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and even as far away as Ontario, Canada. Using this data could help them iron out these issues and, with the right proposals, become the foremost gambling capital.
