A Swedish administrative court has overturned an SEK8 million (€735,000) penalty imposed on Roar Vegas, the local operating entity of LeoVegas, ruling that the evidence presented by the country’s gambling regulator was not sufficient to justify sanctions.
The decision, issued by the Administrative Court in Linköping on 12 June, reverses enforcement action taken by Sweden’s gambling regulator, Spelinspektionen, in March 2025. At the time, the authority concluded that Roar Vegas had breached its duty of care obligations under the Swedish Gambling Act and issued both a warning and a financial penalty.
The original investigation focused on the first quarter of 2024 and examined 12 customer accounts, including players aged 18–24 and those over 25. Regulators highlighted three accounts that showed signs of potentially harmful gambling behaviour, including high deposit limits ranging from SEK100,000 to SEK300,000, rapid losses, frequent deposits and long gambling sessions.
Spelinspektionen argued that Roar Vegas had failed to intervene quickly enough despite clear indicators of excessive gambling. While the regulator acknowledged that the operator eventually introduced measures that reduced harmful play, it maintained that stronger action should have been taken earlier.
Roar Vegas challenged the ruling, stating that its responsible gambling framework already included automated monitoring systems, alerts and manual customer interventions. The company also argued that Swedish regulations did not provide sufficiently clear guidance on when operators are expected to escalate to more intrusive measures.
After reviewing the evidence and legal arguments, the court sided with the operator and annulled the penalty. Judges concluded that the circumstances did not demonstrate a sufficiently clear breach of the duty of care requirements to support regulatory action. As a result, the warning and SEK8 million fine were withdrawn.
The case is one of the most notable responsible gambling enforcement disputes in Sweden in recent years and may influence how future duty of care obligations are interpreted and enforced across the regulated market.