Sweden’s Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) has ordered a gambling company to return money it took from an addicted player who had been upgraded to “VIP” status.
The court ruled against Malta-based BML Group Ltd, operator of the Betsson brand.
In the 12-page ruling, issued July 1, 2025, justices found that BML Group violated Sweden’s Contracts Act by continuing to target a known problem gambler, rendering the gambling agreements with the player unenforceable.
The ruling marks the end of a long legal battle. The Swedish player gambled during the years 2009–2014, primarily playing online slots. Despite heavy losses, the player was upgraded to VIP in 2012.
Later, the player received a gambling addiction diagnosis.
The player wagered almost 15 million euros and his total loss was equivalent to almost 8 million Swedish kronor. The court ordered BML Group to pay the player 527,395 euros—the player’s net loss after he became a VIP customer.
Gambling Under Contracts Act
According to a provision in the Swedish Contracts Act, an agreement may be unenforceable if it was made “contrary to good faith.”
Following previous rulings on the case, the high court clarified that where companies use digital platforms with automated systems to collect and act upon consumer behavior data, they are deemed to have “knowledge” of that data for the purposes of a legal assessment under a section of the Contracts Act.
Sweden’s Supreme Court concluded that the gambling company had access to and used detailed data about the player’s gambling activity.
According to the court, the company’s data showed that the player had serious gambling problems.
Despite signs of gambling addiction, BML Group enhanced its targeting of the player through an upgrade to VIP status.
The Supreme Court found that the gambling company had directed “intrusive” marketing towards the player, including financial incentives such as bonuses “on a large scale.”
The court concluded that it would be against “good faith” to rely on the gambling agreements made during the time relevant to the case.
Legal Implications of Sweden Gambling Ruling
The ruling comes amid increased scrutiny of the online gambling industry in Europe, according to CMS Wistrand, a Swedish law firm.
Lawyers for CMS Wistrand called it a “landmark” gambling case.
“The Supreme Court’s analysis of digital contract formation and automated marketing systems establishes a precedent for assigning legal responsibility to companies based on data-driven insights,” the firm said.
BML Group did not have a Swedish gambling license during the time period relevant to the case.
A Swedish licensing regime for online betting was introduced in 2019.
“The Supreme Court’s reasoning shows some signs that this [unlicensed gambling] may have had some influence on the ruling, although it remains uncertain to what extent (if any),” CMS Wistrand wrote.
“With this judgment, the Supreme Court clarifies how automated data collection and behavioral profiling may be treated when assessing contractual validity under Swedish law,” the law firm added. “It also reflects on how legal responsibility may be determined when companies use targeted digital marketing in sectors involving high-risk consumer behavior.”
Going forward, gambling operators may now risk facing similar civil exposure along with sanctions from the Swedish Gambling Authority.
Comparison to United States
It’s useful to compare the Sweden gambling ruling to the legal landscape in the U.S., where sports betting addiction rates are high.
Unfortunately, online gamblers in the U.S. don’t appear to have the same legal protections as those in Sweden.
Under current U.S. state and federal law, it is generally very difficult for a person with a gambling addiction to recover the money they lost through a legal gambling website or app.
U.S. courts generally treat gambling as a voluntary activity. If a person chooses to gamble, even compulsively, the law rarely views that as grounds to void the transactions or recover losses.
In states where online gambling is sanctioned, gambling debts are enforceable contracts. Courts typically won’t allow recovery just because the person later claims to be addicted.
A former gambler might try to recover funds through civil litigation using one of the following legal theories. However, success is rare.
- Unfair or Deceptive Business Practices: If the gambling company used misleading advertising, failed to disclose terms clearly, or used predatory bonus structures, this might open a path under state consumer protection laws.
- Breach of Self-Exclusion or Duty of Care: In rare cases, a gambler who signed up for a self-exclusion program and was still allowed to gamble could sue for negligence or breach of contract. Some state courts have allowed these cases to proceed.
- Unlicensed Operators: If the gambling occurred on an illegal or unlicensed site, recovery might be more feasible under U.S. law. However, collecting funds from foreign companies is difficult and often not worth the legal cost.
Related Content
DraftKings Pennsylvania Lawsuit Alleges Addiction Harm To Users
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against DraftKings
Inside Baltimore’s Sports Betting Lawsuit Against FanDuel
Discover more from GamblingHarm.org
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
