Spelinspektionen Fine on Hillside (Sports) ENC Upheld at SEK 40m

On 14 October 2026, Spelinspektionen announced that the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) had dismissed the appeal of Hillside (Sports) ENC, which offered gambling through bet365.com, and upheld a warning combined with a sanction fee (sanktionsavgift) of SEK 40 million, approximately EUR 3.58 million as of October 2026. The court agreed with the Administrative Court (förvaltningsrätten) that the company had committed serious breaches of the duty of care (omsorgsplikten) and the rules on deposit limits. The notice does not itemise the statutory provisions applied, and the licence was not revoked.

The ruling covers a second entity in the same group. Hillside (Gaming) ENC received its own warning and a SEK 4 million fee, and its appeal was also dismissed. Both entities offered gambling via bet365.com.

What the court found

Spelinspektionen’s notice records that the court upheld the lower court’s finding of “allvarliga överträdelser”, serious breaches, of both the duty of care and the deposit limit rules. On sanction level, the notice states:

“Kammarrätten håller också med förvaltningsrätten om att varning i kombination med en sanktionsavgift på 4 respektive 40 miljoner kronor är ett proportionerligt ingripande i förhållande till de aktuella överträdelserna.” (The Administrative Court of Appeal also agrees with the Administrative Court that a warning combined with a sanction fee of SEK 4 million and SEK 40 million respectively is a proportionate intervention in relation to the breaches in question.)

The notice itself gives no factual detail beyond this. Press coverage in October 2026 reported that the conduct ran from 1 January 2019 to 19 April 2022. It reported that customers could select a “no limit” option when setting deposit limits, and that bet365 pointed to a hidden technical ceiling of SEK 500 million. The same coverage reported that the regulator found a ceiling the player could not see or set did not meet the requirement for a player-selected limit, and that the duty of care findings turned on slow escalation beyond automated messages in cases of problematic play. These details come from secondary reporting, not from the notice, and the decisions linked from Spelinspektionen’s notice are the authority for the findings.

Operational lesson for licensees

The court’s proportionality finding means a warning plus a fee in the multi-million kronor range has now been upheld on appeal for conduct of this kind. As analysis, a deposit limit design that does not require a numeric, player-set limit, and intervention that does not escalate beyond automated messages, carry that exposure. Spelinspektionen’s duty of care guidance (Omsorgsplikt Vägledning) states that pop-up messages alone are not sufficient contact when a player raises a deposit limit, and that email or telephone contact is needed. Licensees should test their deposit limit flows and escalation rules against that guidance. Counsel should advise on how the decision applies to any specific product or account journey, as the notice does not itemise provisions. For wider Swedish market context, see our analysis of Spelinspektionen and channelisation.

Matt Denney

Editorial · gamingcompliance.io

Reads the primary source so you don't have to. Fifteen years inside iGaming compliance: operator, supplier, and crown-corporation lottery.