Enforcement of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling in Germany – killer or a toothless tiger?

published in the Euroean Gaming Lawyer in association with InterGaming magazine, Volume 1, Issue 1, spring 2009 by attorney-at-law Dr Wulf Hambach (founding partner) and Susanna Münstermann (senior associate) of law firm Hambach & Hambach

Dr Wulf Hambach is a partner and cofounder of the law firm Hambach and Hambach Rechtsanwaelte, (www.timelaw.de), a specialised law boutique for advice on German and international law in the fields of telecommunications, IT, media and entertainment, with a special focus on gaming law. For several years Hambach has been a General Member of the International Masters of Gaming Law as well as member of the International Association of Gaming Advisors. Furthermore, he is co-founder of the European portal on gaming and gambling law www.gaminglaw.eu. In 2008 he was recommended as the number one in German gaming law by the independent ranking commentary Chambers and Partners. Recently he was named as Lawyer of the Year 2008 by the World Online Gambling Law Report, the leading sector publication. He can be reached at info@timelaw.de.

Susanna Münstermann studied law in Munich, specialising in European law and international public law. She gathered experience abroad in various places, including one year at the Università degli Studi di Verona, Italy. During her apprenticeship to the bar, she worked for a renowned law firm in Paris and for a lobby group in Brussels. Before joining Hambach and Hambach, she worked as legal adviser for the European Consumer Centre Germany and subsequently as project director for the eCommerce Contact Point Germany. Both these are located at the Franco-German consumer organisation Euro-Info-Verbraucher e.V. in Kehl, Germany, near Strasbourg, France. She specialises in media and entertainment law, information technology law and European and international private law.

Only a few days before the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag – GlüStV), with its total ban on internet gambling in Germany became effective, one of Germany´s leading internet security experts, Rolf vom Stein, put it in a nutshell.

He described the technical limits of internet censorship (keyword: ban on internet gambling) during an IT and banking expert panel in Cologne as follows: “The attempt to block the internet contradicts technical reality. The internet treats any form of censorship as an error and will find ways to bypass it.

“All established methods for the blocking of websites are complex and technically fragmentary. Also, blocking measures can be prevented or bypassed very easily by new technical developments (Web 2.0), through simple modifications by the providers or sometimes even through unaware steps taken by the users.”

However, from January 1, 2008, internet gambling offers are prohibited by law.

Consequently the German Federal Government’s statement in the infringement proceedings (No. 2007/4866) against the ITG dated May 20, 2008 (par. 64) says with regard to gambling offers: “Germany assumes that the internet providers, the banks and the banks’ associations whose support will be necessary for the implementation of this prohibition will, of their own accord, accept the prohibition as justified and will support the German states in the implementation of
their policies.”

What has been said so far sounds indeed as if the GlüStV and its enforcement tools (ISP and financial blocking) are indeed a killer for the private e-gambling industry.

Now to the crucial question: do the legal and technical experts see these enforcement tools also as a killer for the private e-gambling industry or more as a toothless tiger?

Blocking orders or voluntary self commitment by access providers

From 2009 onwards, the intention is to strictly monitor the internet prohibition. Recent press releases show that foreign internet offers are now meant to be blocked by corresponding orders against the access providers. In some cases, access to the offers could already be blocked by taking action against the Admin-C or the registrar.

Apart from this demand the discussion about website blocking is dominated by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, as Mrs von der Leyen started her initiative “to block the data highway of child pornography” last November and hustles the German access providers into a “voluntary” self commitment. The access providers fear that this voluntary self commitment could give rise to a host of new demands – and with regard to the previous discussions with the gambling supervisory authorities they do have cause for concern.

Especially as neither the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs nor the gambling supervisory authorities have taken into account the existing expert opinions:

First of all, the Commission for the Protection of Minors in the Media (KJM) has commissioned two studies dealing with the feasibility of website blocking from the technical and legal side.

Expert opinions: legal and technical difficulties

Professor Sieber (legal expert) came to the following conclusion: “The present legal situation does not allow any blocking measures which would interfere with the secrecy of telecommunications as provided for in Art. 10 GG (German Constitution), section 88 TKG (German Telecommunications Act).”

Professor Pfitzmann examined the technical side for KJM and came to the result: “Summing up, one can state that blocking on the internet is feasible in principle. However, it is often connected with considerable (and usually unforeseeable) side-effects.”

Second, also the BVDW (Federal Association Digital Industry) published an expert opinion that comes to the conclusion that due to the legal requirements of the German Telecommunication Act there is no legal basis for voluntary website blocking by access providers.

This result is also – last but not least – supported by the scientific service of the German Bundestag, but Mrs von der Leyen remains unimpressed. In her opinion the signal effect is worth all costs and administrative efforts (for the access providers) and considering child pornography all legal or technical arguments are negligible. In fact, some critical arguments of the Ministry of the Interior seem to have been lost in the heat of the battle and were not adopted in the common position of the Ministries of the Interior, Economics and Family Affairs.

Access provider: neutral gateway to the internet or deputy sheriff?

In the middle of this political discussion the access providers are desperately referring to their neutral role as providers of the entrance to the internet without being responsible for the information transmitted. It remains to be seen if the gambling supervisory authorities will enforce GlüStV by blocking orders in case the initiative of Mrs von der Leyen grinds to a halt and the gambling supervisory authorities cannot profit from any “voluntary” agreement.

But assistance is rendered by the Regional Court of Hamburg. In a recent decision the Regional Court of Hamburg decided about the question whether an access provider can be obliged to block a website with content that is infringing a copyright (disturbance liability). The court elaborates on the complex of technical and legal problems of website blocking and states that even though the technical feasibility is questionable as every DNS blocking is easy to circumvent, it is – in the opinion of the court – only necessary that the access of the user is blocked on its path that the website blocking is disrupting.

However, the court comes to the conclusion that considering the low level of effectiveness (remarkably the judge tried himself to find information in the internet how to circumvent DNS blocking and succeeded in a few minutes) and considering the costs arising from this measure for the access provider, the claim was dismissed as being not reasonable and unfounded.

Conclusion

The internet prohibition of gambling raises many questions. First of all, a conflict of generations becomes apparent, as the internet prohibition is only justified by an unwarranted and diffuse fear of the medium. “The player’s anonymity and the lack of any kind of social control make it seem necessary, under the aspect of preventing gambling addiction, to question the sales channel ‘internet’, for the area beyond sports betting.”

Contrary to this, today’s generation is well aware of the fact that the average internet user is not anonymous and that addiction prevention can be realised much more effectively by the provider of internet games than, for instance, on location at a casino where an individual’s playing behaviour cannot be recorded in a traceable way. Furthermore, the implementation of the prohibition beyond Germany’s borders requires censorship measures which usually are applied by countries such as China and North Korea, but are alien to a democratic and free society.

State supervision of gambling takes the easy way out in this context: by delegating its task of enforcing an internet prohibition to the internet providers, without providing them with feasible and effective action proposals for the implementation. The risk of hitting legal internet services as well due to imprecise blocking measures, and of thus exposing oneself to incalculable risks of damage claims, is simultaneously passed on to the internet providers in an inadmissible way.

It is alarming that the political discussions driven by understandable (child pornography) or doubtful (protection of problem gamblers or fiscal income?) reasons simply ignore all concerns that are outlined by legal and technical experts.

The toothless tiger is trying to threaten banks, access providers and the e-gambling industry. Once the blocking orders are issued and the legality is examined in court the toothless tiger will realise its weakness.

Interview with John Eriksson, Widman & Hannes Snellman Ab – Assessing proposed changes in Finland

In January this year, the Finnish state prosecutor – Christer Lundström – gave his decision during the pre-investigation phase against PAF and its representatives.

The Finnish state prosecutor deemed PAF’s Internet gaming operations illegal but decided not to prosecute and waived the charges.

According to the State prosecutor, PAF’s activities were illegal due to the fact that PAF’s gaming site had been translated into Finnish and acknowledged that PAF, in different ways, targeted the Finnish market.

One of the signals that state prosecutors gives to the Finnish gaming market, by waiving the charges against PAF and its representatives, is that the Finnish authorities are waiting for the proposed changes of the Lotteries Act to come into force, says John Eriksson, an associate lawyer at the law firm Widman & Hannes Snellman Ab.

Of late, Finland has been in news for debating a countrywide ban on gambling marketing.

In order to know more, Bulletbusiness.com spoke to Eriksson about the current issues. Excerpts:

Could you summarise major developments in your jurisdiction of late as far as online gambling is concerned? How do you foresee online gambling sector opening up?

Considering the recent media occurrences in Finland , it can be concluded that companies in the Finnish media sector believe that – after the proposed amendments of the Finnish Lotteries Act come into force – all advertisement of gaming services has to stop and all foreign newspapers and magazines which include advertisement of gaming services can no longer be sold in Finland.

MTV Oy – one of the biggest multi-media/TV groups in Finland – has already cancelled advertising and other cooperation agreements with gaming providers.

With regard to the pending proposed changes of the Finnish Lotteries Act and the new government report, containing proposals for further strengthening of the gaming monopoly in Finland, it can be concluded that the Finnish gaming system will not open up in the near future.

Can you provide an insight into the proposed changes under the Finnish Lotteries Act and how would this strengthen the Finnish state controlled gaming monopoly and at the same would result in further restrictions of the free movement of services within the Community?

By expanding the definition of marketing in section 4 of the proposed Lotteries Act to include “indirect advertising” and other marketing measures, the Government is also expanding the prohibition in section 62 of the Lotteries Act against marketing and organising gaming services without a licence. These proposed changes also apply on marketing and organising online gaming services.

By also introducing stricter penalties for lottery offences, the Finnish authorities create a more effective system for keeping online gaming operators outside the Finnish market.

Therefore, the proposed changes of the Lotteries Act strengthen the Finnish state controlled gaming monopoly and results in further restrictions of the free movement of services within the Community.

Considering the motives given in the proposition and the fact that the definition of marketing has been expanded, one can make the assumption that the amendment of the prohibition in section 62 of the Lotteries Act will result in that the Finnish authorities – after the proposed changes come into force – will take further actions against media and gaming providers that advertise and/or organise gaming services without a licence for the Finnish market.

It has been stated that one of the reasons behind why the state prosecutor gave his decision in January 2009 was that the Finnish Office of the Chancellor of Justice gave him an ultimatum to end the pre-investigations, which had been pending for two years, before February 2009. How do you expect the stance of the authorities as far as creation of a level playing field for all private players including both within Finland and outside Finland is concerned?

At the moment, there are no plans in Finland to allow any gaming operators established outside Finland to provide any gaming services in the Finnish market.

But after the proposed changes come into force, it will still be legal for any Finnish citizen to play gaming services provided by gaming operators established outside Finland.

You have mentioned that despite the proposed prohibition against marketing of games connected with special risks for gambling problems, such as casino games, the Government gambling associations may continue to expose their brands and addresses to their Internet gambling sites, for instance by offering sponsorship, even after the changes come into force. This demonstrates the inconsistency of the Finnish gambling regulation. Can you expand on the current situation as far as advertising and promotion of online gambling brands in Finland is concerned?

Until now, many online gaming providers advertised their services in Finnish TV-channels aired outside Finland. But due to the proposed changes of the Lotteries Act many multi-media/TV groups in Finland have cancelled advertising and other cooperation agreements with gaming providers.

However, the Government gaming associations in Finland still conduct extensive and aggressive marketing measures of their gambling services yearly. Even though Veikkaus Oy has been criticised by the Commission, the company keeps strengthening its brand by sponsoring and advertising at sales points and sports venues etc.

How has European Commission’s responded to the proposed changes of the Finnish Lotteries Act? What are your expectations going forward?

Hopefully, the European Commission will follow up the submission of comments regarding the proposed changes of the Finnish Lotteries Act – submitted to the Finnish Government on 2 February 2009 – with a reasoned opinion.

Jeu vidéo : quelle place pour la France et l’Europe dans une compétition mondialisée ?

Le jeu vidéo exerce un tel pouvoir de fascination qu’il est à la fois chargé de tous les espoirs et de tous les maux. Tous les espoirs quand cette industrie à la fois culturelle et de haute technologie, affiche une croissance insolente et promet de vastes débouchés, non seulement dans le domaine du loisir mais encore dans ceux de l’éducation ou de la santé. Tous les maux, quand le jeu vidéo cristallise le mal être, notamment de certains jeunes, à la recherche de repères et d’un monde qu’ils voudraient plus rassurant. Quand ses grands acteurs délocalisent leur production vers le pays le mieux disant en termes de fiscalité et de contraintes sociales et légales. Ange ou démon, nouvelle bulle ou nouvel éco-système, le jeu vidéo est un secteur industriel aux multiples facettes dont on pressent qu’il jouera un rôle clé, non seulement dans l’économie du XXIème siècle mais dans de nombreux domaines qui vont bien au-delà des loisirs. Ce nouveau rendez-vous, le troisième du genre, a l’ambition de faire le point sur ces questions et de contribuer à la mise en oeuvre d’une politique industrielle pertinente et d’un cadre juridique adapté pour que la France et l’Europe gardent une place de premier plan dans ce secteur devenu, à bien des égards, stratégique. … Continue Reading

The Dutch internet gambling tax: a game of bluff?

Frans Duynstee and Igor Groenwegen, tax lawyers at Van Mens & Wisselink N.V., discuss the newly ammended Dutch Gaming Tax Act and the implications for online gaming.

This article was previously published in the Spring 2009 edition of ‘European Gaming Lawyer’. The authors can be contacted at gaming @ vmw.nl

An amendment to the Betting and Gaming Tax Act concerning online gambling came into force on 3 October 2008. This amendment gives rise to a great many questions. It appears that the Legislature wishes to implement a tax that is specifically geared towards illegal activities. It also appears that this amended gaming tax is effectively difficult to put into practice, particularly, when it comes to determine who the actual taxpayer is. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that this amendment may be in contravention of the EC Treaty Additionally, the question raises to what extent the Tax Treaties and the Double Taxation (Avoidance) Decree 2001 provide for tools to prevent double taxation. In short, there is sufficient food for thought.

Rules of Play

In accordance with article 1 of the Betting and Gaming Tax Act, insofar as it is of significance here, gaming tax is levied on:

(..)

b). those providing the opportunity to participate in domestic online games of chance;

(..)

e). the prize winners of online foreign games of chance residing in or established within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

29% gaming tax is levied, per period, on the bets received less the prizes made available (the host’s gross gaming yield) by those hosting the domestic online games of chance. On the basis of article 5a of the Betting and Gaming Tax Act, the host may set-off any losses incurred in one period against any gains earned in subsequent periods.

Prize winners of foreign online games of chance residing in the Netherlands are liable for a gaming tax at a rate of 29% , insofar as the balance between the winnings taken during that month and the bets placed during that month is positive. There is no tax liability if the balance is less than nil. The fact that there is no possibility to set-off losses in subsequent periods whilst a set-off is possible with respect to domestic online gambling appears to be in contravention of the EC Treaty.

Put succinctly: winners of prizes enjoyed from domestic online gambling are not liable for gaming tax. Hosts are not liable for tax if they provide the opportunity to participate in foreign online gambling. The consequence of this could be that players will seek to participate in national online gambling whilst hosts will strive to provide foreign online gambling to avoid the gaming tax in the Netherlands.

E-gaming vs. E-commerce

Concerning online gaming, a distinction ought to be made between e-gaming and e-commerce. Whereas e-gaming is considered as online games of chance on which the new rules apply, e-commerce is considered as ‘regular’ gaming on which the common rules apply. In practice, however, both categories are difficult to distinct from each other. For instance, recent case law (Betfair, Council of State May 14, 2008, LJN BD 1483 and De Lotto/Ladbrokes, Supreme Court June 13, 2008, LJN BC8970) shows that if internet is used as medium to participate in games of chance, these games of chance will be considered as e-gaming. When internet is used as a communication / sales channel for an off line game of chance, this is considered as e-commerce by the Dutch Tax Authorities. We are of the opinion that the red line which is given by the Government between e-gaming and e-commerce is quite thin. We feel that the argument used for e-commerce, i.e. the sales channel, is rather a political instrument than a fiscal instrument. Due to the thin red line between e-commerce and e-gaming, we expect that in the near future case law will be initiated.

Domestic vs. Foreign

Theoretically speaking the levying of tax as explained above can be considered relatively straightforward. In practice, the terms used raise the following additional questions, such as: What is understood under domestic and foreign games of chance? When is a host deemed to be the party providing an opportunity to participate in foreign games of chance?

Foreign games of chance are all games of chance that are not regarded as domestic games of chance. A game of chance is deemed a domestic game of chance if it is operated by natural persons or entities , of which one or more reside or are established in the Netherlands. Should an online game of chance be jointly hosted by an entity established in the Netherlands and an entity established abroad, which entity is liable for tax? The State Secretary has supplied with us a number of tools with which to asses whether or not we can speak of a domestic game of chance, namely:

1. the language of the host’s website;

2. the web address of the host’s website;

3. the “provider” of the host’s website;

4. all other information referred to on the host’s website.

Bad beat

The State Secretary unexpectedly adopted a completely different standpoint in the additional Statement of Defence on national games of chance. In his written response to the questions posed by the SP (Socialist Party) he stated:

“Games of chance accessible via the internet in the Netherlands are deemed to be domestic games of chance.”

This is very surprising. In effect, it means that the Dutch gaming tax will be imposed on all foreign online gaming operators if the games of chance provided are accessible in the Netherlands! It appears that the State Secretary based his statement on the Supreme Court Judgment dated 18 February 2005 no. C03/306HR. This judgment ruled on the applicability of the Betting and Gaming Act. The key question here was: to what extent does the online provision of the games of chance hosted by a website that also targets the Netherlands, fall under the “provision of opportunity” as is referred to in article 1, sub a, of the Betting and Gaming Act. The Supreme Court ruled that “provision of opportunity” exists as is laid down in article 1, sub a, of that Act if the Dutch participants have direct access to the game via their computers. Although the concept “provision of opportunity” also exists in the Betting and Gaming Tax Act, this Act, contrary to the Betting and Gaming Act, specifically defines the concept of the domestic games of chance. The accuracy of the standpoint taken by the State Secretary is thus open to doubt but it is, in our opinion, a building block for a reasonably arguable position.

It gets even stranger: in less than two months after the State Secretary of Finance made his statements in the Senate, the revised explanatory notes to the tax return form for Gaming Tax and the new “Gaming Tax” brochure were presented. This brochure and the explanatory notes use a different criterion as opposed to the criterion used by the State Secretary in the Senate. Evidently the Tax Authorities do not feel that the accessibility of a site from the Netherlands is relevant for determining whether a game of chance is domestic or not. Quite frankly, this was recently confirmed by a tax inspector of the Gaming Tax Department from the Dutch Tax Authorities. In addition, it is most strange that in the same brochure and explanatory notes no mention is made of the apparently illegality of online gambling while much attention was paid to this point during the parliamentary debate. What is more, this is one of the reasons to implement this legislative amendment.

Fortunate?

As set out above, it is unclear whether the fortunate prize-winners resident in the Netherlands are obliged to file a gaming tax return. For instance, if a Dutch resident enjoys winnings earned from foreign online games of chance in a calendar month in which foreign gaming tax is imposed, to what extent can double taxation be avoided?

Art. 52 of the Unilateral Double Taxation Avoidance Decree 2001 states that this group of taxpayers is exempted from gaming tax if the prize is “subject to a similar tax imposed by another country or another ‘Power’ The taxpayers enjoying prizes derived from foreign games of chance must prove that they are i) liable for ii) a similar tax on the prize in the country of origin before they may rely on an exemption from the gaming tax. How can these two points be proved?

With respect to the tax liability, reference may simply be made to the relevant provisions in the country of origin of the prize, which provisions should be substantiated by providing i) an assessment or ii) other ‘in principle’ authenticated documents which clearly show that the prize to be exempted is subject to a similar tax. We hold the view that authenticated documents are, inter alia, understood to mean: the submission of a statement from the foreign tax authorities, authenticated by a local civil-law notary, declaring that a tax is imposed on the games of chance.

The Tax Authorities make two references on the exemption to avoid double taxation: the Gaming Tax Brochure previously referred to and the explanatory notes to the Gaming Tax Return. It is worth noting that the brochure and the explanatory notes to the gaming tax return contradict each other with respect to the section covering the exemption from gaming tax. The brochure clearly states that it must be made plausible that the prize won is subject to a foreign tax that is similar to the Dutch gaming tax, whereas the explanatory notes state that proof of payment must be submitted from which it is obvious that tax has actually been paid abroad in order to qualify for exemption. This statement is clearly in contravention of the current doctrine as discussed above. Have the Tax Authorities taken a new path with respect to the interpretation given to the tax liability requirement in tax law?

We can only guess at the reasons for this amendment. Moreover, we wonder whether it is feasible that proof of payment for tax paid abroad can be furnished for the gaming tax. There is a real possibility that gaming tax is imposed abroad at the level of the host, as the host is deemed to be a domestic online gaming taxpayer in that country. It is also likely that the gaming tax base of the host differs from that of the prize-winner (compare the Netherlands: the surplus balance of the bets received less the winnings paid out to the players). We feel that the request made by the Tax Authorities to furnish proof of payment in cases as outlined above, reaches too far and is practically impossible.

It may also be questioned that the Dutch Tax Authorities state in the explanatory notes that exemption is always applicable if the prizes originate from Germany or Belgium. When is there actually a question of a similar gaming tax? The Opinion and Additional Report given by the Council of State on the amendment to the gaming tax for online games of chance contains an overview which clearly puts out that in Belgium and Germany tax is levied on the bets placed. The methods applied in both countries differ a great deal from the method used in the Netherlands. If Belgium and Germany are deemed to impose a similar tax, we could conclude that this means that all types of gaming tax imposed under another Power qualify as a similar tax. Consequently, a successful claim for exemption from the gaming tax will follow, provided that the tax liability has been made plausible. The latter will encourage players to search for hosts of foreign games of chance that are established in Germany, Belgium or another country in which gaming tax is imposed at a low rate.

In the context of exemption from the gaming tax, we comment that it is possible that double taxation will occur at the level of the host if the State Secretary’s view is upheld, to whit, that a host established abroad falls under the Dutch Gaming Tax if the host’s website is freely accessible to players resident in the Netherlands. Hosts do not qualify for exemption from gaming tax, given that the exemption from gaming tax only applies to the prize-winners of foreign games of chance. It goes without saying that concurrence is sought in the tax treaties concluded by the Netherlands. However, the problem arising with respect to such bilateral agreements is that, generally speaking, these agreements only cover income tax, wage tax, corporate tax and dividend tax. Gaming tax is not referred to in the tax treaties, which means that double taxation could occur because the host enjoys a source income in the Netherlands and in the country of establishment. We are, in any event, unclear as to how double taxation can be avoided. In all probability, the host will always get the short end of the stick.

Game Tip

In the parliamentary debate the principle of tax neutrality was invoked with respect to the levying of tax on the prohibited online games of chance. Under European Law, the tax neutrality principle implies that no distinction may be made in the tax treatment of legal and illegal activities, provided that the possibility of competition exists between these two activities.

In fact, the neutrality principle may not be invoked if there is only one activity, e.g. legal, or as the case may be, illegal. In our view, the Legislator is way off target by invoking the neutrality principle because in the Netherlands, online games of chance have been completely forbidden and there is thus no legal activity that needs to be safeguarded. Incidentally, the State Secretary has not made any explicit statement in connection with this inaccuracy. His reference to the taxation of crimes subject to income tax in defence of his choice for the neutrality principle is ill-chosen. Ill-chosen because the income tax is a generic tax, pertaining not only to apparently illegal activities, whilst the gaming tax on online games of chance, in the eyes of the State Secretary, pertains only to illegal activities.

‘Rien ne va plus’

What now? The Government moves rather inconsistent. On the one hand, the apparent illegality of online gaming was exhaustively dealt with in the parliamentary debate, while no mention is made of illegality in the Gaming Tax Brochure 2008. On the other hand, during the Debate it was stated that players resident in the Netherlands actually never have to file a gaming tax return, while the Gaming Tax Brochure 2008 states that this must be done. At the same time it is unclear how in these cases, inherent double taxation can be avoided. Moreover, the difference in tax burden that arises as a result of shifting the burden from the host to the player (in the case of foreign online games of chance) is not justifiable, certainly not from a European perspective. The players and hosts must learn to live with these uncertainties, but luckily they are experienced at this game! It is a matter of probability / risk-taking.

« BetClic » and « Europe 1 » are ready to suspend advertisements for online gaming.

On last Wednesday, “BetClick” and the French radio “Europe 1” announced they were ready to suspend theirs ads for online gaming if others private and public operators did so as well. Since two weeks indeed, they have been advertising on the radio or in the newspapers in order to promote online gaming activities.

The French government reaffirmed that advertisement for internet gaming is prohibited under the current French law and thus asked all operators, but also public operators, to suspend they advertisement for online gaming until the new law enters into force.

Since then, the “Française des jeux” and “Pari Mutuel Urbain”, confirmed they would stop their advertisement for online gaming despite their current monopole.

However, this restriction refers to offline advertisement (newspapers and radio essentially) while online advertisement keeps flourishing.