Source: Kansspelcommissie (Belgium)
Belgium’s Gaming Commission says an excluded player who uses someone else’s personal data to gamble commits a criminal offence under Article 4 §4 of the Gambling Act. The stated fine range is EUR 208 to EUR 576,000.
Operators must account for the law’s prohibition on excluded players accessing gambling using another person’s data.
The day’s most important stories, free. One email a day.
Russia’s State Duma passed a bill on 8 July that would allow courts to fine gambling operators for accepting bets from people on the self-prohibition register. The bill also proposes penalties for sending promotional material to registered people and for failing to report blocked individuals; it still requires Federation Council approval and must avoid a presidential veto to take effect on 1 September.
The Russian government has backed a proposal to fine licensed casinos and bookmakers that accept bets from people on the Gosuslugi self-exclusion list, according to media reports. The proposed penalties reach RUB100,000 for companies and RUB30,000 for employees. The government also proposes requiring operators to link to the portal and inform customers about self-exclusion options.
The Netherlands Gaming Authority fined Kindred Group’s Unibet €400,000 for allowing self-excluded players to access its platform during the 2022 FIFA World Cup. The company said 3,020 players were improperly registered between 22 November 2022 and 30 January 2023, including 15 later confirmed as registered with Cruks; it will not appeal.
The GGL has published an FAQ stating that taking part in unauthorised gambling is punishable under section 285 of the German criminal code, with up to six months' imprisonment or a fine of up to 180 daily rates. It advises players to check the official whitelist before using online offers.
The Provincial Court of Zamora overturned a €6,000 award against a gambling company over a self-excluded customer’s access to its venue, according to the report dated 22 September 2026. The court accepted the company’s argument that the claim was time-barred, finding the customer knew of the alleged harm when he stopped visiting on 11 September 2023.