The 20 Biggest Fines Imposed on Gambling Operators in Europe

1. William Hill – £19.2 million (2023, UK)

William Hill received the largest fine in UK Gambling Commission history due to serious failings in AML and responsible gambling measures. The investigation found that the company allowed customers to deposit significant sums of money without adequate checks, including one case where a player was able to spend £23,000 in just 20 minutes. Additionally, multiple high-risk customers were not subject to proper affordability assessments, raising concerns about the company’s commitment to player protection.

2. Gammix Ltd – €19.6 million (2024, Netherlands)

Dutch gambling regulator Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) imposed this massive fine on Gammix Ltd for offering online gambling services in the Netherlands without the necessary licensing. The company had repeatedly ignored warnings and continued to target Dutch players, violating the country’s strict regulations on unlicensed gambling. This penalty reflects the Netherlands’ tough stance on illegal operators and its determination to protect consumers from unregulated gaming platforms.

3. Entain – £17 million (2022, UK)

Entain, the parent company of major brands like Ladbrokes and Coral, was fined for systemic failings in AML and responsible gambling controls. The UK Gambling Commission found multiple instances where the company did not intervene despite clear signs of problematic gambling behavior. One customer deposited £230,000 over an 18-month period without any affordability checks, while another continued to wager large amounts despite exhibiting signs of harm.

4. Caesars Entertainment UK – £13 million (2020, UK)

Caesars Entertainment faced this substantial fine after an investigation revealed severe deficiencies in AML procedures and customer protection policies. The company failed to conduct appropriate due diligence on high-spending customers, allowing one individual to lose £323,000 in just 12 months. The regulator also found that Caesars did not properly intervene when customers displayed signs of problem gambling, further contributing to the severity of the fine.

5. 888 UK Limited – £9.4 million (2022, UK)

888 UK Limited was penalized for failing to implement effective responsible gambling measures, leading to cases where at-risk players were allowed to continue gambling without intervention. The company also exhibited weaknesses in its customer verification processes, failing to assess whether players could afford their gambling habits. Regulators highlighted that these failings placed vulnerable customers at risk and demonstrated a lack of commitment to consumer protection.

6. Betway – £11.6 million (2020, UK)

Betway was fined after authorities discovered it had accepted stolen funds and failed to implement adequate AML procedures. The investigation found that one customer, who was later convicted of fraud, was able to spend over £8 million without sufficient checks. The UK Gambling Commission also noted that Betway’s VIP schemes incentivized high spending without appropriate safeguards, increasing the risk of financial harm.

7. In Touch Games – £6.1 million (2023, UK)

In Touch Games was penalized for failing to interact with customers showing clear signs of problem gambling. The investigation found that the company had inadequate systems for identifying at-risk players and did not act promptly when intervention was necessary. Additionally, the regulator cited weak AML controls, allowing customers to deposit and gamble large sums without proper financial background checks.

8. Gamesys Operations Limited – £6 million (2024, UK)

Gamesys was fined for multiple AML and social responsibility breaches. The company was found to have weak internal controls, failing to properly monitor customer spending and risk factors. Regulators emphasized that Gamesys needed to strengthen its compliance processes to prevent future breaches and better protect players.

9. Daub Alderney – £5.85 million (2021, UK)

Daub Alderney, a subsidiary of The Rank Group, was penalized for deficiencies in both AML compliance and responsible gambling measures. Authorities found that the company did not sufficiently monitor high-risk transactions, allowing players to deposit and lose large amounts without scrutiny. Additionally, its customer support systems failed to effectively intervene in cases of problem gambling.

10. BoyleSports – £2.8 million (2020, UK)

BoyleSports faced this fine for failing to implement adequate AML procedures, with investigators uncovering serious flaws in the company’s transaction monitoring. The regulator found that BoyleSports lacked proper due diligence when assessing player funds, exposing itself to the risk of financial crime. As part of the ruling, the company was required to overhaul its AML policies and implement more rigorous compliance standards.

11. Veikkaus – €2.9 million (2024, Finland)

Finland’s state-owned gambling monopoly, Veikkaus, was fined for failing to meet responsible gambling standards. The regulator determined that the company did not do enough to prevent gambling addiction and allowed customers to wager large amounts without adequate interventions. This penalty highlights Finland’s ongoing efforts to enforce stricter consumer protection measures.

12. Spooniker Ltd – €2.7 million (2024, Sweden)

Spooniker Ltd was penalized for offering unauthorized bonuses to Swedish players, violating the country’s strict laws on gambling promotions. The Swedish regulator, Spelinspektionen, found that the company’s bonus schemes exceeded the allowed limits, potentially encouraging excessive gambling behavior. The fine serves as a warning to operators about Sweden’s zero-tolerance approach to unauthorized incentives.

13. BGO Entertainment – £2 million (2020, UK)

BGO Entertainment faced a regulatory crackdown for failing to protect customers from gambling harm. Investigations found that the company had inadequate safeguards in place to monitor player activity, leading to situations where at-risk individuals continued gambling unchecked. The fine reinforced the importance of responsible gambling obligations.

14. 32Red – £2 million (2020, UK)

32Red was fined for failing to protect vulnerable customers, with regulators finding that it did not implement sufficient affordability checks. The investigation uncovered cases where players were able to spend excessive amounts without adequate intervention, highlighting serious weaknesses in the company’s responsible gambling framework.

15. Paddy Power Betfair – £2.2 million (2020, UK)

Paddy Power Betfair was penalized for AML violations and failures in responsible gambling measures. The company allowed customers to deposit and lose large sums without appropriate monitoring, raising concerns about its commitment to compliance. Regulators ordered the company to enhance its internal controls to prevent future violations.

16. Winning Poker Network – €1.3 million (2025, Netherlands)

Winning Poker Network was fined for operating in the Netherlands without a valid license, continuing the country’s crackdown on unregulated gambling platforms. The regulator found that the company was targeting Dutch customers without meeting the necessary legal requirements.

17. Greentube Alderney – £1 million (2025, UK)

Greentube Alderney, a subsidiary of Novomatic, was fined for compliance failures related to AML policies and responsible gambling obligations. Authorities noted that the company needed to improve its internal procedures to meet regulatory expectations.

18. Alimaniere – €1.1 million (2025, Netherlands)

Alimaniere faced a penalty for unlicensed gambling operations targeting Dutch players. The fine underscores the Dutch regulator’s continued efforts to eliminate unauthorized gambling activities.

19. Buzz Group – £780,000 (2021, UK),

Buzz Group faced a penalty for failing to protect problem gamblers. Regulators found that the company’s responsible gambling measures were inadequate, resulting in preventable cases of gambling harm.

20. NetBet – £748,000 (2020, UK)

NetBet was fined for AML and responsible gambling breaches, with regulators finding that the company’s verification processes were insufficient. The company was ordered to strengthen its compliance frameworks to prevent further regulatory action.