Finland Regulatory Gaming Meetup: Finland’s new gambling market faces its real test in regulation and execution

Finland’s gambling reform is moving from legislation to implementation – and that is where some of the most important questions are now emerging.

At the Finland Regulatory Gaming Meetup, Jari Vähänen and Mika Kuismanen took a closer look at the practical challenges facing Finland as the country prepares to move from its gambling monopoly towards a licensing system.

The discussion focused particularly on the role of the new regulator, channelisation and the unlicensed market, technical requirements and the detailed regulations that will ultimately determine how competitive Finland’s licensed market can become.

Channelisation will be one of the key measures of success

One of the central questions is how effectively Finland will be able to direct gambling from unlicensed operators to companies operating under a Finnish licence.

Vähänen highlighted the fundamental challenge facing the new system: Finnish consumers will still be able to access gambling services outside the licensed market, while unlicensed operators will not be permitted to market their services in Finland.

This makes enforcement against the black market particularly important.

Finland’s new regulator will take over supervision when the new system begins. A crucial question will be what practical tools the authority has available – and how effectively those tools can be used against operators that do not hold a Finnish licence.

Vähänen also pointed to the experience of Sweden, where regulatory enforcement has often focused heavily on licensed operators because they are naturally easier for the authorities to supervise and sanction.

The danger is clear: if regulation makes operating inside the licensed market significantly more difficult than serving Finnish customers from outside it, the system risks undermining its own channelisation objectives.

B2B licensing becomes part of enforcement

One mechanism Finland intends to use is the licensing of gambling software suppliers.

Licensed Finnish operators will only be permitted to use gambling technology from approved B2B suppliers. At the same time, those suppliers will face restrictions on providing their technology to operators targeting Finnish customers without a Finnish gambling licence.

The principle is designed to make access to games and gambling technology another enforcement mechanism against the unlicensed market.

However, Vähänen noted that similar mechanisms have already been used elsewhere, including Sweden, and their practical effectiveness remains an important question.

Taxation could change the equation for players

Another potentially significant element concerns taxation of winnings from unlicensed gambling.

According to the discussion, the new framework would mean that winnings from operators outside the Finnish licensing system could become taxable for Finnish players regardless of whether the operator is based inside or outside the European Union.

This could create a powerful incentive for consumers to choose licensed operators.

At the same time, the practical impact depends heavily on whether consumers understand the rules and how effectively taxation can be monitored and enforced.

The wider objective is clear: Finland wants to achieve a substantially higher channelisation rate than under the current monopoly system.

The Gambling Act is only part of the regulatory framework

Kuismanen turned the discussion towards another issue that could prove decisive for operators: the detailed regulations issued under the Gambling Act.

For companies planning to enter Finland, reading the legislation alone will not necessarily provide a complete picture of the future market.

The detailed parameters established through decrees can have a major impact on product design, technical implementation and the overall commercial viability of operating under a Finnish licence.

Kuismanen argued that some of the currently proposed parameters are too restrictive and raised questions about proportionality.

This matters directly for channelisation.

If licensed products become substantially less attractive than products available outside the regulated market, consumers may have an incentive to continue gambling with unlicensed operators.

Product restrictions therefore cannot be considered purely technical details. They are also part of the competitive structure of the new market.

Technical requirements remain a major concern

The meetup also highlighted uncertainty surrounding Finland’s technical requirements.

For operators and B2B suppliers, the timetable is becoming increasingly important. Companies preparing for market entry need sufficient time to develop, test and certify their systems before launch.

Requirements concerning areas such as player controls, product functionality and technical compliance can involve significant development work.

The closer Finland gets to opening the market without final technical specifications, the greater the implementation pressure becomes.

For international operators, this is particularly relevant because Finland cannot simply be treated as another version of Sweden or Denmark. Companies will need to understand the specific Finnish legislation, decrees, technical standards and regulatory interpretation.

The balance between player protection and competitiveness

The underlying issue running through the discussion was proportionality.

Finland’s reform is intended to improve player protection and bring a larger share of gambling under domestic regulatory supervision. But achieving those goals requires consumers to actually choose the licensed market.

That creates a delicate regulatory balance.

Strong player-protection measures are an essential part of the licensing system. At the same time, restrictions that make licensed products substantially less competitive can work against the objective of channelisation.

The success of the Finnish reform will therefore not be determined by the Gambling Act alone.

It will depend on the details: technical requirements, product rules, B2B regulation, taxation, enforcement and – crucially – the ability of the licensed market to compete with operators outside the system.

For operators preparing to enter Finland, the message from the Finland Regulatory Gaming Meetup was clear: the framework is taking shape, but some of the most commercially important decisions are still being made.

And those details may ultimately determine whether Finland succeeds in creating a genuinely competitive and highly channelised regulated gambling market.