Contract for Gambling Services Found Void by the Swedish Supreme Court in Swedish Landmark Gambling Case

On 1 July 2025 the Swedish Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in case T 607-24, concluding a long-running legal dispute regarding the validity of an agreement for the provision of gambling services between Malta-based BML Group Ltd, operator of the Betsson brand, and a Swedish national, P.L. The Supreme Court ruled that all gambling transactions post-VIP status were legally void, and BML Group was required to repay the net losses.

Background and Facts of the Case

Between 2009 and 2014, P.L. was a customer of BML Group, engaging in extensive online gambling, primarily through simulated slot machines. During this period, P.L. wagered approximately EUR 15 million, ultimately incurring a net loss of around SEK 8 million (EUR 750,000). In January 2012, he was upgraded to VIP status at the company’s initiative. He requested to close his account in October 2014 and was formally diagnosed with gambling addiction two months later.

P.L. subsequently filed a suit seeking repayment of approximately EUR 16 million, asserting that BML Group had had knowledge of his gambling pattern and therefore also of his gambling addiction, and that BML Group had exploited his addiction through aggressive marketing and inducements such as bonuses and personalised offers.

The question for the Supreme Court was whether it would be contrary to good faith and honour (Section 33 of the Swedish Contracts Act) to enforce legal acts that led to a gambling agreement between P.L. and BML Group.

Lower Court Decisions

As previously reported by CMS Wistrand, the Patent and Market Court rejected his claims, as it found that it had not been proven that the gambling operator had known or ought to have known that P.L. was a gambling addict. Therefore, the contracts were not considered invalid and the gambling operator could not be liable for damages.

The Patent and Market Court’s decision was appealed to the Patent and Market Court of Appeal which partially reversed the decision, ordering BML Group to repay EUR 527,395 to P.L. – representing P.L.’s net losses from the point he became a VIP customer – as the Court found that BML Group had had knowledge of his gambling problems and had used intrusive marketing tactics, why it must be considered contrary to faith and honour to enforce the agreements against P.L. The agreements were thus deemed invalid. The Court further awarded SEK 10,000 in damages for psychological harm.

The Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court has now largely upheld the Patent and Market Court of Appeal’s ruling but overturned the award for psychological harm, finding insufficient evidence to support compensation on that grounds.

The Court elaborated on, e.g., the interpretation of Section 33 of the Swedish Contracts Act, which renders a legal act invalid if it would be contrary to good faith and honour to enforce it, given the circumstances known to the party relying on it. Notably, the Court clarified that where companies use digital platforms using automated systems to collect and act on consumer behaviour data, they are deemed to have “knowledge” of that data for the purposes of a legal assessment under Section 33 of the Swedish Contracts Act.

Specifically, in this case, the Supreme Court found that:

• BML Group had extensive access to P.L.’s gambling behaviour through its platform, including the frequency and scale of his betting.
• Based on the data of P.L.’s gambling submitted in the case and P.L.’s testimony, there was no doubt that P.L. fulfilled the criteria for gambling addiction long before he was diagnosed in December 2014. Most of these criteria refer to gambling having negative consequences for the gambler. The gambling data to which BML Group had access did not, however, in itself provide any direct information about the consequences of gambling for P.L. The company could therefore not be considered to have been aware that P.L. met the medical criteria for a diagnosis of gambling addiction.
• Nonetheless, BML Group’s gambling data showed a number of indications in P.L.’s gambling pattern that the Supreme Court considered to entail clear signs that P.L. had lost control of his gambling, at least from the time he became a VIP customer. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that BML Group must be considered to have been aware of P.L.’s serious gambling problems from that time onwards.
• The company continued to target P.L. with aggressive and personalised marketing, including offers requiring rapid response, despite visible signs of problematic behaviour.
• The continued contractual engagements under these conditions constituted unfair and dishonourable conduct.

As such, the Court held that all gambling transactions post-VIP status were legally void, and BML Group was required to repay the net losses.

Wider Legal Implications

The ruling comes amid growing scrutiny of the online gambling industry across Europe. The Supreme Court’s analysis of digital contract formation and automated marketing systems establishes a precedent for assigning legal responsibility to companies based on data-driven insights.

It shall be noted that BML Group did not have a Swedish gambling license at the time of the events in the case, since the Swedish license system was introduced only in 2019. The Supreme Court’s reasoning shows some signs that this may have had some influence on the ruling, although it remains uncertain to what extent (if any).

Conclusion

With this judgment, the Supreme Court clarifies how automated data collection and behavioural profiling may be treated when assessing contractual validity under Swedish law. It also reflects on how legal responsibility may be determined when companies use targeted digital marketing in sectors involving high-risk consumer behaviour. Furthermore, gambling operators may now risk facing civil implications in addition to regulatory sanctions from the Swedish Gambling Authority for potentially inadequate responsible gambling practices.