Quote:
Originally Posted by Hood
Q1 - Fairly complex question and i'm sure others can go into it in more detail, but v vriefly: Many countries fall foul of exactly that and there are infringement proceedings against countries with monopolistic or inconsistent approaches to online gambling. However, erecting national boundaries can be justified if it can be argued that it is necessary for harm prevention.
Q2 - If a company is based outside the EU (Say, in the Isle of Man or Gibraltar) then would such laws apply to them?
Q1 The European Court of Justice has backed the principle that individual governments can introduce rules to protect the vulnerable/minimise harm BUT they need to be "consistent" and "proportional". the cases that have gone all the way through the system (takes years) have tended to come out in favour of liberalisation, this is partly because those persuing the cases tend to be excluded firms who are pretty sure they will win.
German state courts though, like the UK for other things, refer disputes up to the ECJ for advice and eventually a ruling so every now and again a new ruling comes out which sounds a bit more supportive of state action.
A total state monopoly can be justified but it gets in to trouble if that monopoly then promotes itself and introduces new products to increase revenue, however without promotion people go to offshore anyway.
Licencing is OK but setting a strict limit on the number of licensees would fail as a restrition of cmpetition, they could set quite onerous conditions - ie all player funds in trust, minimum capitalisation beyond that, financial reporting all sorts of things so long as they are consistent (apply to state provider/local provider too) and proportionate - thus a rationale for each requirement is needed including that this is the minimum action required to achieve the goal.
It is hugely complicated. I've read loads of the ECJ rulings and every single one is nightmarishly complicated and often comes out with a kind of split decision - backing liberalisation in places but regulation/the state for other bits.
The latest was a Gib one about the point of consumption tax, it was only the initial report to the court but it recomended that Gib be treated as part of the UK so they could not challenge it which left the wider question about whether the UK POC tax can like VAT be applied to revenue from just one country.
Q2 All non EU firms need to comply with EU rules and regulations to supply there. In this case IoM and Gib are sort of in the EU anyway (Gib residents have the same MEPs as me). What happens to both is a bit up in the air with Brexit as their status is linked to the UK...anyway so long as a firm based anywhere in the world can get a valid EU recognised licence they can serve most of the EU.
Countries like France insist that the equipment is based in their jurisdiction whilst the UK does not care so long as they comply with inspection/testing. You could set up on the North Pole or in Vegas and still get a UK licence.
Part of the bilateral deals betwen regulators for this is getting them to recognise each others competence and so letting the equipment be in one of the countries (or anywhere) rather than the requirement to be in the one jurisdiction - which I think is a bit dated in the age of the cloud but also difficult to justify as "proportionate" when the UK system of allowing kit anywhere has already been working for 2 years.