EU Gambling Regulatory Cooperation and Cross-Border Enforcement: Memoranda of Understanding, Information Sharing, and Joint Regulatory Actions

The Need for Regulatory Cooperation in EU Gambling

Online gambling operates across national borders by its very nature. A player in Germany can access an operator licensed in Malta, funded through a payment provider in the UK, using a platform developed in Estonia. This cross-border reality creates significant challenges for regulatory oversight, as no single national authority has complete visibility or control over the entire gambling ecosystem.

As explained in our EU gambling laws guide, gambling regulation remains a member state competence, meaning there is no unified EU gambling regulator. Each of the 27 EU member states maintains its own licensing framework, regulatory authority, and enforcement mechanisms. According to the European Commission, member states retain primary authority over gambling regulation as it falls outside the scope of EU single market harmonization.

This fragmented regulatory landscape makes cooperation between national authorities essential for several reasons:

• Operator oversight: An operator licensed in one jurisdiction may target players in many others, requiring information sharing to ensure compliance
• Enforcement effectiveness: Unlicensed operators often operate from outside a regulator's jurisdiction, requiring coordination to take effective action
• Consumer protection: Players harmed by operators need regulators who can work together across borders
• Market intelligence: Understanding emerging risks and trends requires pooling information from multiple markets
• Regulatory efficiency: Sharing best practices and common approaches reduces duplication and improves outcomes

Key Regulatory Cooperation Mechanisms

Gaming Regulators European Forum (GREF)

The Gaming Regulators European Forum (GREF) is the primary multilateral platform for gambling regulatory cooperation in Europe. Established to facilitate collaboration between gambling regulatory authorities, GREF brings together regulators from EU member states and other European countries.

GREF Membership and Structure

GREF membership includes gambling regulatory authorities from across Europe, with participation from major EU gambling jurisdictions including:

• Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) - Malta
• Kansspelautoriteit (KSA) - Netherlands
• Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) - Germany
• Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego (DGOJ) - Spain
• Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ) - France
• Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM) - Italy
• Spelinspektionen - Sweden
• Spillemyndigheden - Denmark
• Gaming Commission of Belgium
• UK Gambling Commission (associate member, post-Brexit)

GREF Functions

GREF provides several important functions for regulatory cooperation:

• Information exchange: Facilitating the sharing of regulatory intelligence, enforcement decisions, and compliance concerns between member authorities
• Best practice development: Developing common approaches to regulatory challenges, from responsible gambling to AML compliance
• Working groups: Establishing specialized working groups on topics such as online gambling, land-based casinos, and sports integrity
• Annual conferences: Hosting regular meetings where regulators can discuss emerging issues and strengthen relationships
• Coordinated responses: Enabling joint approaches to cross-border issues and regulatory challenges

Bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs)

Beyond multilateral forums, many gambling regulators maintain bilateral MoUs with counterpart authorities in other jurisdictions. These formal agreements establish specific frameworks for cooperation between two regulatory bodies.

Typical MoU Provisions

Memoranda of Understanding between gambling regulators typically address:

Example: Malta Gaming Authority MoUs

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), as a major European licensing hub, maintains extensive MoU networks. The MGA has signed cooperation agreements with numerous regulatory authorities, enabling information sharing about operators licensed in Malta who may operate in other jurisdictions.

These agreements allow partner regulators to:

• Request information about the licensing status of Malta-licensed operators
• Share intelligence about compliance concerns with those operators
• Coordinate on enforcement actions against unlicensed operators
• Exchange best practices on regulatory approaches

European Commission Expert Group on Gambling Services

The European Commission Expert Group on Gambling Services provides a forum for EU member state representatives to discuss gambling-related matters at the European level. While not a regulatory body itself, the Expert Group facilitates:

• Discussion of common regulatory challenges
• Exchange of information on national regulatory developments
• Coordination on consumer protection matters
• Development of non-binding recommendations on specific issues

The Expert Group has addressed topics including online gambling consumer protection, advertising standards, and player identification requirements.

Types of Information Shared Between Regulators

Regulatory cooperation enables the sharing of various categories of information essential for effective oversight. Understanding what information flows between regulators is important for operators, as compliance issues may become known to multiple authorities.

Licensing Information

Regulators share information about licensed operators, including:

• License status: Confirmation of whether an operator holds a valid license
• License conditions: Specific conditions or restrictions attached to licenses
• License history: Previous applications, renewals, modifications, and any issues arising
• Ownership information: Beneficial ownership structures and key personnel (relevant for M&A transactions)

Enforcement Intelligence

Information about enforcement actions is routinely shared, enabling regulators to understand an operator's compliance track record across jurisdictions:

• Warnings and sanctions: Formal warnings, fines, or other sanctions imposed (see our Fines and Sanctions guide)
• License suspensions or revocations: Actions taken to suspend or revoke licenses (see our License Revocation guide)
• Ongoing investigations: In some cases, information about active investigations may be shared
• Compliance assessment outcomes: Results of regulatory inspections or audits (see our Compliance Audits guide)

Consumer Protection Information

Regulators share information relevant to protecting players:

• Consumer complaint patterns: Trends in complaints against specific operators
• Responsible gambling concerns: Issues identified with operator responsible gambling practices
• Dispute resolution outcomes: Patterns in ADR cases and resolution trends (see our Dispute Resolution guide)
• Problem gambling indicators: Operator failures to identify or protect vulnerable players

AML and Financial Crime Intelligence

Anti-money laundering cooperation is particularly important given the cross-border nature of financial crime:

• Suspicious activity patterns: Indicators of money laundering or financial crime (see our AML Compliance guide)
• Source of funds concerns: Issues with operator or player source of funds verification
• Beneficial ownership red flags: Concerns about undisclosed or problematic beneficial owners
• Payment processing issues: Problems with payment service providers or transaction patterns

Market Intelligence

Regulators share broader market intelligence to support effective oversight:

• Emerging products and technologies: New gambling products, platforms, or technologies entering markets
• Unlicensed operator activity: Intelligence on operators targeting markets without proper licenses
• Industry trends: Market developments, consolidation activity, and strategic changes
• Technical compliance issues: Problems identified with platform integrity, game fairness, or software certification

Cross-Border Enforcement Mechanisms

While regulatory cooperation enables information sharing, actual enforcement power remains limited to each regulator's own jurisdiction. However, several mechanisms enable effective cross-border action.

Coordinated Enforcement Actions

Regulators may coordinate enforcement actions against operators that violate rules in multiple jurisdictions:

• Simultaneous announcements: Multiple regulators announcing enforcement actions on the same day
• Complementary sanctions: Each regulator taking action within its own jurisdiction for related violations
• Information sharing for investigations: Regulators sharing evidence that supports enforcement in other jurisdictions

Domain Blocking and Access Restrictions

As detailed in our Operator Blacklists and Domain Blocking guide, regulators can restrict access to unlicensed operators within their jurisdictions. Cooperation enables:

• Blacklist sharing: Regulators sharing lists of blocked operators
• Coordinated blocking: Multiple jurisdictions blocking the same operator
• Payment blocking coordination: Working with payment processors to restrict transactions across borders

Mutual Recognition and Reliance

Some regulatory frameworks incorporate elements of mutual recognition, where regulators acknowledge each other's assessments:

• License recognition: Some jurisdictions may give weight to licenses held elsewhere in their own licensing process
• Due diligence reliance: Regulators may rely on fit and proper assessments conducted by trusted counterparts
• Technical certification: Recognition of game and platform certifications from approved testing laboratories

Referral Mechanisms

When a regulator identifies issues that fall outside its jurisdiction, formal referral mechanisms enable appropriate action:

• Licensing authority referrals: Informing the licensing authority when compliance issues are identified with operators licensed elsewhere
• Criminal referrals: Sharing information with law enforcement authorities in relevant jurisdictions
• Financial intelligence unit coordination: Working with FIUs on AML matters with cross-border dimensions

Sports Integrity and Match-Fixing Cooperation

Cooperation on sports integrity and match-fixing represents a particularly developed area of regulatory coordination, driven by the international nature of both sports and sports betting.

The Macolin Convention

The Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions (Macolin Convention) provides a legal framework for international cooperation on sports integrity. Key provisions include:

• National platforms: Requirement for signatory states to establish national coordination mechanisms
• Information exchange: Framework for sharing intelligence on suspected match manipulation
• Cross-border cooperation: Mechanisms for coordinated action across jurisdictions
• Betting monitoring: Requirements for cooperation with betting monitoring systems

As detailed in our Match Fixing and Sports Integrity guide, many EU member states are signatories to the Macolin Convention, creating obligations for regulatory cooperation in this area.

Betting Monitoring and Alert Systems

Regulators cooperate through betting monitoring systems that detect suspicious betting patterns:

• IBIA (International Betting Integrity Association): Industry body providing betting monitoring and intelligence sharing
• Regulator alert networks: Systems for rapidly sharing alerts about potential match manipulation
• Sports body coordination: Working with international sports federations on integrity matters

Practical Implications for Operators

Regulatory cooperation has significant practical implications for gambling operators, particularly those holding licenses in multiple jurisdictions.

Compliance Reputation Travels

Information sharing means that compliance issues in one jurisdiction may affect an operator's standing elsewhere:

• License applications: Regulators reviewing new license applications may request information from other jurisdictions about the applicant's track record
• Renewal and variation: Existing compliance issues may surface during license renewal or variation processes
• Enhanced scrutiny: Operators with issues in one jurisdiction may face enhanced scrutiny in others
• Reputational impact: Public enforcement actions are typically shared and may influence regulatory relationships

Multi-Jurisdiction Compliance Strategy

Operators holding multiple licenses should adopt coordinated compliance approaches:

• Consistent standards: Apply the highest compliance standards across all markets rather than minimum requirements
• Unified reporting: Ensure compliance reporting is consistent and accurate across jurisdictions
• Proactive disclosure: Consider voluntarily disclosing issues to all relevant regulators rather than waiting for information sharing
• Centralized compliance function: Maintain oversight of compliance across all licensed markets

Responding to Cross-Border Inquiries

When regulators share information or make inquiries based on intelligence from other jurisdictions, operators should:

• Engage constructively: Respond promptly and cooperatively to regulatory inquiries
• Seek legal advice: Understand the implications of information sharing for all affected licenses
• Coordinate responses: Ensure responses to different regulators are consistent
• Address root causes: Resolve underlying issues that may affect multiple jurisdictions

Limitations of Regulatory Cooperation

Despite significant cooperation frameworks, several limitations constrain cross-border regulatory action.

Sovereignty and Jurisdiction

Each regulator operates within its own legal framework and jurisdiction:

• Limited extraterritorial reach: Regulators cannot directly enforce against entities outside their jurisdiction
• Different legal standards: What constitutes a violation varies between jurisdictions
• Due process requirements: Each jurisdiction has its own procedural requirements for enforcement

Data Protection Constraints

Information sharing must comply with data protection requirements, particularly the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR):

• Legal basis requirements: Information sharing requires appropriate legal basis under GDPR
• Purpose limitation: Shared information may only be used for specified purposes
• Transfers outside EU: Additional requirements apply for sharing with non-EU regulators

Resource Constraints

Regulatory cooperation requires resources that may be limited:

• Staff capacity: Handling cross-border inquiries requires dedicated resources
• Language barriers: Multi-lingual communication adds complexity
• Technical infrastructure: Secure information sharing requires appropriate systems

Political Considerations

Regulatory cooperation can be influenced by political factors:

• National interests: Countries may prioritize domestic operators or markets
• Regulatory competition: Jurisdictions may compete to attract gambling business
• Policy differences: Varying approaches to gambling regulation may complicate cooperation

Future Developments in Regulatory Cooperation

Several trends are likely to shape the future of gambling regulatory cooperation in Europe.

Digital Services Act Implications

The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) creates new frameworks for regulating online services that may complement gambling-specific cooperation. While the DSA does not directly regulate gambling, it establishes precedents for cross-border oversight of online platforms that could influence future gambling cooperation mechanisms.

Enhanced AML Cooperation

The evolving EU anti-money laundering framework, including the new EU AML Authority (AMLA), will create new channels for cooperation on financial crime matters affecting the gambling sector. Enhanced AML supervision at the EU level may facilitate more systematic information sharing between gambling regulators and financial intelligence units.

Technology-Enabled Cooperation

Emerging technologies may enhance cooperation capabilities:

• Shared databases: Development of common databases for licensing and enforcement information
• Real-time alerts: Systems for immediate sharing of urgent regulatory intelligence
• Blockchain applications: Potential for distributed ledger technology to support verification and information sharing
• AI-powered analysis: Use of artificial intelligence to identify patterns requiring coordinated response

Formalization of Cooperation

The trend toward more formalized cooperation frameworks is likely to continue:

• Expanded MoU networks: More bilateral and multilateral agreements
• Standardized protocols: Common approaches to information sharing and cooperation requests
• Binding mechanisms: Potential development of more binding cooperation requirements

Conclusion

Regulatory cooperation is essential for effective gambling oversight in a cross-border digital environment. While no single EU gambling regulator exists, mechanisms such as GREF, bilateral MoUs, and expert groups enable national authorities to work together on licensing, enforcement, consumer protection, and anti-money laundering matters.

For operators, regulatory cooperation means that compliance reputation travels across borders. Issues identified in one jurisdiction may become known to regulators elsewhere, potentially affecting multiple licenses. This underscores the importance of maintaining consistent, high-quality compliance across all markets.

As the gambling industry continues to evolve, regulatory cooperation frameworks are likely to become more sophisticated and formalized, with enhanced technology-enabled information sharing and potentially more binding cooperation mechanisms. Operators and their advisors should stay informed about these developments and build regulatory cooperation considerations into their compliance strategies.

For related information, see our guides on License Application Processes, Compliance Audits, and Fines and Sanctions. Use our Compliance Risk Assessor tool to evaluate regulatory risk across EU markets.