GGL: Is it fair to publicly pillory providers?

If a licensed gaming operator in Germany violates a notification obligation or ancillary provisions of the license, the German gambling authority can demand compliance with the obligations. If there is no appropriate response, the gambling authority has the option of issuing a public warning. But is it fair for licensed providers to be publicly pilloried?

On its official website, the Joint Gaming Authority of the federal states (GGL) lists the breached obligations of individual license holders, setting deadlines. In the "Public warnings" section, anyone interested can see which licensed companies are currently known to have violated notification obligations or ancillary provisions.

See current public warnings on the GGL website!

Public warning only after expiry of the first deadline

If the GGL identifies a breach of regulations, the authority will contact the respective permit holder in writing. The GGL then sets a deadline for the company concerned to rectify the defect. However, if the deadline passes without the provider having rectified the defect, the authority publishes the breach of duty on the official website. If this is the case, a second deadline is set. If the provider then remedies the defect, the authorities will indicate the date on which the obligation was fulfilled.

There are currently only three different companies on the list of public warnings. These are Interwetten Gaming Limited, NetX Betting Ltd. and Jokerstar GmbH. The latter provider has not yet fulfilled its obligation (as of January 19, 2025).

Specifically, Jokerstar GmbH is accused of the following breach of duty:

"Content and ancillary provision for the organization of virtual machine games for the implementation of the Technical Directive Central Files".

It is interesting to note that while GGL is permitted to issue public warnings to the providers concerned, the providers are not obliged to publish the respective breach of rules on their own website. As a result, many players of the individual providers will probably not even notice that "their" provider is not adhering to the rules. It was only at the beginning of January that we at GambleJoe reported on GGL's positive annual review.

Is it fair to publicly pillory providers?

Of course, it is debatable whether it is sensible and appropriate to publicly pillory a licensed gambling provider if it breaks a rule. However, it should be borne in mind that a public warning is only issued if a provider has failed to act after the first deadline has been set. In principle, therefore, it is up to each company to prevent public warnings by rectifying any breaches of the rules within the deadline.

Experience from the past few months shows that the list of public warnings only documents isolated breaches of the rules. It can therefore be concluded that the vast majority of licensed gambling providers comply with the notification obligations and other ancillary provisions of the license.

Source of the image: https://pixabay.com/de/photos/rufen-afro-megaphon-schreien-2946023/