As Finland prepares to regulate its gambling market through a licensing regime set to launch in 2027, the shift away from a state monopoly represents a significant evolution in policy. While the objectives (i.e. the curbing of offshore gambling and enhancing consumer protection) are broadly aligned with European regulatory trends, recent experience across other Europe jurisdictions indicates that there are a few implementation risks that merit closer examination.
a. Channelling risk: When regulation pushes players away
One of the core goals of market liberalisation is to draw players away from unlicensed offshore sites. History shows that this only works if the licensed service offering is competitive and sensible. Finland plans to ban affiliate marketing and restrict the use of influencers and digital campaigns. While it remains unclear whether Finland’s proposed restrictions will apply universally or only to higher-risk products, these marketing tools are critical for online operators to acquire and retain users especially in niche segments like high-value players and regional player cluster. This may limit the ability of licensed operators to build brand awareness. In this respect, there is a heightened risk that unlicensed operators continue to reach Finnish users via affiliation and global platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and Telegram, where enforcement is difficult.
This dynamic has been seen in both the Netherlands and Germany, where licensed operators face strict ad and marketing restrictions while, in parallel, enforcement struggles to keep pace with the creative tactics used by unlicensed operators. The result is visible marketing from unlicensed sites, and muted outreach from compliant ones.
b. Impact on user experience
Finland’s legislation will require players to set daily and monthly deposit limits before they can gamble and may also include spin-time minimums or mandatory breaks. While these tools are common and intended to protect vulnerable players, poor execution of these parameters can frustrate casual users who find the sign-up and gameplay process burdensome.
Germany’s market illustrates this risk where the implementation of strict session limits, €1 maximum slot stakes, and a five-second minimum between spins have made the experience feel sluggish and “overcontrolled” to many users. Finland risks a similar outcome if the framework is not balanced to serve both player protection and usability.
c. Licensing transition timeline
Finnish licenses will not be granted until early 2026, with operators going live in 2027. This extended runway gives offshore platforms nearly two more years to consolidate user loyalty, expand market share, and establish brand recognition. Without a transitional model or interim enforcement mechanism, the reform may be starting on the backfoot.
d. Regulatory constraints
Finland will establish a new supervisory body under the Finnish Ministry of Finance to issue licenses, enforce rules, and monitor compliance. Other jurisdictions have experienced enforcement bottlenecks and fragmented oversight due to lack of resourcing and coordination at launch. For example, Germany's regulatory body (GGL) was sluggish to clamp down on illegal providers post-launch, leading to frustration among licensed operators who faced restrictions their unlicensed competitors ignored.
The Finnish agency may need time to build expertise, staff, and systems fairly quickly ensure that it is equipped to act decisively from the outset.
e. Veikkaus: Healthy competition?
While the online market will open to private operators, Veikkaus will remain active across multiple verticals (including online casino and sports betting) while retaining its monopoly over lotteries, scratch cards, land-based casinos, and slot machines. This means Veikkaus will both compete with and coexist alongside licensed operators in the online space, operating under a legacy structure with strong brand equity and state backing.
This hybrid model mirrors Sweden’s regulatory landscape, where Svenska Spel, the former monopoly, continued to operate commercially post-regulation. In Sweden, this dual-role dynamic created market imbalances, with concerns over unequal competitive conditions. Finland may face similar challenges unless steps are taken to ensure that Veikkaus competes under the same commercial and compliance constraints as private licensees.
Conclusion
Finland’s gambling reform is a step toward transparency, accountability, and safer gambling. That being said, a regulatory model that is too rigid, slow to implement, or unbalanced in competition can weaken the very objectives it seeks to achieve. Learning from peers like the Netherlands and Germany (who are themselves still calibrating their systems) will be critical as Finland finalises its own roadmap.
As market conditions evolve, so too will strategic and capital flows. At Hatten M&A, we’re actively engaging with operators, platforms, and gaming founders preparing for and requiring assistance in executing exits. If you are exploring M&A or investment opportunities tied to the Finnish market, we are keen to connect.
