Imagine you’re doing a bit of evening channel-hopping during a World Cup football match. In one country, every commercial break is filled with flashing betting logos and voice-overs promising “big wins now!”; in another, you might not see a single gambling ad all game. Like a casino croupier dealing different cards to each player, European governments have adopted very different rules when it comes to gambling advertising. Public health professionals are increasingly uneasy: could the house (in this case, the gambling industry) already have the upper hand, quietly stacking the odds in its favour?
Across Europe, the gambling market is booming. In 2024, the industry generated an estimated €123 billion in gross gaming revenue, with online gambling accounting for €47.9 billion, or nearly 40% of the total (Pereira I.T., 2025; Statista, 2025). Analysts forecast Europe’s online gambling sector could reach €66.8 billion by 2029, driven by rapid digitalisation, mobile gaming, and targeted advertising (European Business Magazine, 2025). As highlighted in a recent Mental Elf blog on gambling harms, the social and mental health costs of this industry extend far beyond the betting slip (Gerada C. & Wiltshire S., 2025).
So where does this leave policymakers? A new comparative policy review by Marionneau et al. (2026) maps how 30 European countries regulate gambling advertising. It’s a patchwork quilt of permissions, restrictions, and loopholes.
Europe’s gambling ad rules are a regulatory roll of the dice, where we live shapes how often the industry may reach us.
Methods
Marionneau et al. (2026) conducted a robust comparative policy review of gambling advertising legislation across 30 European countries. Using a structured framework analysis, the researchers systematically collected and coded statutory, legally binding regulations, excluding voluntary or industry-led codes, to ensure consistency and relevance. Laws were sourced from national legal databases and the Vixio Gambling Compliance platform, with translations cross-checked by native speakers for accuracy. Any coding differences were resolved collaboratively to enhance reliability. Legislation was then classified into eight key regulatory areas, providing a transparent and credible cross-country comparison of how governments approach gambling advertising controls.
Results
The study (Marionneau et al., 2026) found striking differences in how European countries regulate gambling advertising. Some nations have gone virtually “all in” on prohibiting gambling ads, while others rely on a few minimal guidelines. A few countries nearly ban gambling ads outright. Italy and Latvia stand out for imposing blanket or near-blanket bans, meaning gambling commercials are almost entirely absent. The policy in these places is effectively “no ads, period.”
Several countries heavily restrict advertising. Six nations – Belgium, Spain, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria and the Netherlands – have implemented extensive restrictions. Belgium recently outlawed nearly all betting ads across TV, radio, websites and social media, while Spain allows gambling adverts only late at night. These countries have not eliminated advertising completely but have taken a firm, preventative stance, often described as “near bans.”
Protecting young people is a universal priority. Almost all 30 countries prohibit targeting minors. It is widely accepted that gambling advertising should not reach children. Many laws forbid gambling promotions in schools or youth media, and some impose “watershed” bans on TV betting ads before 9pm. This consistency shows a shared recognition that exposure to gambling ads at an early age increases the risk of normalising gambling behaviour.
Content controls focus on preventing misleading messages. Most countries regulate what gambling ads can claim or portray. Common rules prohibit implying that gambling guarantees wealth, solves financial problems, or is a risk-free leisure activity. Several nations ban using celebrities or cartoon characters who might appeal to children. These rules aim to strip away the glamour and false promises that often make gambling appear harmless or aspirational.
Where and when ads appear also varies. Many countries restrict gambling advertising on specific channels or at certain times. Common approaches include banning betting commercials before 9pm and restricting billboard ads near schools or playgrounds. Spain and a few others have also limited online promotions, particularly on social media. Some nations prohibit direct marketing, such as emails or texts, unless a person opts in, and a few prevent targeting of self-excluded or high-risk individuals.
Sponsorships and promotional offers remain a grey area. Only a minority of countries have tackled sponsorships, such as betting logos on football shirts or casino-named events. Some Nordic and Baltic states have banned ads for high-risk gambling products altogether, but many others continue to allow them.
Harm-prevention messages are common but implemented inconsistently. Most European countries require some form of warning or harm-prevention message on gambling advertisements, although the content, visibility and format of these warnings vary considerably between jurisdictions. Most do not specify size, wording, or placement; a missed opportunity, the authors argue, since clear warnings could raise awareness of gambling harms.
Regional patterns emerged. Countries often mirror their neighbours. The Baltic states have introduced stricter bans, while Belgium and the Netherlands are pursuing similar, nearly comprehensive restrictions. Southern Europe shows a focus on placement and visibility controls, such as banning outdoor ads near schools. This pattern suggests policymakers are learning from each other, though broader collaboration remains limited.
In summary, the findings reveal that gambling advertising in Europe is governed by a patchwork of national rules, reflecting differing political will and public health priorities. While most nations recognise the need to protect minors and limit misleading messaging, only a few have adopted comprehensive, enforceable bans, meaning that, across Europe, the odds of seeing a gambling advert still depend largely on where you live.
This study finds that European countries vary wildly with some banning gambling ads almost entirely, while others allow a steady stream of industry messaging.
Conclusions
In summary, the study (Marionneau et al., 2026) paints a picture of striking legislative diversity across Europe. While all countries accept that gambling advertising requires controls, the strength and scope of these vary widely, from near-total bans to lenient frameworks. The authors note that this “regulatory diversity can be seen as a natural experiment” through which nations might learn from one another’s policy outcomes (Marionneau et al., 2026). Although the review did not assess effectiveness or harm reduction, it clearly maps how each country frames the balance between commercial freedom and public health protection, providing a foundation for future comparative evaluation.
Europe’s mixed approach to gambling ads shows there’s no shared rulebook yet but plenty of lessons waiting to be learned.
Strengths and limitations
This review led by Marionneau et al., 2026 has several clear strengths that support the trustworthiness of its findings.
First, the scope is genuinely impressive: 30 European countries were included, with transparent reasons for the very few that were excluded. This broad coverage reduces selection bias and means the patterns described are not driven by one or two “interesting” outliers but reflect a wide mix of regulatory models.
Second, the methods are systematic and clearly reported. The authors used a pre-defined framework to code statutory, legally binding regulations and were explicit about what counted as “regulation” and what did not. That level of transparency reduces the risk of “picking and choosing” rules that fit a narrative and helps readers judge whether anything important is missing.
Third, they took serious steps to ensure data quality in a very tricky multilingual context. Laws were read in original languages or official translations where possible, and machine translations were cross-checked with native speakers or regulatory experts. Team double-checking and consensus coding help to limit observer bias: it’s less likely that one researcher’s interpretation has skewed the findings. The paper also reports findings in a clear, accessible way, with detailed tables and concrete examples that make the complexity of legal texts much easier to grasp.
However, there are some important limitations. This review provides a snapshot of legislation as written rather than an assessment of how regulations are implemented, enforced, or whether they effectively reduce gambling-related harm. The authors explicitly focused on policy adoption, meaning the review maps what countries have legislated rather than how those laws operate in practice. As a result, factors such as enforcement capacity, political priorities, industry influence, and regulatory resources are not captured. Consequently, a country that appears relatively strict in legislation may be more permissive in practice, while others may achieve stronger protections through enforcement and implementation than the legal framework alone would suggest.
The focus on statutory law also excludes self-regulation and informal practices unless they carry legal sanctions. In countries where industry codes or co-regulation play a major role, this could make the regulatory environment appear more laissez-faire than people on the ground actually experience.
There is also some inevitable loss of nuance from coding complex legal texts into binary categories (yes/no). Two countries with very different watershed rules or sponsorship restrictions can end up looking the same in the framework. Finally, although the authors declare no direct funding and no competing interests, their position within the gambling policy field may still shape which issues they emphasise; something readers should bear in mind when interpreting the policy recommendations.
Overall, though, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses: this is a careful, transparent, and reasonably robust map of how Europe currently tries to rein in gambling advertising.
This is a rigorous, multilingual review mapping Europe’s laws clearly, but we cannot be sure how well those rules are applied in the real world.
Implications for practice
For those working in mental health, public health, and policy, this review (Marionneau et al., 2026) offers an important reminder that gambling-related harm is shaped not only by individual behaviour but by the systems and messages that surround people. Every flashing betting logo during a football match or algorithmically targeted ad on a smartphone represents an environmental cue, and these cues can be regulated. Advertising is one of the most visible, and most modifiable, drivers of gambling engagement. The diversity of European approaches presents both a challenge and an opportunity for evidence-based regulation.
Professionals in prevention, education, and research should recognise that exposure to gambling advertising contributes to normalisation and can trigger harmful behaviours. This is particularly concerning for young people and those in recovery. Integrating awareness of advertising environments into public health campaigns, school education, and digital literacy initiatives can help individuals critically interpret these messages rather than absorb them passively.
Policymakers can use this review to benchmark national regulations against neighbouring countries. The examples of Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands show that comprehensive restrictions are feasible and increasingly viewed as necessary public health measures. Academics and practitioners alike can support policy debates by presenting comparative evidence and evaluating the real-world outcomes of different regulatory approaches.
The study highlights that European nations are, in effect, running parallel “natural experiments” in gambling advertising regulation. Researchers and policymakers should seize this opportunity for cross-country collaboration, systematically comparing outcomes such as exposure levels, gambling participation, and harm prevalence. Shared learning across jurisdictions and with an international scope could help identify which policies truly reduce risk.
The findings suggest that piecemeal or symbolic reforms, such as limiting only one advertising channel, are unlikely to protect consumers. Effective strategies must combine multiple measures across media, sponsorships, and direct marketing, mirroring the comprehensive public health approach used in tobacco control.
Ultimately, this review serves as a policy map of Europe’s regulatory experiment, inviting policymakers to learn from one another and to act decisively. Just as the introduction’s “channel-hopping viewer” saw wildly different ad landscapes, citizens across Europe continue to experience uneven protection from gambling harm. The challenge now is to rebalance the odds: stacking the deck firmly in favour of public health, not profit.
If we want to reduce gambling-related harms, the evidence increasingly suggests that isolated restrictions are unlikely to be enough. Comprehensive, coordinated regulation across advertising, sponsorship, direct marketing and online promotion may offer greater protection for public health.
Statement of interests
Elvira Bolat and Ruijie Wang have no conflicts to declare. They have no affiliation with the authors of the reviewed paper and no conflicts of interest regarding this topic.
The authors of this blog are members of the Gambling Research Group at Bournemouth University, which conducts independent research into gambling and its related harms. The group has previously received funding from GambleAware, the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG), the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms(funded by GambleAware), and the International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG). Members have also accepted regulatory settlement fund payments (RSFPs) for research exploring the impact of gambling advertising, following approval under BU’s Code of Ethical Fundraising & Donor’s Charter.
The Gambling Research Group has received match-funding for postgraduate studentships in the past, where external partners provided partial funding but had no influence over research design, data analysis, or interpretation of results. The group no longer accepts such funding now that the statutory levy is being introduced.
All research undertaken by the group is subject to ethical review at Bournemouth University. Outputs are made openly available through open-access journals or BURO (Bournemouth University Research Online), and datasets are shared where possible to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
We acknowledge that ChatGPT was used to proofread the blog post-writing.
Edited by
Dafni Katsampa.
Links
Primary paper
Virve Marionneau, Ellen McGrane, Daria Ukhova & Heather Wardle (2026). Regulations on gambling advertising in Europe: A comparative policy review. International Gambling Studies, 1–27.
Other references
European Business Magazine. Inside Europe’s €47.9 billion online gambling boom. European Business Magazine, last accessed 30 Oct 2025.
European Union Drugs Agency (EUDA). Key findings from the 2024 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD). EUDA website, last accessed 30 Oct 2025.
Gerada C, Wiltshire S. Treatment of harmful gambling in the UK: New review highlights worrying lack of evidence. The Mental Elf, 16 May 2025.
Pereira I.T. How is Europe reacting to the growth of the online gambling market? Euronews, 30 Oct 2025.
Statista. Gambling in Europe – statistics & facts. Statista website, last accessed 30 Oct 2025.
Photo credits
- Photo by Howard Lee on Unsplash
- Photo by Yuriy Vertikov on Unsplash
- Photo by COM on Unsplash
- Photo by Heather Gill on Unsplash
