Fake press shops: the rule is dropped and the grey area begins

The Conseil d’État has annulled the Royal Decree of 2022, which strictly regulated sports betting in press shops in order to combat ‘fake press shops’. The high court ruled that the government had exceeded its powers by defining criteria that were the responsibility of the legislator. This decision creates an immediate legal vacuum in the gambling sector.

A decision that upsets the balance of the sector

The legal framework that was intended to limit the excesses of ‘fake press shops’ has just collapsed. The Council of State has annulled the Royal Decree of 17 February 2022, which strictly regulated sports betting in press shops. This text, adopted to curb the transformation of certain press sales outlets into quasi-betting agencies, did not stand up to legal scrutiny.

The high administrative court felt that the government had gone too far in exercising its powers. As a result, the criteria imposed on press shops for offering sports betting have been removed. The result is an immediate legal vacuum and a host of uncertainties for operators, regulators and gamblers.

Background to the Royal Decree 

To understand what is at stake, we need to go back in time. In 2010, the authorities authorised sellers to offer sports betting as a complementary activity. It was a difficult time for the print media sector, with revenues plummeting. But the model quickly went off track. Some establishments kept the press shop label while developing mainly – or even almost exclusively – a sports betting business. The advantage is regulatory: obtaining an F2 betting licence via a press shop is simpler than for a traditional betting agency. The system creates a windfall effect. Little by little, the number of bets on offer in newspaper outlets exploded.

Faced with these abuses, Vincent Van Quickenborne, the Minister of Justice in the previous legislature, decided to take action. A Royal Decree was adopted in February 2022 to set clear limits. The aim was twofold: to maintain an authorised complementary activity while preventing abuses.

The text defines a series of precise criteria. The number of betting terminals is limited. Gaming hours are restricted. An annual betting limit is imposed per establishment. Press shops must offer a minimum number of different press titles and meet a turnover threshold linked to the sale of newspapers and magazines. Finally, the proportion of total sales accounted for by betting may not exceed a certain percentage.

The statistics show a tangible effect. At the end of 2024, the number of press shop licences offering betting fell sharply: 1,281 compared with 1,812 three years earlier, a drop of almost 30%. The sector regulator speaks of a clear impact on licence renewals.

A legal counter-offensive by operators

But in the world of gambling, each new regulatory constraint almost systematically triggers a legal response. Operators are quick to challenge the Royal Decree. They criticised the text for being too restrictive, difficult to apply and based, in their view, on arbitrary or poorly justified criteria.

The case went all the way to the Council of State. More than a year ago, the Auditor General had already issued a severe opinion on the legal soundness of the text. The final ruling handed down at the end of January confirms this critical stance. The court did not rule on the political appropriateness of the measures, but on the distribution of powers. And that’s where everything changes.

At the heart of the decision lies a question of jurisdiction. Could the government, by royal decree, define what a press shop is and attach to it strict conditions relating to sports betting? The Council of State’s answer was no. 

In his view, the executive did have the power to regulate sports betting as an ancillary activity. However, it could not redefine the very notion of press seller through a series of economic and structural criteria. However, this is precisely what the decree did: by setting turnover thresholds, press stock requirements and business proportions, the government was in practice establishing a regulatory definition of the profession. In the view of the High Court, such a definition is a matter for the legislator, and therefore for Parliament, and must be set out in law – not in a decree.

An immediate and concrete legal vacuum

This annulment has immediate effects. The conditions imposed by the Royal Decree no longer have any legal basis. They can therefore no longer be applied or sanctioned.

In concrete terms, a press shop offering sports betting is no longer required, at this stage, to comply with the betting ceilings, terminal limits or turnover thresholds set by the annulled text. The framework is once again vague.

Another possible effect is a freeze on the granting or renewal of licences. Without clear criteria, the competent authority could find itself without a sufficiently precise basis for deciding on applications. A similar situation had already arisen before the 2022 Order came into force.

The sector points to the economic risk. Many sellers depend on this complementary activity to maintain their profitability. They are calling for rapid and legally sound clarification.

The ball is in Parliament’s court

Following the annulment, the responsibility now clearly lies with the legislature. If the authorities wish to maintain a strict framework for sports betting in press shops, they will have to pass a law explicitly defining the applicable criteria, while respecting the division of powers.

This promises to be a delicate task. It will be necessary to reconcile legal certainty, player protection, the economic viability of press shops and the proportionality of restrictions. Any lack of precision could pave the way for further legal action.

In the meantime, the regulatory landscape is fragile. “Fake press shops”, which the text was designed to eliminate, could take advantage of this grey area.