Lack of player protection: €500,000 fine imposed by the ANJ 

The ANJ has issued a €500,000 financial penalty against an online gambling operator for serious failures in its obligations to identify and support excessive or pathological players. 

The sanctions committee of the French National Gaming Authority (ANJ) met on June 30, 2026, to rule on proceedings initiated by the regulatory authority’s board. The investigation targeted a licensed operator, referred to as “Company X,” which was accused of failing to implement the necessary measures to detect and moderate the behavior of at-risk players. The verdict, officially published on July 15, 2026, confirms the application of a €500,000 fine. 

Through this decision, the regulator reaffirms the importance of protecting public health within the gambling sector. The operator now has a two-month period to file a potential appeal before the Council of State (Conseil d’État). 

The seven risk indicators examined during the investigation 

The origin of the case stems from an administrative audit conducted by the ANJ departments covering a period from October 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024. Investigators analyzed data from the operator’s “digital vault,” which is legally required to record all user transactions and behaviors. A sample of thirty players exhibiting clear risks was thoroughly audited. 

To assess the level of failure, the ANJ relied on seven technical indicators derived from the regulatory reference framework: 

• The frequency of deposits made on the platform. 
• The high number of bankrolls lost by the player. 
• The overall frequency of gaming sessions. 
• The volume and total number of recorded bets. 
• Repeated modifications to the four legal game moderation tools (deposit limits, wagering limits, playtime limits, and the automatic withdrawal threshold). 
• The activation of the self-exclusion mechanism. 
• The number of different accounts opened by the same user with the operator during the given period. 

Insufficient identification and flawed support measures 

The review of the data revealed shortcomings across almost the entire targeted sample. Several bettors displaying an obvious pathological gambling profile went undetected by the operator’s tools. Others were classified at a risk level clearly lower than the reality of their gaming habits. 

Beyond the lack of detection, the graduated and proportionate support measures mandated by law were not correctly applied. For 25 of the players concerned, the company merely sent automated information emails, without taking concrete steps to direct them toward medico-social support structures. 

Worse still, the operator continued to grant financial bonuses and commercial advantages to individuals who had nonetheless been identified as vulnerable, thereby prolonging their exposure to the risk of addiction. 

In total, €43,966 in bonuses were distributed to 24 bettors in the sample during the audited period. 

Operator’s defense arguments rejected 

To contest the severity of the sanction, Company X developed several legal and technical arguments. It notably pleaded the absence of a strict legal definition of “excessive gambling” under French law and disputed the inclusion of completed or modified bets in the overall wager count. The operator also highlighted the fact that the average losses of the audited players had dropped by 28% within 90 days following its initial informative interventions. 

On the commercial side, the defense argued that the ANJ’s evaluation of the profits generated on the backs of excessive players was obsolete. The operator requested that only the direct net losses of the 30 players in the sample be taken into account, amounting to an exact figure of €190,501,86, rather than the overall volumes estimated at several millions. 

Finally, the company stated that it had implemented corrective measures since the audit period, notably by improving the performance of its scoring algorithm and strengthening its dedicated responsible gaming teams. 

The financial impact of the failures 

The sanctions committee dismissed these arguments, reminding that the duty of vigilance applies to every active player, regardless of the operator’s market share. Although the failure was not classified as “structural” across the entire platform, the intrinsic severity of the observed breaches justifies a major financial penalty. 

The statistical data retained during the proceedings illustrate the financial volumes at stake: 

Financial indicator of the case	Retained amount
Overall financial losses suffered by the 29 players	€683,355
Net benefits received by the operator from these profiles	€190,501.86
Final amount of the financial penalty	€500,000

This case demonstrates that a persistent gap remains between regulatory requirements and the moderation practices of operators.