National Lottery: a privilege deemed unlawful
•
17 Apr 2026 •
Reading time: 3 minutes
The Constitutional Court has highlighted inequalities in the application of the rules, particularly those benefiting the National Lottery and certain establishments. It has called for a thorough review of the legal framework.
A decision that upsets the balance of the sector
The Constitutional Court has partially annulled a key reform of gambling adopted in 2024, highlighting imbalances that had previously been tolerated. In the spotlight: preferential treatment deemed unjustified enjoyed by the National Lottery, particularly online, but also certain exemptions granted to venues such as cafés.
The reform adopted in 2024 aimed to strengthen player protection, particularly for the most vulnerable. To achieve this, the legislator had extended the obligation to check identity to new operators, such as bookshops and racecourses. This check relies on the Epis database, a central register listing individuals excluded or banned from gambling.
But criticism soon emerged. Pubs and bars were exempt from these obligations, which the private sector denounced as a major inconsistency, arguing that these exemptions distorted competition and undermined player protection. The Constitutional Court ruled in their favour.
Cafés in the spotlight
In its analysis, the Court took account of the reality on the ground. It emphasised that drinking establishments provide an environment conducive to risky gambling behaviour.
The convivial atmosphere, alcohol consumption and easy access to gambling facilities can encourage a loss of control. In this context, maintaining an exemption for these establishments appeared difficult to justify.
However, the Court also took practical constraints into account. It has granted a grace period to industry professionals and the legislature. The current rules will remain in force until 31 December 2027.
The National Lottery divides opinion
At the heart of the debate lies the National Lottery, a long-standing player in the sector, whose special status has long raised questions.
Criticism has focused on two specific points: the lack of monitoring via the Epis database and the exemption from the age limit of 21 for participating in gambling.
Initially, the court upheld part of this exception. The National Lottery’s physical products, such as scratch cards, are considered to pose a lower risk of addiction. This distinction is based on the very nature of the product. The purchase of a physical ticket, which is a one-off and limited transaction, does not generate the same level of engagement as an online game that is accessible at all times.
It is in the digital sphere that the Court has drawn a line in the sand. The online games offered by the National Lottery provide an experience comparable to that of private operators. Accessible at any time and often designed to hold the player’s attention, they present similar risks of addiction. Under these circumstances, maintaining an exemption regarding identity checks or age limits appears unjustifiable.
The legislator is now obliged to act. It has until 31 December 2026 to rectify this inequality and bring the rules applicable to the National Lottery into line with those of the rest of the sector.
In the coming months, several initiatives are on the horizon. The inclusion of cafés in the monitoring system, the harmonisation of rules for online gaming, and the redefinition of the National Lottery’s status will be at the heart of the discussions.