need more flexibility to fight against the illegal gambling providers, and that restricting their ability to advertise will only favour the illegal gambling providers. But the Court of Justice is not blind or naïve and they do see what is happening, issuing an interesting ruling last year: EU Court of Justice C-920/19: Advertising The advertising policy of a monopoly holder should not be assessed in an isolated way, but by taking into consideration the whole context of the gambling market and, in particular, the advertising practices of other legal or illegal gambling providers on the market. Any advertising content has not, in itself, an incentive effect on excessive expenditure in relation to advertising. It must therefore be examined whether the extent of advertising is strictly limited to what is necessary to channel consumers into the controlled gambling networks which implies an analysis of the proportionality of the commercial strategy of the monopoly holder in the light of all the relevant circumstances, and not an isolated analysis of an individual advertisement. (§47) The advertising practices of the monopoly holder, being part of its commercial policy, and the state control of the activities of the monopoly holder are only some of the elements that must be taken into consideration in its overall dynamic assessment of the existence of a state policy to encourage participation in the games of chance covered by the monopoly. (§49) Among the elements relevant for assessing the coherence of the dual system of organisation of the market, other than the commercial strategy of the monopoly holder and the state control of the latter's activities, include the increase in the commercial activities of the monopoly holder as well as the advertising practices of potential private operators (such as aggressive advertising practices by private advertisers in favour of illegal activities or the use by them of new media such as the Internet.) (§50 - §52) Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a dual system of organisation of the market of games of chance solely on the ground that the advertising practices of the lottery and casino monopoly holder are aimed at encouraging active participation in gambling, for example by making gambling trivial, by giving it a positive image through the use of the revenues for activities in the public interest, or increasing its attractiveness through eye-catching advertising messages that promise large winnings. (§53) It is encouraging to see the Court of Justice assuming the defense of the monopoly holder and saying, for example, that a national court must not focus its assessment on the specific advertising message of a monopoly holder, but that such an assessment includes an analysis of the proportionality of the commercial Digital Partner for Lotteries www.bedegaming.com Shortlisted! EGR B2B Lottery Supplier of the Year
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTg4MTM=