Across our global industry, we often talk about policies that affect everyone equally. Gross gaming revenue tax rates, online slot limits and front-of-shirt sponsorship bans. But what about the policies that impact specific groups?
Cyprus is now considering a gambling ban for welfare recipients, bringing growing attention to the role of socioeconomic status in gambling regulation.
And it is not alone, even if this remains an uncommon approach across Europe. The Czech Republic introduced similar measures, while other markets have instead focused on affordability checks, deposit limits and financial-risk monitoring.
So what should regulators consider when designing gambling policies that protect vulnerable people?
From Cyprus to the Czech Republic, welfare-based gambling restrictions emerging in Europe
Cyprus is considering a gambling ban for welfare recipients, specifically those receiving Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI), with the immediate focus on land-based casinos and the possibility of expanding to online gambling and betting shops.
The National Betting Authority says it is technically ready to place GMI recipients on the existing online self-exclusion platform if legislation passes. For casinos, authorities have proposed a special card for GMI beneficiaries, although some politicians have warned that this could stigmatise recipients.
Poverty should not be treated as evidence that someone cannot responsibly choose how to spend their funds. At the same time, the underlying objective of these measures is valid
Officials say they have observed increased gambling activity around the time GMI payments are made and want to prevent recipients from spending their benefits on gambling.
Recently, the Czech Republic expanded its gambling exclusion register after introducing new welfare rules. The measures automatically prohibit recipients of the country's new living allowance benefit, along with members of their household, from participating in any licensed gambling activity.
So far, these two cases are rare examples in Europe of countries moving towards broad welfare-based gambling restrictions.
General population approach: Affordability checks and cross-operator limits
Meanwhile, other European markets are focusing on deposit limits or affordability checks. Germany, for example, has a cross-operator maximum monthly deposit limit that can be raised only on request and is subject to requirements including financial capacity and evidence that the player does not display problematic gambling behaviour.
The Dutch approach has mostly focused on individual operator limits and duty-of-care requirements. However, there has also been a push towards a more overarching, cross-operator approach to gambling limits.
These approaches differ in important ways. Welfare checks target a specific group based on their socioeconomic status. Affordability checks and deposit limits, by contrast, target the broader gambling population, potentially encompassing welfare recipients.
The stigma problem
Welfare bans can carry a degree of stigma by linking receipt of state support with an assumed inability to make responsible choices. Such measures risk creating the perception that welfare recipients are inherently more vulnerable to gambling harm simply because of their financial circumstances.
Visibility is another issue. As politicians in Cyprus have recognised, a special card identifying someone as a welfare recipient can itself be stigmatising. Even when intended as a protective measure, it creates a visible distinction between welfare recipients and other individuals.
The question of proportionality
Poverty should not be treated as evidence that someone cannot responsibly choose how to spend their funds. At the same time, the underlying objective of these measures is valid. Welfare payments exist to support food, housing, utilities and other essentials. There is a legitimate argument that the state has a responsibility to protect money intended to provide a minimum standard of living and to prevent gambling operators from profiting from severe financial vulnerability.
Ultimately, the goal should be to protect players from gambling-related harm across all financial circumstances, without treating poverty itself as evidence of vulnerability
The question is ultimately one of proportionality. Banning welfare recipients from placing an occasional €1 bet could be viewed as an unnecessary restriction on personal entertainment, whereas preventing them from spending a significant proportion of their welfare payments on casino or online gambling, indeed, justifies state intervention.
Categorical or risk-based restrictions?
This is where the debate becomes more interesting. A categorical approach effectively says: You belong to this group, therefore you cannot gamble.
A risk-based approach says: Your behaviour or financial circumstances indicate you may be experiencing harm; therefore, an intervention may be appropriate.
The first is considerably easier to administer. Welfare status is relatively straightforward to establish, and a blanket restriction is simple to enforce. But it can remove personal choice and treat socioeconomic status as a proxy for gambling vulnerability.
A risk-based approach is more complicated. It requires better data, stronger privacy safeguards and clearer definitions of financial vulnerability. It also raises privacy questions about how much information gambling operators and regulators should access.
The latter approach may offer a way to protect those experiencing genuine harm, not just financial harm but broader gambling-related harm. Ultimately, the goal should be to protect players from gambling-related harm across all financial circumstances, without treating poverty itself as evidence of vulnerability.
Outside Europe, Brazil’s restriction on welfare beneficiaries using licensed betting platforms took effect in October 2025, while several Argentine provinces are targeting gambling blocks for alimony debtors. But that is another story…
