The Swedish Gambling Authority, Spelinspektionen, has initiated a preventive supervisory exercise targeting licensees that employ registered gambling agents, as part of its wider efforts to strengthen compliance oversight across the regulated market.
According to the regulator, the review will examine how licence holders ensure that agents continue to meet the suitability requirements set out in Sweden’s Gambling Act.
The supervision will also assess compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing obligations contained within the regulator’s existing regulations.
The review is based primarily on provisions contained in Chapter 11, Sections 3 and 4 of the Gambling Act (2018:1138), as well as Chapter 8, Section 1 of Spelinspektionen’s anti-money laundering regulations (SIFS 2019:2).
Three operators have been included in the current supervisory process: Svenska Spel, Trav och Galopp (ATG) and Svenska Spel Sport & Casino.
Spelinspektionen stated that findings will be published once the inspections have been completed.
Where supervisory action results in regulatory intervention, the authority will also publish and link to the relevant decisions through its inspection and enforcement portal.
While the regulator has not indicated any specific concerns regarding the operators involved, the review reflects an increasingly proactive approach to compliance monitoring in Sweden’s gambling sector.
The supervisory review follows several other regulatory initiatives from Spelinspektionen in recent weeks. Earlier this month, the authority proposed updated technical gambling regulations and launched a consultation on tougher responsible gambling requirements.
Recent court rulings on duty-of-care enforcement and new channelisation data have also highlighted the regulator’s continued focus on consumer protection and compliance standards across Sweden's gambling market.
Sweden's gambling channelisation rate was estimated at 84% in 2025, with betting channelisation significantly higher than online casino at 96% compared with 81%