Britain is no longer standing still on gambling reform. Since the 2023 white paper, the UK has moved to introduce a statutory levy, new online slots stake limits, and financial vulnerability checks. However, across Europe, there are useful lessons to learn from other countries.
The Netherlands shows how to make protection measurable
One of the most interesting contrasts with the UK is the Dutch approach to online gambling risk. Britain has already accepted that online products need stronger guardrails than the old Gambling Act imagined, which is why it now has stake caps of £5 per spin for adults aged 25 and over, and £2 for 18-to-24-year-olds on online slots, plus a statutory levy that began in April 2025. Those limits still allow players to bet on live casino platforms such as Highbet, but it’s more difficult to accumulate big losses like before. However, the Netherlands has gone a step further on those caps and in a different way.
From 1 October 2024, Dutch rules required extra friction at the point where risk appears to rise. Players who want to set a gross deposit limit above €350 a month, or €150 for those under 24, must contact the operator. The wider Dutch package also pushed operators to present spending decisions in a more neutral setting, display amounts in euros instead of chips or tokens, and remind players during sessions about elapsed time and applicable limits. The Dutch model shows that “friction” works best when it is visible, targeted, and tied to clear spending thresholds.
What makes the Dutch example useful for Westminster is that it already has measurable outcomes. In the eight months after the new rules took effect, the Netherlands Gambling Authority reported that the average loss per account fell 31%, from €116 to €81 a month. The share of accounts losing more than €1,000 a month fell from 3.9% before October 2024 to 0.9% after the new rules were introduced. At the same time, the Dutch regulator said the player channelling rate remains high, with 93% of players visiting only legal websites on a monthly basis in the first quarter of 2025. For the UK, that is the key lesson: policy should be judged not only by how tough it sounds, but by whether it reduces heavy losses while keeping most customers in the regulated market.
Sweden, Denmark and Spain show the value of one national safety net
The Netherlands is the country to look at in measurable controls, but Sweden and Denmark offer a lesson in simplicity that everyone should be taking into account. Sweden’s Spelpaus is a national self-exclusion tool run by the Swedish Gambling Authority, and it applies across all licensed gambling companies in the country. A user can choose exclusion for one, three, or six months, or until further notice for at least twelve months, and this exclusion cannot be cancelled on impulse. Denmark’s ROFUS works in a similar way, allowing users to block themselves from online gambling, land-based casinos, and betting shops for a 24-hour cooling-off period, a temporary break, or a final exclusion.
Spain offers another version of the same principle. Its General Register of Gaming Access Bans, the RGIAJ, is a nationwide exclusion register, and operators are required to check it before allowing a user to access online gambling. Spain’s 2023 safer gambling environments decree also sharpened the definitions around self-exclusion and self-ban, reinforcing the idea that safer gambling works best when the rules are clear, standardised and backed by the regulator.
For the UK there is an obvious practical lesson. Self-exclusion is most powerful when it is easy to find and understand and it’s broad in scope. The average consumer in difficulty does not think in terms of licences, betting shops, casino verticals, or overlapping regulators; they think in terms of wanting gambling to stop. European examples suggest Britain must move towards a single, unmistakable consumer journey for exclusion and protection, with less emphasis on industry-by-industry patchwork and more emphasis on one recognisable safety net that works across the whole licensed environment. British rule makers must accept that simplicity itself is a form of consumer protection too.
Spain and Italy show that advertising rules must be targeted and legally robust
Advertising is where European gambling law becomes most political. Spain’s 2020 royal decree on commercial communications imposed very tough restrictions, including limiting audiovisual gambling advertising to the 1am to 5am window, with additional rules for live sports broadcasts and stronger protections around children. However, this bold attempt backfired. In 2024, Spain’s Supreme Court partially annulled parts of the decree, leaving the broad direction intact while showing that even popular restrictions still need a sound legal basis and careful drafting.
Italy went even further. Article 9 of the 2018 Dignity Decree introduced a sweeping ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship, framing it as a measure to strengthen consumer protection and combat gambling disorder. Italy is an example that the toughest possible rule is not the wisest or easiest rule. Blanket bans look decisive, but they also create difficult questions about enforcement, sponsorship, digital creators, brand visibility, and whether consumers can still clearly identify the legal market.
That is where the UK can be smarter than both its past and some of its neighbours. Britain does not need a free-for-all, and it does not need to pretend that gambling advertising is harmless. But the best European evidence suggests it should pursue a more precise strategy: stronger protection around minors and young adults, tighter rules for high-risk products, hard limits on inducements and bonuses, and a clear legal rationale that can survive challenges. In other words, the UK should treat gambling law less as a culture-war symbol and more as a public-policy system. Europe’s best examples show that good regulation is not the loudest regulation. It is the kind that is clear to consumers, workable for regulators and capable of proving that harm has genuinely fallen.
