Gambling Industry Leaders Debate Necessity of AI-Specific Rules

Industry leaders diverge sharply on whether bespoke AI regulations are required for gambling or if existing consumer protection laws and the EU AI Act suffice. The debate, covered in Focus Gaming News’ “5 Leaders – 1 Question,” reflects differing assessments of current enforcement, potential liabilities, and AI’s dual role in player protection and risk.

Participants include Gustaf Hoffstedt, secretary general of the Swedish Trade Association for Online Gambling; Catie Di Stefano, founder of Campaign Discovery System; Rasmus Kjaergaard, CEO of Mindway AI; Giulio Coraggio, partner at DLA Piper; and Craig Cornforth, senior business development manager at Epic Global Solutions. Their responses highlight tensions between prescriptive rules, enforcement gaps, and proactive standards.

Divergent Perspectives on AI Governance

Hoffstedt argues for outcome-focused gambling laws over tool-specific mandates. “Well-written gambling legislation regulates what is to be achieved rather than how it is done. It focuses on a desired outcome and rarely intervenes in how this is achieved. I am therefore sceptical of specific AI legislation.” He contends that existing rules already bar malicious targeting of vulnerable consumers, whether via AI or otherwise, and urges priority on blocking illegal operators rather than burdening licensed ones.

Di Stefano sees no immediate cause for alarm. “Right now, I think it’s good as it is. My opinion might change in the future, but today, I haven’t seen anything alarming for AI in gambling.” She notes the industry’s history of rapid adaptation, cautioning that regulations can stiffen innovation.

Kjaergaard counters that AI is already embedded in design, communications, and safer gambling tools at Mindway AI. He warns that litigation against tech giants like Meta over algorithmic engagement signals impending frameworks for gambling, stating the industry “cannot wait for mandates to force its hand and react. This isn’t a future risk, it’s today’s reality.”

Coraggio maintains that existing law is substantively sufficient but poorly applied. He flags that “operators, suppliers and affiliates may already be in breach of the AI Act,” with prohibitions on manipulative techniques distorting behaviour and exploiting economic vulnerabilities already enforceable. Since August 2, 2026, authorities can impose fines up to €35m or 7 per cent of worldwide turnover. A retention bonus triggered for an at-risk player or affiliate targeting based on financial distress could trigger liability that runs through the supply chain.

Cornforth advocates treating AI as an opportunity, not merely a risk. “Manual human review alone cannot realistically identify every relevant customer interaction or behavioural signal.” He describes combining AI with trained teams and independent lived-experience assurance to improve decisions and consistency.

The Enforcement Gap in Current Frameworks

The varied positions underscore a core limitation: even sufficient rules deliver little without consistent application and guidance. Operators, suppliers, and affiliates face immediate exposure under the EU AI Act regardless of new gambling-specific measures. This reality favours proactive compliance reviews over awaiting tailored mandates, with AI positioned to strengthen detection of risk rather than solely invite restriction. Regulators and licensees must now translate these divergent views into operational accountability before enforcement actions crystallise the debate.

Reporting: Focus Gaming News

Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.