European Gaming Lawyer magazine Autumn 2016 | Page 23

3. Variety of Involved Parties including
White Label Operators
As mentioned above, the operation of a
gambling site in many cases is the result
of a collaboration of a number of different
stakeholders. In this regard operators
conclude B2B agreements with providers
for software solutions, payment solutions,
hotline services, content, (affiliate)
marketing or hosting and other services as
illustrated below:

Provider A
(Games)

partners of an operator including white label
operators. Furthermore, compliance as well
as appropriate documentation may have
substantial impact on the value of a company.
II. Compliance in specific Fields
1. Compliance with Gambling
Regulations
a. State of Residence
It is obvious that an operator should comply
with applicable licensing requirements

B2B-Contracts between
Operator and Providers

B2C-Contract between
Operator and Player

Provider B
(Software)
Provider C
(License)
Provider D
(Payment)
Provider E
(Services)

XYZgames.com
National law
applicable to
Operator

Provider F
(Marketing)

Customer
National law
applicable to
transaction with
Customer

...

Provider X
(etc.)

Applicable EU Law

National law
applicable to
Provider

Moreover, there exist white label providers
who supply part of or even all relevant services
necessary for the operation of a gambling
website. Such white label providers themselves
might have entered into contractual
agreements with respective subcontractors.
Due to the fact that the provision
of remote games in the internet is an
international industry with involved parties
in a variety of different states within the EU
or in third countries, the legal complexity as
well as the number of applicable legislations
and jurisdictions is substantial. Nevertheless,
it remains the obligation of the operator
of a gambling site to obey applicable law.
What is more, compliance with legal or tax
provisions can also be crucial to contractual

of the state where this operator is located
including KYC-procedures and obligations
under money laundering provisions.
Therefore states with a reliable and stable
regulatory environment remain a favourable
place for operators despite the fact that
additional licensing requirements apply for
the state where customers are located.
b. State of Customer
Due to the fact that a harmonised legal
regime within the EU for games of chance
seems unlikely within the next years, the
regulatory environment of all states where
customers are located remains to be assessed
and considered. This means substantial
additional efforts and costs for operators.

What is more, a number of European
countries have implemented restrictive
national laws protecting state lotteries or
monopolies which may not be in line with
European law. In this case the management
of a remote gambling operator is forced to
take a difficult decision:
Either to accept national provisions of
a state which might infringe European
law and the freedom of services with the
consequence that only a limited range of
games may be offered or customers of this
state are excluded completely; or
not to obey (wholly or in part) those
provisions with the risk that authorities
or competitors might initiate civil,
administrative or criminal proceedings
against the operator and/or the management
which – depending of the nature of such
measures – might be enforced cross border.
In view of the importance of such decision
it is crucial that this decision is taken based
on reliable expert advice and that there is
appropriate and sufficient