Spanish online gaming association Jdigital and players' rights group AEJAD have launched formal challenges before the European Commission against Spain's proposed centralised gambling risk detection system, arguing the mechanism is disproportionate and creates unjustified market barriers.
The complaints target a DGOJ resolution that would mandate a unified risk detection system across all licensed operators, replacing current decentralised approaches with what Jdigital describes as a transition from individual operator responsibility to mandatory centralised control.
Technical Complexity Under Fire
The proposed system employs XGBoost predictive technology using 62 variables to evaluate all active user accounts monthly. Jdigital argues this architecture places Spain at the most demanding extreme of European regulatory approaches, creating excessive complexity that ignores structural differences between gaming verticals like Póquer, Casino, and Apuestas.
“The regulatory transition from a decentralised model, based on responsibility and technical autonomy of each operator towards a unique, mandatory and centralised system defined by the regulatory authority”
— Jdigital statement
The association contends that uniform criteria and rigid thresholds generate high risks of false positives and negatives, particularly problematic given the inherent differences between gaming modalities.
62
Variables used in XGBoost predictive technology
Monthly
Frequency of user account evaluations
Procedural and Cost Concerns
DESCARGAR ALEGACIONES JDIGITAL
Jdigital criticises the consultation process, claiming the technical documentation submitted to Brussels was substantially more detailed than that provided during Spain's public consultation phase. This information asymmetry allegedly prevented stakeholders from making fully informed submissions during the domestic regulatory process.
“The internal regulatory debate took place under conditions of incomplete information”
— Jdigital submission
Implementation costs present another barrier, with operators facing an estimated €170,000 per licence to deploy the new system. This burden comes on top of recent investments made under existing regulatory requirements, potentially favouring larger operators while creating market entry barriers for EU-based companies with existing advanced systems.
Jdigital maintains that while technical innovation is not inherently unlawful, exceptional requirements demand reinforced justification demonstrating genuine user protection improvements.
“Technical exceptionality is not in itself unlawful, but requires reinforced justification”
— Jdigital position
Did you know?
€170,000 — Estimated implementation cost per licence
6 months — Duration of risk categorisations (renewable)
EU Notification Timeline
The TRIS (Technical Regulation Information System) notification submitted on 15 December triggers a three-month standstill period during which other EU member states can raise objections. This process allows the European Commission to assess whether the proposed measures comply with single market principles before implementation.
Data Protection and Legal Security Issues
The associations raise significant concerns about personal data protection under the automated profiling system. Risk categorisations lasting six months (renewable) create uncertainty around user rights to challenge decisions or secure human intervention when algorithmic systems classify them as at-risk players.
Operators face potential reputational and economic liability for managing decisions derived from models they neither designed nor control, creating what Jdigital characterises as an unjustified burden transfer.
Warning
Automated profiling systems under GDPR Article 22 require explicit safeguards including the right to human intervention and explanation of decision logic. The centralised model's 'black box' nature may violate these requirements, exposing operators to potential data protection fines of up to 4% of annual turnover.
AEJAD's "Black Box" Criticism
The Spanish Association of Sports Betting Players (AEJAD) has filed parallel complaints describing the mechanism as an incomprehensible system that violates information principles and creates strong asymmetry between operators and consumers.
“Black box”
— AEJAD description of risk detection model
After auditing the model through proprietary simulation, AEJAD warns of technical deficiencies that favour unjustified classification jumps. In low gambling addiction prevalence scenarios, the association estimates approximately four out of five flagged users would be false positives, stigmatising players without genuine problems.
“Strong asymmetry between operator and consumer”
— AEJAD criticism
The group criticises the failure to distinguish between chance and skill games, arguing this approach penalises skilled players by confusing intensity with risk. Additionally, the model ignores player economic capacity and multi-operator realities, potentially diluting risk assessment across multiple accounts.
4 out of 5
Estimated false positive rate for flagged users
15 December
Date DGOJ submitted model to TRIS system
Unintended Consequences Warning
Both organisations warn the restrictive approach could drive demand toward illegal markets, achieving outcomes opposite to the regulation's protective intent.
“Displacement of part of the demand towards the illegal market”
— Jdigital warning
On 15 December, DGOJ submitted the new risk detection model to the TRIS notification system, advancing the proposal despite industry opposition.
Industry Best Practice
Leading regulated markets like the UK and Malta employ operator-led responsible gambling tools with regulatory oversight rather than centralised detection systems. This approach maintains innovation incentives while ensuring consumer protection through audit requirements and outcome-based metrics.
Market Fragmentation Risk
The complaints highlight broader concerns about regulatory fragmentation across EU gambling markets. Spain's proposed system represents a significant departure from established operator autonomy principles, potentially setting precedent for similar centralised approaches in other jurisdictions.
For smaller operators and new market entrants, the technical and financial barriers could prove prohibitive, fundamentally altering competitive dynamics in Spain's regulated online gambling sector. The European Commission's response will likely influence whether other member states pursue similar centralised risk management approaches or maintain existing operator-led frameworks. The Brussels challenges represent a critical test of proportionality principles in EU gambling regulation, with implications extending well beyond Spain's borders for how member states balance consumer protection with market accessibility and operator autonomy.
