Finland's long-anticipated transition to a fully regulated iGaming market is finally beginning to take concrete shape. After decades operating under a state
Finland’s long-anticipated transition to a fully regulated iGaming market is finally beginning to take concrete shape. After decades operating under a state monopoly, the move to a multi-licensing model is progressing, sparking discussion among industry stakeholders about its potential, practicalities, and key challenges. At a recent industry conference held in Valletta last week (early May 2025), a panel of European experts dissected the proposed licensing model, examining aspects such as marketing limits, localisation demands, and the mechanics of channelisation under the new regime.
With the timeline set for B2C licensing to commence in January 2026 and B2B permissions already active, operators interested in the Finnish market are closely monitoring developments. The fundamental question for many is whether the regulatory regime, as outlined, is sufficiently balanced and futureproof for effective implementation.
Cautious Optimism and Regulatory Dialogue
The initial reaction from many in the industry towards Finland’s model has been one of cautious optimism. The framework is perceived as avoiding some of the rigidity observed in neighbouring regulated markets, and early dialogue between operators and the Finnish regulator is reported to have been collaborative, suggesting a more open approach compared to some past market rollouts, such as that in Sweden.
However, this optimism is tempered by a degree of uncertainty regarding the practical execution of the regulations. Based on discussions at the recent conference panel, as reported by iGaming Times, while there is appreciation for the overall process so far, many in the industry feel that clarity is still lacking in areas deemed most critical for operational planning. Critical concepts, described by some as “regulation by suggestion,” remain undefined. For instance, clear guidelines on what constitutes “moderate marketing” are reportedly still needed. Furthermore, technical standards are yet to be disclosed and are not expected to be released until late summer 2025. Until these details are published, execution plans remain speculative, leading many operators to adopt a waiting stance before committing fully. This vagueness creates friction, even within a system intended to facilitate a smooth transition.
Regulatory Details: Strengths and Areas of Concern
The new licensing regime has indeed landed with a more liberal tone than some stakeholders had initially feared. Its stated willingness to begin with a relatively open approach sets the framework apart, at least in its initial stages. The early activation of the B2B licensing process signals a clear intent to establish a functioning white market well ahead of the B2C operator launch. Dialogue between the regulator and industry has generally been described as structured and responsive.
However, despite these positive aspects, the framework is viewed by many as being far from frictionless, with execution reportedly falling short where clarity is most needed. A major point of criticism, highlighted prominently in the conference panel discussion (as reported by iGaming Times), is the outright ban on affiliate marketing. Without this crucial digital marketing channel, digital visibility for operators is seen as becoming primarily the privilege of incumbents like the former monopoly Veikkaus, with their vast databases and established localised brand equity. Challenger brands entering the market face what some describe as a “bleak equation”: either be exceptionally creative in finding alternative digital visibility methods or risk being largely invisible.
Restrictions extend beyond affiliate marketing to limitations on other digital outreach methods, including influencer activity and podcast sponsorship. These limitations effectively create a digital “blackout” for new market entrants. In a digitally native country like Finland, some express concern that this opacity may do more harm than good by limiting the ability of licensed operators to reach players effectively. The resulting framework is seen by some as attempting to balance openness with caution but potentially leaning too far into ambiguity, particularly regarding marketing and player acquisition channels for new participants.
The Importance of Localisation and Player Experience
If one theme dominated the recent industry discussion on Finland (as reported by iGaming Times), it was the paramount importance of localisation. Experts stressed that Finland is fundamentally “not a plug-and-play market.” Success will not come from simply adapting strategies that have worked in neighbouring countries like Sweden or Estonia. Finnish players are among the most digitally mature in Europe, with high expectations for intuitive interfaces, instant payment methods, familiar design elements, and a culturally resonant tone in all communications.
Operators entering the market without a deep understanding of Finnish digital habits, payment preferences, and cultural nuances, and without implementing truly native localisation strategies that go beyond simple language translation, are considered unlikely to gain traction or retain users. The bar for player experience is perceived as high, and the tolerance for generic offerings is low. Effectively engaging Finnish players requires understanding the subtle “texture of experience” that feels genuinely native.
Channelisation Goals and Competitive Balance
The ultimate success of Finland’s regulated market will heavily depend on its ability to achieve high channelisation rates, effectively migrating players from unlicensed offshore platforms to licensed domestic offerings. Early forecasts have suggested a strong start, with estimates ranging from 70 to 90 percent channelisation upon launch. However, concerns were raised during the conference panel discussion (as reported by iGaming Times) that without swift and consistent enforcement against offshore sites and smooth, low-friction technical onboarding processes within the regulated market, that initial figure could potentially slump significantly, with some estimates suggesting it could fall to 50 percent by 2028.
Drawing lessons from experiences in other markets like Sweden, experts noted that strong laws alone are insufficient if offshore sites continue to operate unchecked and if regulated platforms inadvertently create friction for players. Factors such as slower verification processes, fewer promotional tools, and limited digital reach for licensed operators could inadvertently push players away from the very protections regulators hope to build. The current marketing restrictions, particularly the affiliate ban, also pose a risk of creating competitive imbalance. Legacy brands with entrenched databases and existing player relationships are naturally positioned to dominate, while challenger operators face a significant uphill battle for visibility and player engagement. If the system limits competition and stifles innovation among new entrants, it could ultimately threaten player retention and hinder the market’s overall growth and dynamism. The inclusion of B2B licensing, set to become mandatory for B2C platforms from January 2028 (with B2B licensing beginning in January 2027), is intended to enhance oversight across the supply chain, but concerns remain that unless implemented with flexibility and sector-specific understanding, it could add further bureaucratic hurdles without significantly impacting player experience or safety.
Responsible Gambling: Policy vs Practice
Responsible gambling (RG) has been placed with strong rhetorical emphasis as a key pillar of Finland’s new system. However, translating this policy focus into effective practice is seen as crucial. As discussed in the conference panel (as reported by iGaming Times), simply having RG policies in place is not enough to shift player behaviour; effective RG requires features like real-time detection of problematic play, robust identity verification, smart limits, and, critically, seamless integration into the overall player experience.
A concern voiced by some stakeholders is that RG requirements might be implemented primarily as a compliance checkbox rather than a fundamental design principle guiding the player journey. The paradox in regulated markets is clear: unlicensed sites often provide faster access and fewer interruptions. If licensed platforms feel cumbersome or overly restricted due to RG measures that are not thoughtfully implemented, players may be incentivised to drift back towards the offshore market, undermining player protection efforts. For RG to truly matter and be effective, it must be more than just a policy; it must be an integral part of the product itself, implemented with personalisation, precision, and high visibility across all player touchpoints. Done right, RG enhances trust and contributes to a sustainable player base. Done poorly, it risks becoming just another regulatory hurdle that pushes players away.
Timeline for Transformation
Finland’s transition from a state monopoly to a licensed market is unfolding through a series of carefully planned steps. As previously reported by iGaming Times, political pressure and the reality of offshore migration played key roles in triggering this move. The draft Gambling Act was released in July 2024, followed by a consultation period and an EU review process expected to conclude by February 2025. If the legislative path remains on schedule, the Finnish Parliament is anticipated to vote on the final version of the Act in spring 2025. Following legislative approval, operators will be able to apply for B2C licenses from January 2026, with market entry permitted from mid-2026 onwards. The staggered timeline means the B2B licensing process begins a year later, in January 2027, and becomes mandatory by January 2028, requiring all licensed B2C platforms to use approved B2B suppliers from that point. This phased approach allows Finland time to observe, adjust, and enforce regulations as the market develops, but it also means that the real test of the system’s success in terms of channelisation effectiveness, competitive dynamics, and comprehensive player protection won’t fully play out until at least 2028.
Outlook and Future Uncertainty
Finland’s proposed framework shows promise in its aim to open the market and enhance player protection. However, the weight of industry expectation and the challenges of practical implementation are significant. The following six to twelve months (relative to May 2025) are viewed as critical for the regulator to provide necessary clarity on technical guidelines and fine-tune marketing rules while remaining responsive to industry feedback.
Handled effectively, the Finnish transition could serve as a positive model for other countries considering monopoly reform, demonstrating how to open a market without triggering regulatory complexities or widespread channelisation failures. However, if the rollout encounters significant delays or if the rules become overly rigid in their interpretation and enforcement, the market risks defaulting to the same grey-zone patterns and channelisation challenges observed elsewhere. Ultimately, the success of Finland’s market will depend on its ability to create a system that not only ensures compliance and protects players but also keeps them engaged and within the regulated environment. Failure to achieve this balance risks Finland becoming another cautionary tale about regulation implemented without sufficient realism or industry alignment.
