Gambling addict found in favour of gambling company - Supreme Court applies Section 33 of the Contracts Act

On 1 July 2025, the Supreme Court published the decision "Nätkasinot".

A former customer (PL) had claimed that a gambling company should refund approximately SEK 5.8 million to him. In support of his claim, PL stated that the gambling company had been aware of his gambling patterns and thus his gambling addiction, and despite this had directed gambling promotional marketing towards him. PL gambled on so-called "one-armed bandits" (a digital version) with the gaming company between 2009 and 2014.

PL became a VIP customer in 2012 and was medically diagnosed with gambling addiction in 2014. Before he was diagnosed, the operator suspended PL as a customer at his request. By the time PL was suspended, he had gambled almost EUR 15 million and his total net loss was almost SEK 8 million.

In support of his action, PL invoked, inter alia, Section 33 of the Contracts Act and requested that the transactions be cancelled. This meant that the parties' activities on PL's gaming account would be cancelled.

Section 33 of the Contracts Act

Historically, section 33 of the Contracts Act has been applied very rarely and some may have considered it more or less obsolete since the introduction of section 36 of the Contracts Act. If Section 33 of the Contracts Act is enforced, the contract becomes void and the parties' performance must be returned.

According to Section 33 of the Contracts Act, a legal act may not be enforced if the circumstances at the time of its creation were such that it would be contrary to good faith and honour to invoke the legal act with knowledge of these circumstances and the party against whom the legal act was performed must be assumed to have had such knowledge.

The Supreme Court's judgement

The Supreme Court finds that the legal act between PL and the gaming company, i.e. that PL opened a gaming account with the company and played the individual games, took place without human participation through automated decisions by the gaming company. The Supreme Court also finds that, at the latest when he opened the gaming account, the company and PL may be considered to have entered into a form of framework agreement for future gaming and that the individual games constitute legal behaviour with contractual effect within the framework of that framework agreement.

The Supreme Court also found that the gaming company had collected extensive and detailed information on PL's gaming behaviour. The gambling data, to which the gaming company had full access, was used in targeted and outreach marketing to PL. It was found that there was an interaction between gambling data and marketing. The gambling company was therefore considered to have knowledge of PL's gambling behaviour.

The gambling data showed that PL often played a strikingly large number of games per day and that, over time, he bet increasingly large sums per game. He also repeatedly deposited funds into his gambling account each day, suggesting that he was trying to recoup losses. The conclusion was that, at least from the time PL became a VIP customer, the betting company was deemed to have knowledge that PL had serious gambling problems.

The gambling company was deemed to have engaged in clearly intrusive marketing towards PL through extensive e-mails, SMS and personalised bonus offers. This was despite the fact that PL, according to the Supreme Court, had serious gambling problems and was in an extremely vulnerable position. The gaming company offered one of the riskiest forms of gambling in terms of addiction, which was unfair in Sweden at the time. The Supreme Court found that the marketing was intrusive towards a person who in practice lacked sufficient opportunities to defend himself.

The legal acts from the time PL became a VIP customer were declared null and void by the Supreme Court and the parties' performances were therefore to be cancelled. The gambling company was thus obliged to reimburse PL more than €500 000, which was his net loss after becoming a VIP customer until his gambling account was closed.

Analysis

The Supreme Court not only makes statements on the almost forgotten Section 33, but provides guidance on the over a century old provision in relation to the highly topical subjects of data collection and automated (without human intervention) decision-making. Although companies use automated digital solutions, the Supreme Court states that this cannot be done without the responsibility of the underlying human actor and that the processing and use of collected data can be equated with actual knowledge and knowledge of a company for legal purposes.

Although some guidance is given on the circumstances in which the use of information about customers' behaviour and preferences may be contrary to good faith, no bright line has been drawn as to when gambling companies need to act against customers with gambling problems. Notwithstanding this, the gambling industry needs to review its policies and procedures for dealing with customers who exhibit problem gambling patterns.

It is possible that we will see more cases in the future where people with gambling problems make claims against gambling companies. How much impact the online casino will have in such cases remains to be seen, but it should be pointed out in this context that each case will be assessed based on the circumstances of the individual case.

The general statements made by the Supreme Court on Section 33 of the Contracts Act in relation to data collection on customer behaviour and preferences should also have a bearing on industries other than the gambling industry. There is therefore reason for companies other than gambling companies to study the judgement from the perspective of their own industry and identify any risk factors.

The Supreme Court's clarification that the opening of the gaming account should be seen as a form of framework agreement and the individual games as individual agreements within the framework agreement should also be indicative for other industries where customers have accounts and make purchases and orders through the account.

The online casino is an addition to the highly topical debate on AI in relation to the law. The case has been widely publicised since the application was filed with the lower court. The general discussion has almost exclusively centred on the ethical aspect of the case, while the legal aspect has been more neglected. The online casino is a case that illustrates how legal and ethical perspectives intertwine in our increasingly digitised world.