By Filip Jelavić, Secretary General of HUPIS, mag.iur.
In a year when the regulator announced stricter advertising rules, a reduction in the number of physical outlets, a central register of excluded players, and payment blocks for unlicensed operators, Croatia’s online market looks more paradoxical than ever.
Instead of shrinking the space for illegal actors, this set of measures, combined with weak enforcement, has opened up even more room for them. Below, I explain why this is happening and how to break out of the vicious cycle.
Source: Telegram
What Is Really Happening in the Market?
Let’s start with verifiable facts. Publicly available research (EGBA) shows that unlicensed operators account for about 40% of the online gambling market in Croatia. That’s not a fringe figure, it’s a parallel market that takes nearly every second bet and click.
The consequence is clear: responsible gambling rules followed by licensed operators do not apply to a large share of traffic that leaves the system. AML, KYC, GDPR, AZTN and other compliance obligations, which licensed operators must bear are often ignored by unlicensed ones, giving them a financial edge.
Advertising Restrictions Target the Wrong Thing
The public debate revolves around whether and how much further to restrict advertising. On paper, fewer ads might seem to mean less risk. But in the digital ecosystem, where portals and platforms control their own user data, bluntly cutting advertising space often fails to hit the intended targets. Licensed operators will adapt and follow the new rules. Illegal ones don’t have to – and so they don’t. The result is obvious: covert promotional formats, affiliate networks, and “native” content leading users to unlicensed brands. The visibility of legal actors drops, while illegal ones keep the microphone. We’ve all come across a “Chicken Road” ad at least once and wondered what kind of scam it is.
Source: Reddit
The government has tightened advertising rules further, but without a parallel and robust fight against unlicensed operators, such measures have an unintended side effect: they push consumers toward spaces without identity verification, clear warnings, or accountability. That is the essence of the digital paradox.
Banks and Payment Systems: The Strongest Tool, but Used Inconsistently
The financial channel is the most powerful enforcement tool. If a user cannot make a payment to an unlicensed operator, they cannot play. Therefore, blocking payments to unlicensed entities is the right principle. The problem is consistency. In practice, there are examples of payments going through even after bans took effect, while the financial sector insists everything is compliant. Two conflicting truths cannot coexist. What’s needed is clear, regular audits with real numbers, not press release disputes. Without that, the wrong message is sent to the market, one that emboldens illegal actors. Experiences from other countries show that payment blocks and supervision can be highly effective, but they require persistence and public, measurable results.
Illegal Media and Platforms: Accountability Cannot Be Left Without Consequences
Another paradox involves illegal media and promoters. Promoting unlicensed gambling is banned by both specific and general regulations, and numerous reports were filed in 2024 and 2025. Despite this, online spaces remain full of promotional content for unlicensed operators, while publicly announced sanctions are almost nonexistent. This undermines the motivation of the legal market to comply with the law and sends the wrong message to illegal media and influencers – that advertising illegal operators is low-risk and highly profitable.
In summary, legal media lose revenue because they follow the rules and reject such campaigns, while illegal channels remain visible without any standards. Regulatory bodies here have two reasons to act: Protecting consumers – the very reason the law was amended. Protecting lawful competition and media that operate legally. Examples from Europe show that technical and regulatory measures can significantly reduce the reach of illegal promotion and preserve revenue for rule-abiding media.
Smart Course Correction
If we want to reduce harm and protect consumers, we must tackle the digital paradox at its source. This means cutting off the flow of money, access, and visibility to illegal operators and media – measurably and publicly. There must be regular coordination with banks and payment providers, with a record of every blocked and every missed transaction, along with published aggregate data. At the same time, the state prosecutor’s office and AEM should prosecute at least a few pilot cases against promoters and media who knowingly advertise unlicensed operators – because one public fine often achieves more than a hundred warnings.
The regulator should also clearly highlight who the licensed operators are and how users can recognize them at a glance. Consumers today often cannot tell legal from illegal operators, especially when the ad comes through an aggregator, social media, or native format. A publicly available and regularly updated list of licensed operators, visible trust marks, and platform obligations to use them in ad units would reduce confusion and misdirected traffic.
The fight against unlicensed operators must be publicly declared a state priority and linked to the fight against other harmful and illegal digital content. The parallel is obvious: illegal streaming and mass piracy also undermine legal markets and media. Where states have decisively introduced technical blocks backed by court orders and accompanying measures, results have been measurable. We even have our own technical solution ready to apply to harmful and illegal content – it’s tested and works in Western countries. It’s time to apply it here too.
Conclusion
The regulator entered this process with patchwork solutions and without a clear balance of interests within society and the industry. Laws should not be patched. They should be comprehensive acts with a clear direction and an implementation plan. Until that happens, new restrictions will continue to hit the compliant the hardest, while leaving the dishonest untouched. If we truly want to reduce harm and protect vulnerable groups, the first step is shutting down black money and distribution channels and ensuring consistent public enforcement. Only once that is in place can any additional advertising restrictions in the legal segment make sense – and deliver real impact.
