SBC News Voice of the Sports Betting Industry
Online gambling incumbents are witnessing a rapidly changing landscape across numerous locales on a global basis, with one particular European nation not immune to this swiftly spreading trend.
Belgium possesses the potential to be a standard nearer of responsible regulation, says Gaming1. However, the group’s home market must tread a tightrope of logical and evidence-based decision making, and critically avoid emotional and responsive judgements.
In addition to the above, Emmanuel Mewissen, CEO of Gaming1, and Jean-Christophe Choffray, Deputy CEO and illegal market expert, elaborate on why calls for well-rounded collaborative approaches to RG are needed now more than ever, how AI can help to educate, engage and maintain a secure and responsible gaming environment, the potential fallout from a loot box ruling in Antwerp’s Enterprise Court and much more.
SBC News: To begin, could you talk us through your current outlook when it comes to the Belgium online gambling landscape?
EM: Belgium’s online gambling landscape is at a pivotal moment. It’s a mature market with a well-established regulatory framework, but one that now faces new challenges requiring a forward-looking and balanced approach.
At Gaming1, we believe there’s a real opportunity to reposition Belgium as a benchmark for thoughtful, responsible regulation – one that protects consumers, provides legal clarity to operators, and remains agile in the face of technological and societal ecosystem.
We remain deeply committed to a legal, ethical, and well-regulated online gambling ecosystem, with true omnichannel integration between land-based and digital offerings.
SBCN: Gaming1 has been vocal regarding the perceived shortcomings when it comes to the country’s legislative stance. What do you believe is the greatest challenge to be overcome that is holding the country back?
JCC: The greatest challenge lies in the need to have a long-term strategic vision for the regulated market. The regulator should not have to implement emotional or dogmatic policy responses, because they create damage and are disconnected from both the behaviour of players and the realities of the market and industry.
This inadvertently weakens the legal offering, a balanced legal offer visibility, and strengthens the appeal of unlicensed operators who are not bound by any rules. For example, outright bans on marketing and communication channels create an uneven playing field.
We advocate for thoughtful regulation – built on transparency, digital innovation, and shared responsibility – rather than prohibition, which only benefits the illegal sector.
SBCN: Responsible gaming remains a core focus for Gaming1. Could you talk us through current initiatives being carried out in this domain, and touch on what tools/technologies are the future of RG protocols?
EM: Responsible gaming is deeply rooted in our DNA. At Gaming1, we’ve developed ROBIN (Responsible Online Behaviors Indicators) as our comprehensive and strategic approach to responsible gaming.
Think of ROBIN as an office suite – a collection of tools and services designed to educate players, encourage responsible behavior, and help to maintain gaming as a fun and healthy form of entertainment. Since its launch in 2019, ROBIN has been continuously evolving to meet the needs of a responsible operator in a digital world.
It goes far beyond a single AI-driven tool. While it includes technology to detect, prevent, and respond to risky behaviors, ROBIN also encompasses player education, employee training, self-limitation features, and broader support systems – all integrated across our platforms.
More than a regulatory safeguard, ROBIN is a societal initiative. It’s responsible gaming as a service. It reflects our ambition to address the online behavior indicators that are potentially problematic, not just in gambling, but also in adjacent digital environments like social media and e-commerce.
For us, responsible gaming isn’t a compliance checkbox – it’s a long-term commitment to consumer well-being through innovation, transparency, and shared responsibility.
SBCN: The importance of collaboration surrounding responsible gambling has been increasingly discussed. What major benefits do you believe could derive from an approach of shared responsibility?
JCC: No one operates in isolation within today’s digital ecosystem. When it comes to responsible gaming, a collaborative approach between public authorities and licensed operators is no longer optional – it’s essential.
Policymakers have a fundamental role to play in shaping a clear, coherent, and forward-thinking regulatory framework. At the same time, operators bring on-the-ground expertise, direct access to players, and the ability to implement tangible, innovative solutions.
What’s often missing is a constructive and continuous dialogue. Too many regulatory decisions are taken unilaterally, sometimes disconnected from actual player behavior or the realities of the market. A more collaborative process would allow us to co-develop truly effective measures – ones that balance consumer protection, ensure visibility for the legal offer, and reduce the attractiveness of illegal platforms.
Regulation, to be impactful, must be shared, transparent, and in tune with technological progress. By working hand-in-hand, both policymakers and operators can better anticipate and prevent risky behaviors, while building a long-term foundation of trust that benefits the entire ecosystem.
SBCN: When looking specifically at the illegal market, which has been a huge talking point across numerous regions, could Belgium learn any lessons from moves taken elsewhere?
EM: Absolutely. A country like Denmark has succeeded in effectively curbing the illegal market by combining strict enforcement of the law with attractive and accessible legal alternatives.
It’s about striking the right balance: if the legal market is over-regulated or stripped of visibility, players will naturally migrate to platforms that offer a better user experience, even if they’re illegal.
Belgium needs to learn from these examples and implement a holistic strategy – one that strengthens enforcement, invests in public awareness, and ensures that the legal offer remains sufficiently visible and competitive.
SBCN: Earlier this year we saw the Enterprise Court of Antwerp issue an eye-catching ruling concerning the illegality of loot boxes. Could you talk us through the fallout during the interim period?
JCC: The Antwerp ruling was significant because it expanded the conversation around gambling regulation to include major tech platforms. For the first time, we saw a court question whether global digital actors like Apple could be held accountable for facilitating access in its Apple store to gambling-like mechanisms, such as loot boxes.
The interim period has prompted intense debate around digital responsibility, platform accountability, and the blurred lines between gaming and gambling. It has also reinforced the need for better coordination between national regulators and tech giants to protect consumers – especially vulnerable people – from exploitative monetisation models.
SBCN: What major implications do you envisage for those that boast a presence within the digital market when it comes to these gambling-like mechanisms?
EM: The implications are significant. Digital companies – especially those operating app stores, video games or gaming marketplaces – can no longer remain passive.
There’s growing regulatory and public pressure for them to take an active stance on mechanisms that resemble gambling, such as loot boxes or pay-to-win models. For the wider industry, this means tighter scrutiny, higher compliance expectations, and potentially, a rethinking of monetisation strategies.
At Gaming1, we view this as a wake-up call and a unique opportunity to align the digital gaming economy with ethical principles. We hope more players will join this movement toward greater responsibility and transparency.
