Restrictions on gambling advertising: when legal uncertainty becomes a threat to sport and reputation

The tightening of restrictions on gambling advertising raises not only the question of the application of the law, but also the logic of the regulation itself. The amendments to the Gambling Law in Lithuania, which came into force on 1 July 2025, have become one of the most stringent in Europe, extending the ban on advertising so broadly that it has affected not only gambling operators, but also sports clubs, the media, event organisers, and the communications industry. While the state's objective of protecting the population from gambling harm is understandable, there is clearly a lack of a clear and unified regulatory position on what exactly constitutes "prohibited advertising". This legal vacuum is unfortunately filled not by legal interpretation but by threatening public letters.

LKL case - voltage indicator for the whole system

The publicity surrounding the appeal of the Gambling Supervision Authority (GSA) to the Lithuanian Basketball League (LKL), which mentions a possible violation of gambling advertising and even possible legal action, raises serious questions not only about the form but also about the content. "This is the first time that a letter sent to a business or a sport sounds like an ultimatum rather than an explanation. This is particularly problematic when there are no sufficiently clarified legal guidelines," says Egidijus Langys, managing partner of AVOCAD, who also represents the Jonava CBet team.

The Authority says one thing and does another

The Gambling Supervisory Authority says on its official website that it aims to help businesses understand the new requirements and comply with the law. In reality, however, this position is not always matched by action: letters to sports organisations are worded in a harsh and intimidating tone, based on vague criteria and without clear methodological guidelines. "When a supervisory authority takes strong action, it is essential to make sure that it itself has sufficient legal competence and clear rules," continues Langys. Otherwise, the lawyer says, there is a risk of punishment for interpretation rather than for a factual infringement. This is a sign of an unjust state.

Where the law ends, interpretations begin

According to the lawyer, the relationship between gambling advertising and sponsorship agreements, sportswear design, the use of partners' logos and even neutral brands displayed on LED boards is currently being analysed.

"The law talks about advertising, but when the authority treats everything related to the gambling business as advertising - even the name of the partners on the T-shirt - it becomes a risk for the whole sports sector. And above all, it is a risk to legal logic," notes Langys.

Moreover, nowhere in the law is it prohibited to use the name of a gambling operator. However, due to the vagueness of the norm itself, the Authority does not invite dialogue on possible adjustments, but rather makes unilateral, often excessive interpretations based on assumptions rather than legal reasoning.

Recommendations - after the fact, responsibilities - whenever

Karolina Briliūtė, Senior Associate at AVOCAD, who works on the legal regulation of gambling, points out that the amendments to the Law on Gambling entered into force without any transitional period. According to her, the LPT did not engage in proactive and, most importantly, effective publicity measures that would have allowed companies, sports clubs or other entities to prepare for the changes, to adapt their communication, advertising or internal processes.

"Before the law came into force, there was no clear guidance on how to adjust. Now, after the fact, the authority is starting to provide guidance on what should have been done. And it is up to the authority to decide whether to punish after a week or after six months", says Briliūtė.

She also points out that the guidance on the LPT website often does not correspond to the wording of the law itself: 'one way of reading a legal provision, another way of interpreting it by the authority. This inevitably leads to litigation."

According to the lawyer, the amendments to the Gambling Act are confusing and difficult to understand even for professionals. "This is the responsibility of the legislative authorities. However, the LPT should help to interpret these norms, not interpret them in a way that suits the service itself. Today, it is reasonable to say: only the courts will give the final answers on these norms", says an AVOCAD lawyer.

Business is responsible even for what is legal

Langys points out that it is now necessary for sports clubs, event organisers, the media, advertising and media agencies to conduct an audit of all their communication tools:

• assessing the wording of contracts with gambling businesses;
• reviewing sponsorship strategies, especially visual communication;
• documenting every decision to comply with the law.

"Even if you do everything right but can't justify it, it can be an infringement. And that's a no-safe zone for any business," says Langys.

Law must be predictable, not repressive

New laws create challenges, but even more so because of uncertainty and inconsistent application. When public authorities adopt a communication style similar to criminal prevention but do not provide clear guidelines, this practice undermines confidence in the law itself. "We all have one goal - a responsible and fair gambling market. But we can only achieve this through dialogue, clear rules and constructive cooperation, not through pressure and preconceptions," concludes Mr Langys.

Today's most important issue is not addressed to sports clubs or businesses. It is addressed to the regulator itself: can the LPT responsibly and clearly justify its own legal positions before making threats?

"If there is no answer to this question, it shows a regulatory problem, not a business problem. And until this problem is solved, the risk of threats will not remain on the side of business, but on the side of the system that is supposed to protect, but today inadvertently creates a climate of uncertainty," says Egidijus Langys.