Odeta Nestor, AOJND President: “The gambling market in Romania has the necessary resources to overcome the current challenging context and to remain attractive for investors” u1w1l
Odeta Nestor, president of the Association of Remote Gambling Organizers (AOJND) answered our magazine’s questions and gives a comprehensive analysis of the gambling industry in Romania, especially online gambling. 4i253b
Odeta Nestor 6t146v
Please tell us how is the gambling industry in general at the moment, and in particular the remote (online) gambling industry?
Romania was, after the establishment of ONJN, a model of gambling legislation, a fact recognized internationally. Unfortunately, in recent years, the authorities’ lack of action and coherence, as well as the hasty adoption of measures without consultation and impact analysis – are starting to show their effects. We are seeing undesirable phenomena such as the growth of the black market, a reduction in the number of licensed operators, legislative vagueness on key issues confirmed by the courts or the inconsistent application of rules such as those on self-exclusion – all of which have a negative impact primarily on players but also on the state budget. Although the experience of the last few years makes me cautiously optimistic, I still believe that the Romanian legislation remains structurally favourable, which will allow the industry to overcome the current context.
In the general press there are articles / reports circulating that disclose huge figures bet by gamblers in our country, in your capacity as AOJND President, please tell us what are the real figures of the online gambling industry?
According to the latest data published by ONJN, for 2022, remote gambling generated RON 1.096 billion in state revenues, more than twice as much compared to the previous year (2021 – RON 506 million), with an increase of about 7% in the number of authorized operators (from 30 in 2021 to 32 in 2022).
The press has recently presented data from the NBR (National Bank of Romania) on transactions carried out by gambling operators, showing amounts of EUR 2.5 billion in online gambling. This data only shows deposits made to gaming s, not withdrawals. Basically a player can make multiple deposits and withdrawals with €100. The revenue reported by ONJN is very close to the difference between deposits and withdrawals. So surely for deposits of €2.5bn in 2023 there are withdrawals of €2bn, which is not shown by the NBR data or the press. The important thing is to clearly explain the notion of amounts played, which is often misrepresented either out of ignorance or maliciously.
There is a massive turmoil in the market about players self-excluding. There is also a lack of player knowledge of how the law should apply to self-exclusion. Can you tell us, from your point of view, how the law should be applied with regard to self-exclusion of players from gambling, what should the application that is currently being developed by ONJN look like?
First of all, it should be pointed out that each online gambling operator offers the player multiple possibilities of self-exclusion from that operator’s own games. Players can self-exclude themselves for different periods of time or permanently from all of an operator’s games or only from certain games of an operator. This mechanism has been foreseen in the legislation from the outset and it is the online gambling operators who strictly implement these legal provisions.
The confusion created at the moment in relation to self-exclusion is due to the lack of clarity of the law as regards self-exclusion of players from all online gambling operators, whether online or traditional. For this self-exclusion to be possible, apart from the correct legal reformulation, a digital platform, built and managed by ONJN, is needed to make this possible.
In the meantime, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the transmission of Excel documents with self-excluded persons is illegal and poses a major risk that the database will end up circulating freely on the market, which would have a number of negative consequences. The danger is greatest in particular for those who should be protected, the self-excluded players, who could be subject to marketing campaigns on the black market by unlicensed operators.
ONJN has already organized several rounds of discussions on the topic of self-exclusion, on which occasion, as president of AOJND – the representative association for the online gambling industry, I presented a number of solutions to remedy the shortcomings in the current legislation on self-exclusion. Firstly, we proposed the creation of a working group on the functionality of the self-exclusion platform and we offered our willingness at association level to make two experts – one IT and one legal – available to the authorities for clarification.
Secondly, we have already proposed amending article 15 of Ordinance 77/2009 in order to add a legal obligation to use the fund allocated to responsible gambling to provide real to people affected by addiction.
We are well aware of the problems our industry has faced and is facing, what do you think are the future challenges we will have to overcome?
The challenges are manifold and include the risk of a growing black market and illegal sites through over-taxation, excessive and inconsistent regulation for populist rather than opportunistic reasons. Gambling advertising bans are one such example of regulation to be avoided. Incidentally, on the subject of gambling ments, it should be noted that they follow the general line that city halls draw for the face of cities. We often see references to what is happening in Europe, but in Europe ments may or may not exist depending on how the city halls want to present the face of the city, with no distinction between ments for gambling or for other commercial activities.
Among the reasons given by the authorities for the government’s crackdown on the land-based gambling industry is the overly strident presence of betting and gaming halls in the public space, with some operators self-criticizing themselves for not self-regulating. Do you think the remote (online) gambling industry needs self-regulation? If so, what steps should operators take to protect from future actions by regulators?
The online gambling industry is already self-regulated. This self-regulation is the general application of the best practices existing in the European countries in which operators conduct their business.
Moreover, in order to develop sustainable businesses, the industry can and must adopt self-regulatory measures such as: strict protection of vulnerable players (by implementing customizable deposit and loss limits, warning messages and notifications for long gaming sessions, easily accessible options for self-exclusion and setting forced breaks); transparency and responsible advertising; banning messages that present gambling as a financial solution; publication of the real odds and risks associated with each game; use of advanced technologies to prevent fraud and money laundering; use of AI and algorithms to detect problematic behaviour; identity verification systems to prevent the use of fake s; cooperation with authorities to report suspicious activity; creation or of prevention programs.
In your opinion, is the Romanian gambling market still attractive for foreign, reputable online gambling investors?
The market has the resources to overcome the current challenging context and remain attractive to investors. A decisive factor in this positive scenario is the legislative structure on which the field is based, which is, with a few exceptions, very fair and balanced.
More recent measures – such as the increase in the guarantee level for online operators to EUR 5,000,000 (plus EUR 2 million for betting) as of January 1, or the requirement to operate only through a locally established company or a company ed in the EU, EEA or Swiss Confederation that has ed a permanent establishment for tax purposes in Romania – put additional burdens, especially on national operators, which are smaller and have less capacity to bear such high level guarantees. The effect will be to drive smaller operators out of the market, with negative consequences for consumers, who will benefit from a smaller and less varied offer.
AOJND
At the moment, the gambling industry figures in Romania (according to the latest data presented by ONJN in December 2024) do not look great: serious decreases in state revenues, many gambling halls closed, the number of slot machines decreasing a lot (by the application of the latest regulatory measures taken by the Ciolacu Government last year and subsequently adopted in Parliament), the increase in taxes and guarantee, a significant number of self-exclusion requests, etc. In your opinion, what measures could be taken in order to strike a balance between our mission to provide fun/entertainment for the players, the mission to increase state revenues from this vice – state monopoly and the pressing need to protect and educate players so that all 3 parties involved: gambling service providers – players – the state – benefit in the long run?
Everyone has a role to play to a greater or lesser extent. Authorities and industry must be partners, as is the case, for example, in European countries. The most important of our objectives are shared. For example, creating a safe environment for players is an objective of the authorities but also of the industry because our business only works and is sustainable in the long term when our players are safe. To achieve this goal, online operators implement comprehensive safety measures, have implemented sophisticated player monitoring systems and use safer gambling tools and self-exclusion options. They monitor gambling habits and make regular player risk assessments. Authorities, on the other hand, must also contribute with clear rules. It’s a collaboration that helps to maintain the legitimacy of gambling activities and prevents players from moving to those risky, unregulated websites. There, in the area of unregulated websites, everybody has to lose, not only licensed operators, because players face higher risks and the state loses money from the regulated market that migrates to the illicit market. We all have a common interest in keeping gambling activity within the regulated area, making sure that players remain protected thanks to the significant guarantees afforded to consumers in the EU.
