Crypto Casino
Torrent Gear
Comparison with France and Spain
Italy, France and Spain are three large European jurisdictions with similar goals (protecting players, fighting illegal supply, sustainable tax revenues), but with different depths of tolerance for online products and very different approaches to advertising. Below is a structural comparison of key parameters.
1) Market legality and perimeter
Italy: since 2011, the main online verticals have been legal (casino games, slots, roulette/blackjack, poker cash and tournaments, bets, bingo, lotteries in the established format). This is one of the most complete "online perimeters" in the EU.
France: online perimeter already. Historically, betting (sports/horse racing) and online poker are allowed; classic online casino games (slots, roulette, etc.) were not allowed in full. The regulator periodically discusses reforms, but the approach remains cautious and phased.
Spain: A wide range of online products including casinos and slots are legal, subject to licence and technical/compliance requirements. This is one of the most "complete" markets by assortment.
Conclusion: according to the breadth of the online assortment Italy ≈ Spain> France.
2) Regulators and oversight architecture
Italy - ADM (formerly AAMS): licenses, technical standards, RNG/RTP certification, centralized monitoring, self-exclusion registers, blocking of illegal domains, fiscal control.
France - ANJ (formerly ARJEL for online): a single "behavioral" regulator with a strong focus on RG and advertising; approves the annual plans of operators, may limit offers and the tone of communications.
Spain - DGOJ: national licenses, detailed technical regulations, strict reporting; there is interaction with autonomous communities in terms of offline activities.
Conclusion: all three are mature EU regulators. Italy and Spain emphasize technical interoperability and telemetry, France - on behavioral surveillance and phased tolerances.
3) Advertising and sponsorship: three different "hard" models
Italy: After "Decreto Dignità," there is an almost total ban on advertising and sports sponsorship of gambling. Only narrow information messages are allowed (without calls, bonuses, links and promotional codes). This is the strictest frame in the top three.
France: highly regulated advertising, not "zero." Strict content requirements (RG disclaimers, restrictions on promotional rhetoric, sensitive audiences, etc.), active supervision of the tones and volumes of campaigns.
Spain: tough, but not zero model. Strong restrictions on placement time, formats, targeting and bonuses for new players; significant sanctions for violations, tight control over influencers/streams.
Conclusion: in severity: Italy (almost zero)> France/Spain (strictly, but with permissible windows).
4) Taxes and fiscal burden (in general terms)
Italy: basic logic - GGR tax with vertical difference, plus administrative fees/concession payments. The effective rate is palpable but predictable; the model stimulates a compliance-oriented operating system.
France: historically, the load was considered "above average" in the EU and had a specific structure (including special fees for different products). In general, the effective fiscal burden is more tangible than in Spain, and comparable/higher than in Italy depending on the vertical.
Spain: the national GGR tax on online verticals is one of the benchmarks in the region; additional charges/duties are possible. According to the perception of the operators, the Spanish fiscal configuration looks more "pro-growth" than the French, and comparable/slightly softer than the Italian one (depends on the food mix).
Conclusion: Spain is more often perceived as more predictable in unit economics; Italy - as "medium-hard and stable"; France - as "more expensive for individual products" with a narrower perimeter.
5) Responsible Gaming (RG), KYC/AML and Player Defense
Italy: centralized register of self-exclusions, hard KYC before lifting limits, logging sessions, RTP/RNG control, clear complaint/return channels, separation of client funds.
France: a strong behavioral paradigm of RG (up to assessing the "aggressiveness" of communications), developed mechanisms for a voluntary ban on play, attention to vulnerable groups.
Spain: national register of self-exclusions, strict age control, detailed technique for tracking activity and transactions, sanctions for deviations from verification procedures.
Conclusion: the level of RG instruments in all three jurisdictions is high; the difference is in emphasis: Italy and Spain rely on "infrastructural" RG (registries/technique), France - on behavioral and communication rigor.
6) Technical standards and integrations
Italy: certification of games and platforms, centralized ADM monitoring interfaces, localization of infrastructure in the EU, requirements for logging and DR plans.
France: emphasis on compliance with behavioral framework and transparency of product logic; for allowed verticals - strict technical supervision.
Spain: scrupulous technical certification, stable reporting and telemetry standards, tight work with payment gateways and anti-fraud mechanics.
Conclusion: Italy and Spain are "techno-strict" markets; France is just as strict inside the permitted perimeter, but the perimeter itself is already.
7) Marketing and GTM strategies of operators
Italy: due to the almost complete ban on advertising - a bet on CRM, SEO/content, UX/product, partnerships with media in an "information" format without CTA; impeccable compliance segmentation is important.
France: legalized windows and rigid style of communications; key - provable responsibility, moderation of tonality, correct bonus policies.
Spain: working windows are present, but they are "narrow"; brands with strong first-party analytics, moderate CPAs and a focus on retention instead of aggressive attraction benefit.
Conclusion: on public marketing opportunities Spain> France>> Italy.
8) Fighting the gray market
Italy: regular domain blocking, coordination with payment service providers and media platforms.
France: systemic claims against unlicensed sites/affiliates, work with platforms and hosting, "trimming" advertising channels.
Spain: fines and disconnections, joint operations with payment service providers, control of influencers/streamers.
Conclusion: the toolkit is similar, but Italy most "harshly" cuts public visibility by completely banning advertising.
9) Trends to 2026-2030
Italy: a point revision of advertising restrictions (especially around sports) is likely while maintaining the RG core; strengthening AI monitoring and unifying reporting.
France: careful adaptation of the perimeter of online products is possible, but while maintaining high RG requirements and strict control of communications.
Spain: stable "pro-license" frame with adjustment of advertising and anti-fraud rules; further KYC/AML digitalization.
Short: how Italy differs from France and Spain
By Product: Italy ≈ Spain (wide online)> France (narrow online).
By ad: Italy (near total ban)> France/Spain (strict but allowed)
According to fiscal logic: the GGR approach is everywhere, but Spain is more often perceived as "softer" in the unit economy, Italy is "medium hard and stable," France is "more expensive" with a narrower perimeter.
By RG focus: Italy and Spain have strong system tools (registries/technique); France has a special emphasis on behavior and communication.
For the operator, this means: Italy - about "compliance-by-default" and product/retention instead of advertising; Spain - about the scale with tough but predictable promo windows; France - about a niche strategy in a narrow perimeter with emphasized responsibility and high fiscal discipline.