With Finland set to dismantle its gambling monopoly in 2027, payment enforcement looks set to play an important role in preventing access to the black market.
A survey of 1,000 Finns found nearly a third (32.4%) consider payment blocks the most effective way to prevent gambling on unlicensed sites.
This puts payment‑based measures well ahead of both blacklists and IP blocking, which respondents expressed far less confidence in. Only a quarter (24.1%) believe that a public blacklist would work, while just 10.7% view IP blocking as the best solution for stopping play on unlicensed platforms.
Commissioned by gambling company Turtlebet in collaboration with research firm Bilendi in April 2026, the survey comes as Finland approaches huge changes to its gambling industry.
Veikkaus, the state‑owned betting firm, will see its monopoly dissolved as the country moves to a licensing model in 2027. Private operators will be able to apply for licences and with it will likely come new expectations on payments firms too.
Payment blocks and growing pressure on firms
Payments have always played a significant role in the gambling industry, whether protecting vulnerable players or preventing bettors from using the black market.
This role is likely to expand under Finland’s new licensing model, where regulators are expected to lean more heavily on payment controls to pull back the roughly 50% of players currently using offshore sites.
In 2024, Betsson Group faced a setback when its subsidiary BML Group was added to the country’s blacklist of unlicensed operators. The National Police Board (NPB) placed the company on a list that prohibited engagement with banks, payment services and virtual currency providers in Finland.
Under the new licensing framework, firms are likely to face tighter expectations around eliminating anonymity, verifying customer identity and tracking transactions linked to unlicensed operators.
As Finland prepares to open its market, PSPs, acquirers and banks are expected to take on new obligations around merchant categorisation, transaction monitoring and reporting.
Regulators may also ask for closer collaboration with payment providers to identify circumvention attempts, particularly as offshore operators adapt their methods.
Public confidence vs reality
Despite strong public support, payment blocks are not a perfect solution by any means. A lot of unlicensed operators rely on alternative payment methods that fall outside traditional banking rails, such as crypto deposits and offshore e‑wallets.
A recent case in the UK involving Revolut showed these limits. A ruling by the UK’s Financial Ombudsman Service found that the challenger bank failed to adequately support a customer with a gambling addiction, who repeatedly asked for their account to be closed or for access to cryptocurrency features to be restricted.
While Revolut highlighted its gambling‑block tool, the ombudsman ruled these measures were insufficient because they could be reversed instantly, and because the customer was gambling via cryptocurrency, the block would not have stopped the transactions anyway.
The same challenge applies at a regulatory level because payment blocks only work within the banking system, and crypto‑based deposits allow unlicensed operators to bypass those restrictions.
Learning from Norway
In addition to these limits, Finland’s decision to move to a multi-licensing model is not without Nordic precedent.
Norway has previously attempted to preserve its state gambling monopoly while relying heavily on payment blocking to restrict access to unlicensed operators, which put payment controls at the heart of enforcement.
However, the model has faced a lot of criticism from industry bodies over the years. In 2019, the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA) and payments processor Entercash challenged Norway’s regime, saying it conflicted with EU internal market rules and placed undue constraints on payment providers operating across the European Economic Area.
EGBA Secretary General Maarten Haijer also warned that enforcing national gambling borders online is “virtually impossible”, noting that payment restrictions risk reinforcing monopolies rather than reducing offshore play.
