Summary Norwegian payment-blocking
Games of chance without a Norwegian permit have become somewhat more difficult to access, but
the prohibition on facilitating payment has had less effect than was outlined as an objective in the
preparatory works to the amendment of the Act. Among other things, it was stated there that: 'A
prohibition on Norwegian companies offering payment services for online games of chance will make
a significant contribution to reducing the accessibility of such games of chance.' (Proposition No 80
(2007-2008) to the Odelsting, p. 19.)
We see from questionnaire surveys that some of the players say that it has become more difficult to
make transfers. In its own attempts to transfer money, the Gaming Authority found that several
companies had introduced third-party solutions which were perceived by many players as nothing
other than direct money transfers from themselves to the gaming company.
Games may have become more accessible to some people, in that third-party solutions facilitate
more use of credit cards for gaming. The questionnaire surveys we carried out in 2010 and 2011 also
suggest that more people are paying for games by credit card. The banks also state that the gaming
companies' use of third-party solutions makes it more difficult to maintain an overview of gaming on
credit.
The prohibition is a signal that the games of chance in question are not regulated by the Norwegian
authorities. However, the signal effect has been reduced in the course of 2011, because there is now
less media coverage than when the prohibition on facilitating payment was introduced. On the other
hand, there is massive marketing of gaming companies via a number of TV channels that transmit
from abroad. That the prohibition does not receive much attention is supported by surveys in which
39% of those who played games on foreign websites in 2011 said that they were not aware of it.
Surveys also show that, compared with previous years, the number of players on foreign websites
remained stable in 2011. The prohibition on facilitating payment may be able to prevent the
recruitment of new players to games not permitted in Norway. This is particularly so if the payment
solutions appear to be laborious or unworkable. However, this effect is to some extent undermined
by the fact that, on many websites, stakes are not perceived as difficult to transfer and by the
legitimisation of foreign gaming companies as a result of advertising on television.
Norway has probably become a less attractive market for small gaming companies and for companies
in the gaming business that wish to comply with national regulations relating to games of chance.
Norway is still an attractive market for companies with many Norwegian customers and sufficient
funds to offer alternative payment solutions. We see that some have pulled out of the Norwegian
market and others no longer offer payment by card as a payment solution.
On the basis of surveys and its own attempts to transfer money, the Gaming Authority notes that the
effect of the prohibition on facilitating payment was reduced in the course of 2011. We believe that
the Norwegian Ministry of Culture must consider making the prohibition on facilitating payment
more effective and we propose several measures:
* closer collaboration with the banking industry in connection with any amendments;
* access to the Norwegian Customs and Excise's Foreign Exchange Register;
* rejection of transactions based on the name of the gaming company;
* a reporting duty for the banks.
Adress: Storehagen 1b • P.o.box 800, 6805 Førde • Tlf. +47 57 82 80 00 • Fax: +47 57 82 80 80 • E-mail: [email protected]
Adress: Storehagen 1b • P.o.box 800, 6805 Førde • Tlf. +47 57 82 80 00 • Fax: +47 57 82 80 80 • E-mail: [email protected]