Germany Says Gambling Regulation Is Falling Behind Technology - What Changes Could Follow in 2027?

Germany's federal-state gambling regulator is calling for a more flexible regulatory framework, warning that new technology, business models and illegal gambling structures are developing faster than the country's rules can adapt.

The GGL [Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder - Joint Gambling Authority of the Federal States], Germany's central authority for cross-state online gambling, made the call on September 22, 2026, as it marked five years since its establishment. The authority wants the ongoing review of the GlüStV 2021 [Glücksspielstaatsvertrag 2021 - Germany's State Treaty on Gambling] to consider mechanisms that would allow regulation to respond more quickly to technological and market changes.

The timing is significant. Germany is simultaneously intensifying its fight against offshore gambling following an investigation into an alleged illegal online gambling operation reported to have processed approximately €5.86 billion in stakes between July 2021 and the end of 2023.

GGL board member Ronald Benter summarized the challenge:

"We supervise a market whose business models and technical structures sometimes change faster than traditional administrative processes."

For Germany, this is no longer simply a question of introducing tougher gambling rules. The emerging question is whether the regulatory system itself needs to become faster.

Germany's Regulator Wants More Room to React

Germany's online gambling framework was fundamentally reshaped by the GlüStV 2021, which brought important areas of online gambling under a nationwide regulatory structure.

Five years later, around 100 people work at the GGL. There are currently 129 licensed operators and intermediaries on its official whitelist, covering 229 authorized gambling websites. In 2025 alone, the authority conducted more than 600 supervisory proceedings involving licensed operators.

But the market being regulated today is already different from the one policymakers were considering when the treaty was created.

Artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency payments, prediction markets, new casino technology and increasingly sophisticated offshore operations can develop rapidly. Changes to Germany's state treaty, meanwhile, can require a multi-year political and legislative process.

Benter has consequently called for shorter decision-making processes and greater specialist freedom for the GGL to respond to market developments. German media also reported his concern that slow regulation can push consumers toward illegal providers.

The problem is therefore not necessarily a shortage of rules. It is the speed at which those rules can respond.

The Illegal Market Makes the Problem More Urgent

Germany's black market demonstrates why that speed matters.

The GGL recently welcomed a major investigation by Frankfurt prosecutors into suspected illegal online gambling. Approximately €5.86 billion in stakes are alleged to have passed through the platforms between July 2021 and the end of 2023.

The GGL says it supports prosecutors by sharing intelligence gathered through payment blocking, network blocking, advertising enforcement and investigations into operators' technical and corporate structures.

That demonstrates how digital gambling enforcement has changed. Closing a website is no longer enough.

But How Big Is Germany's Black Market Really?

The tougher question is whether Germany can accurately measure that market.

Research commissioned by the GGL estimated that approximately 77% of German online gambling activity was channelized through regulated offerings, with roughly 23% attributed to the unregulated market.

The €5.86 billion criminal investigation has now renewed industry criticism of those estimates.

The DSWV [Deutscher Sportwettenverband - German Sports Betting Association], which represents licensed sports-betting companies, argues that the scale of the case warrants another look at Germany's assumptions about the illegal market.

DSWV President Mathias Dahms said:

"Nearly six billion euros in wagers over two and a half years in a single investigation must prompt a critical review of previous assumptions about the size of the black market."

There is an important qualification. The €5.86 billion represents stakes wagered, not operator revenue, so it cannot simply be compared with market estimates based on GGR [Gross Gaming Revenue - stakes minus winnings returned to players]. The DSWV has also not produced a replacement market-size estimate from this investigation.

The DOCV [Deutscher Online Casinoverband - German Online Casino Association] has separately challenged the official picture, citing Nielsen data that it says indicate a considerably larger illegal share. As an industry association representing licensed operators, however, the DOCV has a commercial interest in the regulatory debate, so its claims should be read in that context.

The disagreement itself is revealing.

Germany has two related regulatory problems: reducing illegal gambling and measuring it accurately enough to determine whether policy is working.

Regulation Is Becoming a Technology Business

One of the most important elements of the GGL's review is its emphasis on data.

Germany operates LUGAS [Länderübergreifendes Glücksspielaufsichtssystem - Cross-State Gambling Supervision System], a central technical infrastructure supporting player protection and market supervision. By the end of 2025, 5.3 million registered players were recorded in its central databases. The GGL says Safe Server data from operators is also expanding the evidence available to supervisors.

That points toward a wider transformation.

The gambling regulator of the future may increasingly resemble a combination of legal authority, data-analysis operation and technology watchdog.
AI [Artificial Intelligence] can influence personalization, player segmentation, fraud detection and responsible-gambling monitoring. Cryptocurrency can change payment flows. Affiliates and influencers can move audiences across borders rapidly.

Technology does not wait for the legislative cycle.

Prediction Markets Show How Quickly the Boundaries Are Moving

Germany's concern is not theoretical.

In September, gambling authorities from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein met to discuss cross-border illegal gambling and emerging business models.

Among the products specifically examined were prediction markets, where users trade or stake money on whether real-world events will occur.
The regulators said new business models should be identified and assessed early because they can create difficult questions about regulatory classification and the boundaries between gambling and other markets.

Prediction markets provide an almost perfect example of the challenge.

Are they gambling? Financial products? Technology platforms? The answer can vary according to the product and jurisdiction.

By the time legislation catches up with one version of the technology, the business model may already have evolved.

In 2027, Can Regulation Move Fast Enough?

Germany's five-year review therefore deserves attention well beyond Germany.

The central challenge facing European gambling regulation is increasingly one of regulatory speed.

AI-driven products can evolve rapidly. Crypto can create new payment routes. Offshore casinos can change domains and infrastructure. Prediction markets can blur the line between gambling and financial trading.

The solution cannot simply be endless deregulation, nor can it be endlessly adding restrictions.

A more realistic direction may be adaptive regulation - legislation establishing clear principles and consumer protections while giving specialist regulators enough authority and technical capability to respond to new risks without waiting years for an entirely new legal framework.

Germany could become an important test of that model.

But success should ultimately be measured by more than enforcement statistics. The regulated market also needs to remain attractive enough that consumers choose it.

That is where channelization becomes critical.

If Germany can combine stronger enforcement, data-led supervision, international cooperation and a competitive legal market, its next regulatory phase could provide lessons for the rest of Europe.

Heading into 2027, the regulatory race may therefore no longer be about who writes the strictest rules.
​​​​​​​
It may be about whether regulators can evolve as quickly as the industry they are trying to regulate.

Sources Used

• Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder [GGL] - Fünf Jahre GGL: Fachbehörde hat sich etabliert und ist wirksam, September 22, 2026. GGL five-year regulatory review
• Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder [GGL] - GGL begrüßt erfolgreichen Schlag gegen illegales Glücksspiel in Milliardenhöhe, September 17, 2026. GGL illegal gambling enforcement announcement
• European Gaming - Illegal online gambling in Germany: €5.86bn probe, September 2026. Includes the German Sports Betting Association's response and Mathias Dahms' comments on black-market estimates. European Gaming report
• Deutscher Online Casinoverband [DOCV] - DOCV begrüßt Ermittlungserfolg gegen illegales Online-Glücksspiel und fordert Nachschärfung des Glücksspielstaatsvertrages, September 9, 2026. DOCV statement
• Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder [GGL] - DACHL-Glücksspielaufsichten: Grenzüberschreitende Strukturen illegalen Glücksspiels stärker in den Blick nehmen, September 2026. Covers cross-border enforcement and regulatory consideration of prediction markets. GGL international regulatory cooperation report
• WELT / Deutsche Presse-Agentur - Behörde will mehr Macht im Kampf gegen illegales Glücksspiel, September 22, 2026. Reports Ronald Benter's call for faster decision-making and additional regulatory flexibility.