Public Gaming Magazine May/June 2016

May/June 2016 // PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL //

pects of today’s society. We look at the Lottery activities but also how

Lotteries contribute to society. There are many EU policy areas that

are indirectly connected to this societal role. For instance, FDJ put a

scratch ticket on the market during the COP 21 negotiations show-

ing their commitment to the climate change debate. The debate on

sport and good governance has a lot to do with the integrity question

that Lotteries embrace.

B. Guzik:

In every EU Debate there is something to learn about

the relationship between the individual States and the EU institu-

tions. In the EU energy debate, the use of EU recommendations was

also an issue, like it is in the gambling sector. Our team has an in-

depth understanding of the EU processes and legal interpretations,

but some of us are also strongly connected to people in the various

institutions and EU social networks.

How many are on the Pharumlegal team?

P. Vlaemminck:

Our team is multidisciplinary and growing. By

September we will be seven persons working on EU, national and

transnational legal and public affairs matters. Most of our team has

an in-depth knowledge of the Lotteries and gambling sector. To that

we add a strong legal expertise in EU law, competition law, Data

protection and Anti Money Laundering legislation.

The transition from thinking of our sector as being based on the Lottery

“Model” to being based on Lottery “Principles?” What does this mean

and how does it reflect a shift in legal strategy?

P. Vlaemminck:

There is no real transition of thinking. We have

always been defending the 4 regulatory principles (subsidiarity, solidar-

ity, precaution and integrity) whereby the core competence remains

with the State. The model (actually the choice between a monopoly,

a concession model, licensing, or a combination of those) is the con-

sequence of the application of the 4 principles. Today we need to em-

phasize more the values that Lotteries represent. I think we are not

changing the legal strategy but deepening it further, enriching and

promoting it with the strong values, developed by The European Lot-

teries, that Lotteries share and which distinguish Lotteries from other

operators. There is an evolution from a rather defensive approach in

the 90’s to a more confident leadership today whereby we come to the

core values that we need to promote further, and promote together.

The political/regulatory climate seems to be slowly eroding monopoly protec-

tion of government-lotteries. What can you tell us about the way the politi-

cal and regulatory climate will be changing over the next two or three years?

P. Vlaemminck:

It will depend on the Lotteries how they will re-

spond to the challenges of tomorrow. They need to stay vigilant and

anticipate even more. I do not believe that monopolies are eroding.

I think that in the Lottery sector, the monopoly model is the most

modern and responsible way a State can respond to the changing

markets. Even the Court of Justice of the EU has recognized this.

But governments and Lotteries need to strengthen their cooperation.

Lotteries need to be the true partners of the state and advise them on

innovation in the gaming sector to stay ahead in the market. We have

always been working both with Lotteries and governments.

B. Guzik:

The Belgian approach, whereby the Lottery cooperates

since the early 90’s closely with the government in the EU Courts, is

a perfect example of this. We do this work in dialogue between the

State and the National Lottery. But it requires a long term vision. Of

course, every state decides upon its own policy and the model that will

best serve its policy objectives: licenses, concessions, public or private

monopoly is only the outcome of what is essentially a political process.

What legal strategies will you apply to optimize the position of govern-

ment-lotteries?

P. Vlaemminck:

We have defended Lotteries for more than 25

years now and we have been successful in doing so. Over the recent

years we developed the EU Public Order strategy, namely the Unity

in Diversity approach. We presented our ideas during Smart-Tech

in New York (1st stage) and further during the EL Industry Days in

Lisbon (global plan).

On the unity side there is the global acceptance that games of chance

are a special economic sector, where unbridled competition is undesir-

able, the societal risks are serious, and the fight against illegal, often off-

shore, operators, is crucial. Lotteries play a distinct societal role therein.

On the diversity side, it is for the Member States themselves to

decide about the structure of their market through a monopoly, a

concession and/or licensing model, or any hybrid model combining

a monopoly for certain games with licenses for other games, to en-

force their laws, to set the level of consumer protection, and to flesh

out the connection which is made between games of chance, their

proceeds and their goals, all in line with their cultural, ethical and

religious, and national public order.

This concept of EU public order emanates from the common con-

stitutional traditions of the Member states, and therefore should be

used as the reference in games of chance under European Union Law.

Can the model being employed by Lottoland and others be stopped? If it

is legalized betting in Malta or Gibraltar, and other jurisdictions have no

legal recourse to stop them from misrepresenting their product and selling

it as a lottery product online, how can they be stopped?

P. Vlaemminck:

Lottoland is this typical kind of parasite ap-

proach that does not contribute to society. The matter is first of all a

political question. Do States want to see these developments under-

mining their Lottery model? I do not think so. The awareness must

be enhanced and, where possible, legal action undertaken to stop

them. Lotteries must remain vigilant and confident that they are on

the right side. Their claim to be licensed and legal in Malta or Gi-

braltar is irrelevant. The European Court did deny that those licenses

have any value. The offshore matter is an ending story.

B. Guzik:

We also see it in other areas like taxation—the OECD

approach on BEPS and nowadays the Panama papers. Corporate

responsibility requires (multi)national companies to respect the so-

cieties where they operate. We believe even that it is necessary to go

beyond the classic CSR into the shared value approach. To quote

Porter & Kramer (Harvard Business Review, Jan/Feb 2011: Creating

shared value): “The principle of shared value, which involves creating

economic value in a way that also creates value for society by address-

ing its needs and challenges.” This is exactly what Lotteries do!

■