Lithuania Searches for Tools Against Unlicensed Gambling

Lithuania Searches for Tools Against Unlicensed Gambling

Lithuania is reassessing how it deals with unlicensed online gambling, a subject that has drawn renewed attention as offshore operators continue to adapt faster than current regulatory processes allow. A recent meeting among several national institutions signaled that the country may be moving toward a more organised and interconnected strategy, one that extends beyond traditional blocking measures and examines how information flows between agencies.

The gathering included representatives from the National Cybersecurity Centre, the Gambling Supervisory Authority, the Consumer Rights Protection Service, the Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control, and the Bank of Lithuania. External analysts from Debunk.org also contributed. Bringing these groups together reflected an acknowledgement that unlicensed gambling touches several areas of public administration, requiring more than isolated departmental responses.

During the discussion, officials raised concerns about the pace at which unlicensed operators are creating new domains. They noted that the number of offshore sites targeting Lithuanian users has grown faster than existing interventions can manage. The Gambling Supervisory Authority reported that it has become one of the most active government bodies in seeking domain blocks, having already blacklisted nearly 2,000 sites. Yet each time a domain is blocked, new versions tend to appear soon after, often making it difficult to produce lasting results.

Procedural constraints compound these challenges. Under current rules, domain blocks can only be implemented after court approval, creating delays that offshore operators appear to anticipate. While the regulator has gained additional tools, such as the ability to instruct financial institutions to halt transactions linked to blacklisted operators, the administrative steps leading to enforcement still take time. Earlier this year, new rules came into force restricting card payments to operators listed on the regulator's approved roster, adding another layer of control. Still, officials now believe that gradual measures may no longer keep pace with the industry's rapid adjustments.

The central theme emerging from the meeting was the need for a more flexible infrastructure. Representatives suggested that Lithuania must move toward a structure that can evaluate risks, track domain changes, and coordinate actions more efficiently. Automation was discussed as one possible avenue, particularly for identifying new offshore sites before they can develop a foothold. Officials noted that current detection relies on manual review processes and delayed reporting, creating a gap that offshore operators have learned to exploit.

Another priority raised during the discussion was data exchange. Different agencies hold information relevant to different parts of the online ecosystem, yet those data flows remain limited by the structure of current regulations. Establishing more direct channels between cybersecurity units, financial supervisors, consumer protection offices, and gambling regulators could allow the state to respond more quickly when an unlicensed site begins targeting Lithuanian users. A coordinated information model could also help track patterns that go unnoticed due to fragmented oversight.

Government officials stated they intend to continue promoting cross-agency cooperation, arguing that the issue extends beyond gambling alone. Offshore sites can create vulnerabilities across financial systems, data privacy, and consumer rights. According to participants, the response must operate across these domains rather than remain confined to a single regulator's actions.

The urgency behind these discussions has increased following the national ban on gambling advertising, which took effect on July 1. This measure significantly limits how licensed operators can communicate with their audiences. Some officials expressed concern that reduced visibility for regulated operators may create openings for unlicensed platforms to attract users, especially in online environments where promotion is subtle, indirect, or algorithm-driven. While the advertising ban was implemented with public health considerations in mind, it has also reshaped the environment in which both legal and illegal operators compete for attention.

This shift has made the role of unlicensed platforms more prominent. The adaptability of offshore operators remains a major obstacle, as they routinely change domains, alter payment routes, and use hosting arrangements designed to blur jurisdictional oversight. In the meeting, representatives noted that combating these strategies requires a structure capable of responding quickly, not merely acting after violations become visible. Blocking measures remain part of the toolkit, but there is growing recognition that they must be paired with predictive monitoring and faster cross-institution communication.

Another factor discussed was the importance of public awareness, especially given that licensed operators are restricted in how they can advertise. Officials noted that users often struggle to distinguish between licensed and unlicensed operators, particularly when offshore sites mimic the appearance of regulated platforms. Enhancing public understanding through updated guidance, improved labeling of legal operators, or clearer messaging may reduce the likelihood that consumers become entangled with unregulated services that lack the protections associated with dispute resolution and financial safeguards.

While the meeting did not produce a final set of reforms, it marked a pivot toward developing a more comprehensive response model. The path ahead is likely to include reevaluating procedural requirements, exploring automation for domain monitoring, and strengthening information flow between agencies. The involvement of cybersecurity specialists, financial experts, and consumer protection bodies indicates an effort to adopt a broader perspective rather than approach the issue solely through the narrow framework of gambling regulation.