Skip to main content
BMC is moving to Springer Nature Link. Visit this journal in its new home.
Download PDF
Download ePub

Impact of Spanish gambling regulations on online gambling behavior and marketing strategies

Harm Reduction Journal volume 22, Article number: 107 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

A large body of research has pointed out that advertising has an impact on gambling behavior. However, little is known about how actual gambling marketing regulations impact online gambling behavior and marketing expenditure. Recently, a Spanish law—the Royal Decree 958/2020—came into force, which, in general terms, limits the marketing of gambling products. The current study aimed to examine the effect of the Spanish Royal Decree 958/2020 on gambling behavior (i.e., new accounts, active accounts, deposits, and total money bet) and marketing expenditure (i.e., advertising, bonuses, affiliation, and sponsorship) based on data from the Directorate General for Regulation of Gambling.

Methods

We used Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) models to examine the impact of the implementation of Royal Decree 958/2020 on both online gambling behavior and marketing expenditure.

Results

The entry into force of the Spanish Royal Decree (applied between November 2020 and August 2021) led to a permanent decrease in gambling behavior, in particular new accounts (-263k; p = .003) and total money bet (-€216M; p = .034). Additionally, regulatory measures had an impact on marketing strategies, specifically, reducing money earmarked for advertising (-€20M; p = .004), bonuses (-€2.6M; p = .048), and sponsorship (-€5.3M; p < .001).

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that regulatory measures aimed at limiting gambling advertising, bonuses, and sponsorships impact new accounts (i.e., new gamblers) and total money gambled, but hardly active accounts (i.e., regular gamblers). This study can serve as a model for countries where gambling advertisements have not yet been regulated.

Background

Gambling, a widespread social activity worldwide, is a highly addictive activity and is recognized as a behavioral disorder with significant public health implications, defined by persistent, compulsive, and maladaptive gambling patterns continuing despite clinically significant consequences (e.g., job loss, impairment of important personal relationships, financial debt, and emotional distress) [1]. Gambling entails important consequences in terms of mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety), including substance use [2, 3]. However, gambling not only has an impact on the health of gamblers but also has a significant social impact [4], as it affects personal and family relationships [5, 6], academic performance [7], and can have serious financial consequences [8]. Consequently, interest in studying this addictive behavior has arisen in recent years to mitigate its impact on individuals’ well-being and their relatives, particularly among adolescents and young people.

In the Spanish general population aged 15 to 64, past-year gambling participation reached 53.8%, with 52.9% engaging in offline gambling and 5.5% in online gambling. Online gambling refers to the act of betting or wagering on games, sports, or events via the Internet, typically through websites or platforms offering several forms of gambling activities. Among offline gambling activities, lotteries (e.g., the EuroMillions lottery) were the most prevalent (99.0%), followed by instant lotteries, such as scratch cards (30.9%), and pool betting (11.7%). On the contrary, online gambling was primarily characterized by sports betting (36.0%), followed by lotteries (the same as offline lotteries) (33.0%) and card games (e.g., blackjack, poker) (19.2%). In contrast, gambling participation among adolescents exhibited distinct patterns. Specifically, 21.5% reported gambling in the past year, with 17.7% engaging in offline gambling and 10.7% in online gambling. Among offline gambling activities in the adolescent population, lotteries were the most prevalent (40.6%), followed by bingo (35.9%) and instant lotteries (33.6%). In the online modality, the most common forms of gambling were video games with gambling elements (i.e., loot boxes) (51.5%), sports betting (35.2%), and cryptocurrency (26.8%) [9]. Notably, in Spain, most gambling activities are regulated and require a license, including betting exchanges, competitions, bingo, blackjack, poker, slot machines, and roulette, among others [10]. As of now, a total of 77 licensed operators are authorized to offer online gambling services in the country [11], and to our knowledge, there is an absence of reliable data concerning the extent of the unregulated or illegal gambling market.

Traditional frameworks present an idiosyncratic model, focusing on the study of individual variables, such as sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, socioeconomic status), psychological variables (e.g., impulsive choice, mental health), or gambling-related variables (e.g., type of gambling), to explain the mechanism underlying the development of a gambling disorder [2, 3, 12]. However, recent research has attempted to understand gambling from a broader perspective by analyzing contextual, commercial, sociocultural, and environmental variables [13,14,15,16]. One such variable is gambling marketing, which includes advertising, promotion (i.e., bonus), affiliate programs, and sponsorship.

A large body of research has shown that marketing has an impact on gambling behavior [17, 18], particularly among vulnerable populations, such as young people [19] and individuals with gambling disorder [20,21,22,23]. Studies have consistently shown that advertising leads to the normalization of gambling [24], increases loss of control, and reduces risk perception [25]. Moreover, advertising increases the probability of gambling, the time spent gambling, the gambling frequency, the amount of money gambled, and problem gambling [17, 23, 26, 27].

Several variables might explain the impact of advertising on gambling behavior. Both quantitative and qualitative studies report that one of the marketing strategies that most impact gambling behavior is bonuses, which include personalized promotions (e.g., free bets) at a specific time (e.g., in the next hour) [26, 28,29,30]. Furthermore, online gambling advertisements (e.g., websites, pop-ups, social media) have a greater impact on gambling behavior compared to traditional media (e.g., TV) [31], given their interactivity (e.g., direct access to the webpage) and how they adapt to the characteristics of the person (e.g., their gambling behavior, age, gender) [32, 33].

In the field of substance use, regulatory measures, such as price adjustments, marketing restrictions, and limited accessibility (e.g., prohibition for minors), have demonstrated a significant impact on substance consumption, including tobacco [34,35,36], alcohol [37, 38], and sugary beverages [39]. In this line, several studies have called for the need to conduct legislative measures to regulate gambling, with special emphasis on advertising, promotion, and sponsorship [40,41,42,43].

To our knowledge, there are very few studies that examine the impact of regulatory measures on gambling behavior. On one hand, several studies have examined the effect of the ban on electronic gaming machines in Norway on gambling, concluding that gambling participation, frequency, and related problems were significantly reduced [44,45,46,47,48]. On the other hand, Planzer et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between gambling policies and gambling disorder in Europe and found that there is no association between prohibitions against online gambling and the minimum age for engaging in gambling and developing gambling disorders [49]. It is worth noting that the study was carried out in 2014, and since then, gambling legislation has been meaningfully modified. Recently, a preliminary descriptive report concluded that regulatory measures on marketing strategies in the Netherlands have led to a reduction in advertising and visits by non-gamblers. However, no decrease in gambling frequency among gamblers has been observed [50]. Other studies have analyzed the effectiveness of several harm reduction measures, including self-exclusion systems, on-screen messages, the removal of ATMs, and the implementation of maximum bet amounts, among others [51,52,53]. Although these studies do not examine the impact of a specific law, the measures mentioned are effective in reducing harm to gamblers and could be included within legal regulations.

In this vein, Spain enacted Royal Decree 958/2020 in November 2020 [54], a law that regulates, on the one hand, the conditions under which gambling operators can conduct advertising, sponsorship, promotion, or any other form of commercial communication of their activity; and on the other hand, the conditions to develop certain responsible gambling policies and the protection of gamblers. Specifically, the Royal Decree includes restrictions on advertising, with radio, television, and video platforms (e.g., YouTube) limited to the hours between 1 am and 5 am. The use of celebrities in commercial communications is prohibited, as well as sponsorship of sports teams (e.g., on shirts or in stadiums). Additionally, promotions aimed at attracting new customers are banned. Gambling operators are required to identify at-risk gamblers and implement and promote self-exclusion systems. Furthermore, deposit limits are set, capping the amount a gambler can deposit at €600 per day, €1,500 per week, and €3,000 per month.

The current study aimed to examine the effect of the Spanish Royal Decree 958/2020 on gambling behavior (i.e., new accounts, active accounts, deposits, and total money bet) and marketing expenditure (i.e., advertising, bonuses, affiliation, and sponsorship) using official data from the Directorate General for Regulation of Gambling, which is part of the Spanish Ministry of Consumer Affairs.

Methods

Data sources

The Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling (Dirección General de Ordenación de Juego), within the Spanish Ministry of Consumer Affairs, provides quarterly data on the online gambling market throughout Spain. The dataset comprises the activities performed by licensed gambling operators in Spain. These online gambling data were collected from company reports and aggregated by the Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling. This study employs a time series covering data from January 2013 to December 2023.

Study variables

The study considered eight dependent variables, four of which related to online gambling behavior and the remaining four related to marketing strategies.

The gambling behavior-related variables included the following: (1) active accounts, that is, the number of accounts in which at least one bet has been placed in a month; (2) new accounts, that is, the number of new user registrations in which at least one deposit has been made; (3) deposits, i.e., the total amount of money (in euros) credited into gambling accounts; and (4) the total amount of money bet (in euros), that is, the total expenditure bet by gamblers to participate in gambling. The total amount bet is not a reflection of the real expenditure, since part of the participation comes from prizes won and bonuses.

Marketing-related variables were: (1) advertising expenditures, that is, total amounts spent by gambling operators to spread their brand and/or services through the traditional media or the Internet; (2) bonus expenditures, which is the total amounts spent by gambling operators to promote participation in gambling, as well as customer loyalty through released bonuses, discounts and similar mechanisms; (3) sponsorship expenditures, that is, total amounts spent by gambling operators in the financing of goods, activities or events, to promote its name, brand, image, activities or products; and (4) affiliation expenditures, which is the total amounts spent by gambling operators on individuals promoting their services and products and diverting traffic from their digital media (e.g., streaming channel) to the gambling operators’ websites.

Given that the regulations contained in the Royal Decree came into force progressively from its approval in November 2020 until August 2021, an event (independent variable) was considered for each quarter for the last quarter of 2020 and the first three quarters of 2021. In other words, the study’s independent variables consisted of four possible events related to the Royal Decree 958/2020 implementation, in particular, (1) October – December 2020 (Q4 2020), (2) January – March 2021 (Q1 2021), (3) April – June 2021 (Q2 2021), and (4) July – September 2021 (Q3 2021).

Statistical analysis

The dependent variables are expressed in total amounts (e.g., accounts or money) per quarter, with the only exception of the active accounts variable, where the monthly average is used to avoid overestimating this value (as many active accounts remain the same across quarters). Descriptive analyses (Table 1) were conducted to calculate the sum of each dependent variable for each year, spanning from 2013 to 2023, with the variables grouped by year, with the exception of active accounts, which are expressed as a monthly average.

Table 1 Number of new and active accounts, total money bet, and marketing-related variables (i.e., advertising, bonus, affiliation and sponsorship)
Full size table

A Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) model was used to evaluate the impact of the gambling law on online gambling behavior and marketing expenditure [55]. SARIMA models are highly versatile and efficient for time series analysis [56, 57], making them particularly suitable for studies on addictive behaviors [58,59,60,61,62,63]. The stationarity of the time series was evaluated with the Dickey-Fuller Generalized Least Squares (DF-GLS) to estimate the differencing parameter in the SARIMA model (see Supplementary Material) [64]. Once the SARIMA model parameters were estimated, and considering the difficulty in fixing a specific time point when the Royal Decree 958/2020 had an effect due to its progressive implementation, different combinations of independent variables (i.e., four quarters during which Royal Decree 958/2020 was applied) were tested exploratorily [65], considering these independent variables as both pulse (temporary effect) and step (permanent effect) functions. The resulting models that exhibited the best fit to the empirical data, as determined by R² and RMSE, were selected. The model residuals were tested using the Box-Ljung Q statistics. Additionally, financial variables, including marketing expenditure, deposits, and total money bet, were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data from the National Statistics Institute of Spain, with January 2013 as the reference value (see https://www.ine.es/). The effect of COVID-19 between the second quarter of 2020 and the second quarter of 2021 was controlled as an independent variable in the model. This effect was studied due to its potential influence on gambling behavior, as evidenced by previous studies [66]. In this regard, the first stay-at-home order was implemented in mid-March 2020, resulting in the temporary closure of stores, bars, and other businesses, including betting shops and casinos, until mid-June (i.e., the end of Q2 2020). A subsequent stay-at-home order was in force in October 2020, which was in effect until May 2021 (i.e., from Q4 2020 to the middle of Q2 2021), when the Spanish government declared the end of the ‘state of emergency’. During these quarters, measures were progressively relaxed (e.g., from curfews, perimeter closures, and a ban on nightlife to free movement between cities and the opening of recreational indoor activity facilities using masks) [67].

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (version 28, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), except for the DF-GLS test, which was calculated using EViews 12. All statistical analyses were conducted with a significance level of p ≤ .05.

Results

Descriptive statistics of online gambling behavior and marketing variables

Table 1 reflects changes in variables relative to gambling marketing expenditure and online gambling behavior adjusted for inflation. There has been a slight increase from 2013 to 2023 in new accounts (4.77%, from 1,291,324 to 1,352,910) and a substantial increase in active accounts (316.36%, from 278,873 to 1,161,126). In the same vein, deposits grew significantly (577.30%, from €469 million to €3.179 billion), as did the total amount of bets (378%, from €5.543 billion to €26.495 billion). The descriptive statistics reveal marketing spending has increased over the years, with an 83.23% increase in advertising spending (from €67 million to €122 million), 449.30% in bonuses (from €30 million to €166 million), 259% in affiliate spending (from €12 million to €42 million), and 130.84% in sponsorship spending (from €1.5 million to €3.6 million).

Impact of Royal decree 958/2020 on online gambling behavior

Table 2 delineates the influence of the Royal Decree’s approval on the dependent variables (i.e., active and new accounts, deposits, total amount bet, and marketing variables). Additionally, Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the actual data of the time series and the SARIMA model predictions, which estimate trends in the absence of Royal Decree 958/2020.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Actual data (solid lines) of the time series vs. model predictions (dashed lines) without the effect of Royal Decree 958/2020 on online gambling behavior

Full size image
Table 2 Results of SARIMA models with Royal decree 958/2020 events
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Actual data (solid lines) of the time series vs. model predictions (dashed lines) without the effect of Royal Decree 958/2020 on marketing expenditure adjusted for inflation

Full size image

The Royal Decree’s approval of the implementation of new restrictions in the second quarter significantly and permanently reduced the number of new accounts by 263,000 (EST = -263,177.6; p = .003), compared to previous time series trend. Conversely, the Royal Decree had no impact on the number of active accounts. Moreover, it had a substantial effect on betting behavior, significantly reducing the amount of money bet by 216 million euros starting from the second quarter of 2021 (EST = -216,206,976; p = .034). However, there was no impact on the trend of deposits made by gamblers.

Impact of Royal decree 958/2020 on marketing expenditure

Regarding marketing expenditure, the Royal Decree contributed to a reduction of 20 million euros in advertising expenditure in the third quarter of 2021 (EST = -20,084,367.2; p = .004). Bonus expenditure decreased by approximately 2.6 million euros in the first quarter of 2021 (EST = -2,635,997.6; p = .048). Sponsorship expenditure by gambling operators initially increased by 2.5 million euros after the Royal Decree’s approval in the last quarter of 2020 (EST = 2,520,596.0; p < .001), but then significantly decreased by 5.3 million euros in the third quarter of 2021 (EST = -5,327,603.0; p < .001). Finally, the Royal Decree appears to have no effect on affiliation program expenditure.

Impact of COVID-19 on online gambling behavior and marketing expenditure

The impact of COVID-19 was incorporated into all models as a pulse effect (temporary effect) between the second quarter of 2020 and the second quarter of 2021. Although a decline in most dependent variables can be observed graphically (see Figs. 1 and 2) during the first full lockdown (i.e., Q2 2020), the results concerning online gambling behavior demonstrated a substantial increase in the number of new accounts (EST = 173,518.1; p < .001) and the total money bet (EST = 306,478,972; p = .043) throughout the entire period of COVID-19 restrictions (i.e., from Q2 2020 to Q2 2021). The remaining gambling-related variables did not evidence a significant change (p-value between 0.796 and 0.996). Notably, COVID-19 did not impact marketing expenditure, as evidenced by all p-values being set between 0.261 and 0.985.

Discussion

This is the first study examining the impact of gambling marketing regulation, particularly the Spanish Royal Decree 958/2020, on online gambling behavior (i.e., new and active account numbers, the total amount bet on online games, and deposits), as well as marketing expenditure (i.e., advertising, affiliation, bonuses, and sponsorship). Two findings were highlighted: (1) regulatory measures conducted in Spain led to a permanent decrease in gambling behavior, in particular, new accounts and total money bet; and (2) the Spanish regulation had an impact on marketing strategies, specifically in reducing expenditures earmarked for advertising, bonuses, and sponsorship.

According to the data provided by the Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling, findings indicate that the implementation of the Royal Decree has impacted online gambling behavior. Specifically, from the second quarter of 2021 (April – June), there was a permanent reduction in the number of new accounts on online betting operators and the total amount of money wagered, in comparison with the previous time series trend. During this period, articles related to the limits on the number of deposits gamblers can make, self-exclusion systems, and the detection of risky behaviors came into effect. Additionally, advertising on television and radio was restricted to between 1 am and 5 am. Although these regulatory measures impacted on new accounts, they did not affect the number of active accounts, or the deposits made. This could suggest that regulatory measures affect non-gamblers, reducing the likelihood of initiating gambling behavior, but do not influence active gamblers. These outcomes are aligned with preliminary findings in the Netherlands, where marketing regulation measures decreased gambling behavior among non-gamblers but did not impact gamblers [50]. On the other hand, marketing strategies in previous years may have had a significant long-term impact, that is, the increase in promotional and sponsorship strategies observed during 2019 and 2020 may have had a significant effect on long-term gambling behavior.

Several reasons may explain why the Royal Decree has not had an impact on some variables of online gambling behavior that have not been found. First, the most plausible explanation is that the impact of the Royal Decree on the number of active accounts and deposits will be observed in the long term. Also, although the legislative measures cover a large part of the marketing strategies of gambling operators, the gambling industry continues to advertise in different ways [68]. Gambling operators can advertise on their channels (e.g., websites, social media profiles) and exploit the Internet advertising legal loophole (e.g., Twitch), despite knowing the negative impact it has, especially on the young population [69]. Additionally, promotions can be addressed to those gamblers who give their consent, and lottery products are exempt from this regulation, so they can be advertised in any media (e.g., television). Finally, although in Spain and other European countries, sponsorship of football events is not allowed, for instance, the Betano® bookmaker is an official sponsor of international competitions (e.g., Euro2024, 2024 Copa América) [70], and Bet365® is a sponsor of the UEFA Champions League 2025, and Betway® is a sponsor of other football teams (e.g., Manchester City).

On the other hand, while it does not affect the amount deposited, the law has had a notable impact on the total amount wagered. It is important to highlight that the total amount wagered is a more sensitive variable that more accurately reflects engagement in gambling. Additionally, a feasible explanation relates to the fact that the law limits the maximum amount of money a gambler can deposit, specifically allowing for three limits: a maximum of €600 in one day, €1,500 in one week, and €3,000 in one month. However, these limits are remarkably high, and according to the results of the current study, these measures have not had a significant effect on the amount of money deposited and indeed continued their increasing trend beyond expectations.

In chronological order, the implementation of the Royal Decree (in November 2020) temporarily increased the money allocated to sponsorship by gambling operators. The prohibition of sponsoring football teams, jerseys, and stadiums in the following months (specifically in August 2021) led to a significant increase in spending on this marketing strategy before the end of 2020.

Conversely, the measures approved in the first quarter of 2021 (January - March) permanently decreased the money allocated to bonuses. As aforementioned, several articles came into effect aimed at regulating promotions and bonuses related to gambling, as well as the detection of risky behaviors, economic limits for deposits, the self-exclusion mechanism, and the prohibition of advertising in any media between 1 am and 5 am. Subsequently, the provisions that came into effect in the third quarter (July - September) significantly reduced the money allocated to advertising and sponsorship. In addition to the articles that came into force in previous months, during this period (i.e., April - June) those relating to restrictions on promotions to attract new customers, the use of public figures in advertisements, and the limitation of commercial communications on social media, among others, entered into force. Additionally, provisions related to the sponsorship of gambling operators by public figures or sports teams by the gambling operators were also implemented in July 2021. This means that no gambling operator can sponsor sports teams, nor can they appear on sports facilities or jerseys.

These results could be interpreted in light of previous experiences with other addictive behaviors. Tobacco control also led to a reduction in the total marketing expenditure by the tobacco industry in the United States, which increased exponentially until 2003, when it began to decline. The total marketing expenditure by the tobacco industry peaked historically in 2003, reaching over USD 21.088 billion, and then progressively decreased by 63.8% to USD 7.624 billion by 2019 [71, 72]. However, there was a change in marketing strategies. While advertising expenditure significantly decreased from 1975 to 2019 (by 88%, from USD 1.829 billion to USD 221 million), spending on promotions (i.e., discounts, free samples) increased by 45% from 1975 to 2019 (from USD 389 million to USD 564 million), and price discounting increased by 5,886% (from USD 144 million to USD 6.846 billion) [71]. As observed, the inflection point in the marketing strategy change occurred in 2003, coinciding with the implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [73] and the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement [74]. In this vein, researchers point out the need to learn lessons from other addictive behaviors to promote gambling regulations, both to enforce legal regulations that have been shown to work and also to monitor, review, and change legal regulations as industry strategies change [13, 15, 75].

Despite the restrictions on affiliate programs (e.g., between 1 am and 5 am, not targeting minors, and including a “responsible gambling” label), no changes have been observed in this variable, unlike the changes seen in other marketing strategies. This could be due to the difficulty in controlling the content of affiliate programs (e.g., not linking gambling to success, hours of broadcasting, etc.) by the state, given the large number of accounts, their heterogeneity (in terms of platforms and content), and the difficulties in accessing them.

Marketing-related results have significant implications, as previous evidence indicates that promotions (i.e., bonuses) [31, 76] and sponsorships [30, 76] are two of the marketing strategies that most impact gambling behavior, especially among young people and gamblers [23, 31, 77]. The gambling industry customizes its promotions to the characteristics of the gamblers (e.g., gambling frequency, sports they usually bet on) in a way that makes placing a bet more attractive. Promotions have been linked to various gambling-related variables, both subjective (e.g., normalization, risk perception) and objective (e.g., frequency, money gambled) [17, 23, 25,26,27], suggesting that a decrease in the money allocated to bonuses will have a direct impact on gambling behavior, possibly affecting variables not examined in the present study.

Finally, regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on online gambling, a significant increase in the number of new accounts and in the total amount of money bet was identified. This finding is consistent with the most recently published systematic review on the impact of COVID-19 on gambling behavior, which concluded that there was an incremental trend in online betting behavior [66]. Our results should be interpreted in conjunction with the epidemiological data on online gambling during the pandemic (November-December 2020) in Spaniards aged 15 to 64 years. Data reveals that 1.3% of individuals ceased gambling, 0.7% reduced their online gambling behavior, but 2.1% maintained it and 1.1% initiated online gambling [78]. The rise in online gambling behavior during the pandemic is particularly relevant in the context of the favorable outcomes resulting from the Royal Decree, as it has been observed that despite the increase in online gambling behavior due to the pandemic, the Royal Decree led to a permanent decrease in gambling behavior (specifically in new accounts and total money bet).

Considering the results, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of effective legal regulation rather than opting to promote self-regulation. It should be underlined that attempts by the gambling industry to self-regulate (e.g., corporate social responsibility, responsible gambling, how to restrict deposits) [79] have repeatedly proven ineffective in preventing gambling-related problems [80, 81]. This ineffectiveness is partly due to the focus on “problem gamblers” rather than the “problematic products” promoted by the industry. These self-regulation strategies are often used by the industry to delay the implementation of more stringent and necessary governmental regulations [82].

The findings of the current study have significant implications within the Spanish context, particularly in light of recent developments such as the Spanish Supreme Court issuing ruling 527/2024, which nullified several key articles of the Royal Decree 958/2020 [83]. Among others, restrictions on bonus promotions, the use of celebrities, and advertising on social media were turned down under the justification that those articles lack scientific evidence supporting their restriction. The interference of the gambling industry has been widely reported in previous studies [52, 84,85,86], and this is another example of industry litigation aimed at preventing regulatory measures from being implemented.

These results should be interpreted under several limitations. Firstly, the analysis is confined to data from the past ten years, that is, from 2013 to 2023. Also, only three years have elapsed since the approval of the regulatory measures (i.e., November 2020), with a mere year and a half since the full implementation of all articles (i.e., August 2021). Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the law was implemented progressively, with several articles coming into force at different times over almost a year (from November 2020 until August 2021). As a result, the analysis of the impact of the law as a whole is complex. In this vein, it was difficult to determine a point in time at which the effects should take place, as knowledge of the law may have had an effect earlier, or the entry into force of the law may have a longer-term effect. On the other hand, the study focuses solely on online gambling behavior, thereby excluding in-person gambling activities. Also, other relevant variables in the context of gambling research were not available in the dataset, which precludes an examination of potential mediating factors of the regulatory measures’ impact, such as age, gender, or gambler profile (e.g., frequency, type of gambling). Finally, examining the impact of the pandemic on gambling patterns presented considerable challenges due to the implementation of numerous regulatory measures occurring at several temporal points following COVID’s proliferation (e.g., temporary suspension of sporting events, closure of entertainment venues that were followed by a subsequent reopening but with restrictions).

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study is the first to examine the impact of legislative measures on online gambling behavior and marketing expenditure, using official data provided by the Directorate General for Regulation of Gambling. The findings suggest that regulatory measures have a permanent impact on gambling behavior, leading to a substantial reduction in the number of new accounts and a slight decrease in the amount of money wagered. Furthermore, the gambling industry allocates less money to advertising, bonuses, and sponsorship—marketing strategies closely associated with gambling behavior. Notably, it is crucial to persist in the implementation of regulatory measures and the monitoring of their enforcement with the ultimate objective of reducing the normalization of gambling and, consequently, of gambling behavior.

Our findings advocated the implementation of regulatory measures that have been shown to be effective in other countries [52], with the ultimate goal of reducing the impact of gambling on public health. Spain has joined this growing trend seen across Europe, where countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Italy have already introduced similar regulatory measures [87]. This broader context illustrates the drivers and barriers to regulatory change, showing that despite differences in national gambling landscapes, there is a clear movement towards stricter regulations in response to public health concerns. Of note is that further research is needed to examine the impact of regulatory measures in other countries and contexts.

These findings have important implications for the field of gambling, as reducing the number of new accounts—essentially, the influx of new gamblers—could lead to a decrease in problem gambling in the medium and long term. Framing these regulatory measures as primary and environmental prevention strategies for gambling harm would strengthen the public health narrative, indicating that marketing and gambling restrictions directly impact gambling behavior. Notably, further prospective research is needed to confirm whether this impact on online gambling behavior persists in the long term, even after the removal of the aforementioned articles.

Specifically, in this study, the impact of the following measures on gambling behavior was analyzed: prohibition of advertising between 1 am and 5 am; prohibition of the use of celebrities in commercial communications, as well as sponsorship of sports teams; prohibition of promotions aimed at attracting new gamblers and problematic gamblers, the obligation to identify risk gamblers, and implement and promote self-exclusion systems, and limitation of deposit limits. Given the findings, this study can serve as a model for other countries where gambling advertisements have not yet been regulated [87].

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available in the website of the Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling (https://www.ordenacionjuego.es/datos-estudios/estudios/descarga-datos-mercado-juego).

Abbreviations

DF:

GLS Dickey-Fuller Generalized Least Squares

CPI:

Consumer Price Index

SARIMA:

Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition Text Revision. DSM-5-TR. American Psychiatric Association. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

  2. Allami Y, Hodgins DC, Young M, Brunelle N, Currie S, Dufour M, et al. A meta-analysis of problem gambling risk factors in the general adult population. Addiction. 2021;116:2968–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/ADD.15449.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Williams RJ, Leonard CA, Belanger YD, Christensen DR, el-Guebaly N, Hodgins DC, et al. Predictors of gambling and problem gambling in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2021;112:521–9. https://doi.org/10.17269/S41997-020-00443-X.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hofmarcher T, Romild U, Spångberg J, Persson U, Håkansson A. The societal costs of problem gambling in Sweden. BMC Public Health. 2020;20. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-020-10008-9.

  5. Livazović G, Bojčić K. Problem gambling in adolescents: what are the psychological, social and financial consequences? BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12888-019-2293-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Riley BJ, Harvey P, Crisp BR, Battersby M, Lawn S. Gambling-related harm as reported by concerned significant others: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of empirical studies. J Fam Stud. 2021;27:112–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2018.1513856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Girard A, Dionne G, Boivin M. Longitudinal links between gambling participation and academic performance in youth: A test of four models. J Gambl Stud. 2018;34:881–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10899-017-9736-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Muggleton N, Parpart P, Newall P, Leake D, Gathergood J, Stewart N. The association between gambling and financial, social and health outcomes in big financial data. Nat Hum Behav 2021 53. 2021;5:319–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01045-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. National Drugs Plan. Behavioral Addictions Report 2024. https://pnsd.sanidad.gob.es/profesionales/sistemasInformacion/sistemaInformacion/pdf/2024_OEDA_Informe_AdiccionesComportamentales.pdf

  10. Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling. Juegos sujetos a licencia 2024. https://www.ordenacionjuego.es/operadores-juego/juegos-regulados/juegos-sujetos-licencia

  11. Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling. Operadores con licencia 2024. https://www.ordenacionjuego.es/operadores-juego/operadores-licencia/operadores

  12. Secades-Villa R, Krotter A, Aonso-Diego G. Prevalence and correlates of gambling disorder in Spain: findings from a National survey. Int Gambl Stud. 2024;24:325–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2023.2276747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas SL, David J, Randle M, Daube M, Senior K. Gambling advocacy: lessons from tobacco, alcohol and junk food. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. de Lacy-Vawdon C, Vandenberg B, Livingstone C. Power and other commercial determinants of health: an empirical study of the Australian food, alcohol, and gambling industries. Int J Heal Policy Manag. 2023;12. https://doi.org/10.34172/IJHPM.2023.7723.

  15. Wheaton J, Ford B, Nairn A, Collard S. Towards a conceptual framework for the prevention of gambling-related harms: findings from a scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2024;19:e0298005. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0298005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Price A, Hilbrecht M, Billi R. Charting a path towards a public health approach for gambling harm prevention. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2021;29:37–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01437-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guillou-Landreat M, Gallopel-Morvan K, Lever D, Le Goff D, Le Reste JY. Gambling marketing strategies and the internet: what do we know?? A systematic review. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:583817. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.583817.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. McGrane E, Wardle H, Clowes M, Blank L, Pryce R, Field M, et al. What is the evidence that advertising policies could have an impact on gambling-related harms? A systematic umbrella review of the literature. Public Health. 2023;215:124–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PUHE.2022.11.019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pettigrew S, Rosenberg M, Ferguson R, Houghton S, Wood L. Game on: do children absorb sports sponsorship messages? Public Health Nutr. 2013;16:2197–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012005435.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Gainsbury SM, King DL, Russell AMT, Delfabbro P, Derevensky J, Hing N. Exposure to and engagement with gambling marketing in social media: reported impacts on moderate-risk and problem gamblers. Psychol Addict Behav. 2016;30:270–6. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Etuk R, Xu T, Abarbanel B, Potenza MN, Kraus SW. Sports betting around the world: A systematic review. J Behav Addict. 2022;11:689–715. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2022.00064.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Syvertsen A, Erevik EK, Hanss D, Mentzoni RA, Pallesen S. Relationships between exposure to different gambling advertising types, advertising impact and problem gambling. J Gambl Stud. 2022;38:465–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-021-10038-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. McGrane E, Pryce R, Field M, Gu S, Moore EC, Goyder E. What is the impact of sports-related gambling advertising on gambling behaviour? A systematic review. Addiction. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16761.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Bouguettaya A, Lynott D, Carter A, Zerhouni O, Meyer S, Ladegaard I, et al. The relationship between gambling advertising and gambling attitudes, intentions and behaviours: a critical and meta-analytic review. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2020;31:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COBEHA.2020.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wardle H, Critchlow N, Brown A, Donnachie C, Kolesnikov A, Hunt K. The association between gambling marketing and unplanned gambling spend: synthesised findings from two online cross-sectional surveys. Addict Behav. 2022;135:107440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107440.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Challet-Bouju G, Grall-Bronnec M, Saillard A, Leboucher J, Donnio Y, Péré M, et al. Impact of wagering inducements on the gambling behaviors, cognitions, and emotions of online gamblers: A randomized controlled study. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:593789. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYT.2020.593789/BIBTEX.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Rodda S. A rapid review and research gap analysis: a 2020 update. NSW Responsible Gambling Fund.; 2020.

  28. Estévez A, López-González H, Jiménez-Murcia S. La influencia de La Publicidad comercial En La conducta de Riesgo En Las apuestas deportivas: recomendaciones Para reguladores, operadores, instituciones y medios. Informe técnico. Madrid: ONCE.; 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23040.48645.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Syvertsen A, Pallesen S, Erevik EK, Mentzoni RA. Direct marketing experiences among individuals with current and lifetime gambling disorder. Front Psychol. 2020;11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. De Jans S, Hudders L, Constandt B, #Sponsored:. A systematic literature review and theoretical framework of gambling sponsorship research. J Advert. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2023.2288829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Noble N, Freund M, Hill D, White V, Leigh L, Lambkin D, et al. Exposure to gambling promotions and gambling behaviours in Australian secondary school students. Addict Behav Rep. 2022;16:100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2022.100439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Labrador FJ, Estupiñá FJ, Vallejo-Achón M, Sánchez-Iglesias I, González-Álvarez M, Fernández-Arias I, et al. Exposure of adolescents and youth to gambling advertising: a systematic review. Psicol. 2021;37:149–60. https://doi.org/10.6018/ANALESPS.37.1.428921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Torrance J, John B, Greville J, O’Hanrahan M, Davies N, Roderique-Davies G. Emergent gambling advertising; a rapid review of marketing content, delivery and structural features. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10805-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Martínez C, Fu M, Martínez-Sánchez JM, Antón L, Fernández P, Ballbè M, et al. Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys. BMC Public Health. 2014;14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1228.

  35. Lidón-Moyano C, Fu M, Ballbè M, Martín-Sánchez JC, Matilla-Santander N, Martínez C, et al. Impact of the Spanish smoking laws on tobacco consumption and secondhand smoke exposure: A longitudinal population study. Addict Behav. 2017;75:30–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDBEH.2017.06.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Frazer K, Callinan JE, Mchugh J, van Baarsel S, Clarke A, Doherty K et al. Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;2. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005992.PUB3

  37. Xu X, Chaloupka FJ. The effects of prices on alcohol use and its consequences. Alcohol Res Heal. 2011;34:236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-020-01177-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Burton R, Henn C, Lavoie D, O’Connor R, Perkins C, Sweeney K, et al. A rapid evidence review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies: an english perspective. Lancet. 2017;389:1558–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32420-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Royo-Bordonada MÁ, Fernández-Escobar C, Gil-Bellosta CJ, Ordaz E. Effect of excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Catalonia, Spain, three and a half years after its introduction. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022;19:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-022-01262-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Regan M, Smolar M, Burton R, Clarke Z, Sharpe C, Henn C, et al. Policies and interventions to reduce harmful gambling: an international Delphi consensus and implementation rating study. Lancet Public Heal. 2022;7:e705–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00137-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Thomas SL, van Schalkwyk MCI, Daube M, Pitt H, McGee D, McKee M. Protecting children and young people from contemporary marketing for gambling. Health Promot Int. 2023;38:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daac194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Järvinen-Tassopoulos J, Marionneau V, Nikkinen J. Gambling harms caused by electronic gambling machines should be prevented with state control. Nord Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2021;38:631–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725211034030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Newall P, Allami Y, Andrade M, Ayton P, Baker-Frampton R, Bennett D, et al. No evidence of harm’ implies no evidence of safety: framing the lack of causal evidence in gambling advertising research. Addiction. 2024;119:391–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rossow I, Hansen MB. Gambling and gambling policy in Norway—an exceptional case. Addiction. 2016;111:593–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ADD.13172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hansen MB, Rossow IM. Does a reduction in the overall amount of gambling imply a reduction at all levels of gambling? Addict Res Theory. 2012;20:145–52. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2011.605968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hansen M, Rossow I. Limited cash flow on slot machines: effects of prohibition of note acceptors on adolescent gambling behaviour. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2010;8:70–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9196-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lund I. Gambling behaviour and the prevalence of gambling problems in adult EGM gamblers when EGMs are banned. Nat Exp J Gambl Stud. 2009;25:215–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-009-9127-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Engebø J, Torsheim T, Pallesen S. Regulatory measures’ effect on gambling participation: experiences from Norway. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:672471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.672471.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Planzer S, Gray HM, Shaffer HJ. Associations between National gambling policies and disordered gambling prevalence rates within Europe. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014;37:217–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kansspelautoriteit. Monitoringsrapportage online kansspelen Voorjaar 2024. 2024.

  51. Tanner J, Drawson AS, Mushquash CJ, Mushquash AR, Mazmanian D. Harm reduction in gambling: a systematic review of industry strategies. Addict Res Theory. 2017;25:485–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2017.1310204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Livingstone C, Rintoul A, de Lacy-Vawdon C, Borland R, Dietze P, Jenkinson R, et al. Identifying effective policy interventions to prevent gambling-related harm. Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; 2019.

  53. Livingston C, Rintoul A, Francis LJ. What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues? Evid Base. 2014;2014:1–24. https://doi.org/10.21307/eb-2014-002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 958/2020, de 3 de noviembre, de comunicaciones comerciales de las actividades de juego. 2020.

  55. Yaffee RA, McGee M. An introduction to time series analysis and forecasting: with applications of SAS® and SPSS®. Academic; 2000.

  56. Busari SI, Samson TK. Modelling and forecasting new cases of Covid-19 in Nigeria: comparison of regression, ARIMA and machine learning models. Sci Afr. 2022;18:e01404. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCIAF.2022.E01404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Kontopoulou VI, Panagopoulos AD, Kakkos I, Matsopoulos GK. A review of ARIMA vs. Machine learning approaches for time series forecasting in data driven networks. Futur Internet. 2023;15:255. https://doi.org/10.3390/FI15080255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ramstedt M. Population drinking and homicide in Australia: A time series analysis of the period 1950–2003. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;30:466–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1465-3362.2011.00322.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Anderson P, O’donnell A, Jane Llopis E, Kaner E. The impact of lower strength alcohol products on alcohol purchases: ARIMA analyses based on 4 million purchases by 69 803 households, 2015–2019. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2022;44:e567–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/PUBMED/FDAC052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Norström T, Stickley A, Shibuya K. The importance of alcoholic beverage type for suicide in Japan: A time-series analysis, 1963–2007. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012;31:251–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1465-3362.2011.00300.X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rossow I, Norström T. The impact of small changes in bar closing hours on violence. The Norwegian experience from 18 cities. Addiction. 2012;107:530–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1360-0443.2011.03643.X.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Norström T, Ramstedt M. The link between per capita alcohol consumption and alcohol-Related harm in Sweden, 1987–2015. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;79:578–84. https://doi.org/10.15288/JSAD.2018.79.578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Perski O, Beard E, Brown J. Association between changes in harm perceptions and e-cigarette use among current tobacco smokers in England: A time series analysis. BMC Med. 2020;18:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12916-020-01565-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Elliott G, Rothenberg TJ, Stock JH. Stock efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. National Bureau of Economic Research; 1992.

  65. Gilmour S, Degenhardt L, Hall W, Day C. Using intervention time series analyses to assess the effects of imperfectly identifiable natural events: A general method and example. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Catalano A, Milani L, Franco M, Buscema F, Giommarini I, Sodano B, et al. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on gambling: A systematic review. Addict Behav. 2024;155:108037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gobierno de España. Crisis sanitaria COVID-19: Normativa e información útil. 2023.

  68. De Jans S, Hudders L, Newall P. Gambling advertising still exists in Belgium despite a widely reported. ‘ban ’ Addict. 2024;119:1324–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rossi R, Nairn A. New developments in gambling marketing: the rise of social media Ads and its effect on youth. Curr Addict Rep. 2022;9:385–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40429-022-00457-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. UEFA. UEFA EURO 2024 Official Sponsors 2024. https://www.uefa.com/partners/

  71. Levy DT, Liber AC, Cadham C, Sanchez-Romero LM, Hyland A, Cummings M, et al. Follow the money: a closer look at US tobacco industry marketing expenditures. Tob Control. 2023;32:575–82. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056971.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ma H, Reimold AE, Ribisl KM. Trends in cigarette marketing expenditures, 1975–2019: an analysis of federal trade commission cigarette reports. Nicotine Tob Res. 2022;24:919–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/NTR/NTAB272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 2005. https://fctc.who.int/who-fctc/overview

  74. Niemeyer D, Miner KR, Carlson LM, Baer K, Shorty L. The 1998 master settlement agreement: a public health opportunity realized–or lost? Health Promot Pract. 2004;5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839904264588.

  75. Cowlishaw S, Thomas SL. Industry interests in gambling research: lessons learned from other forms of hazardous consumption. Addict Behav. 2018;78:101–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDBEH.2017.11.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. García-Pérez Á, Krotter A, Aonso-Diego G. The impact of gambling advertising and marketing on online gambling behavior: an analysis based on Spanish data. Public Health. 2024;234:170–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2024.06.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Roderique-Davies G, Torrance J, Bhairon T, Cousins A, John B. Embedded gambling promotion in football: an explorative study of Cue-Exposure and urge to gamble. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:1013–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-020-09949-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. National Plan on Drugs. Encuesta OEDA-COVID. 2020: impacto de la pandemia por Covid-19 durante el año 2020 en el patrón de consumo de sustancias psicoactivas y otros comportamientos con potencial adictivo [OEDA-COVID 2020 Survey. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during the year 20]. 2021.

  79. Selin J. From self-regulation to regulation – An analysis of gambling policy reform in Finland. Addict Res Theory. 2016;24:199–208. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2015.1102894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Xiao LY. Beneath the label: unsatisfactory compliance with ESRB, PEGI and IARC industry self-regulation requiring loot box presence warning labels by video game companies. R Soc Open Sci. 2023;10. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSOS.230270.

  81. Xiao LY, Henderson LL, Newall PWS. What are the odds? Poor compliance with UK loot box probability disclosure industry self-regulation. PLoS ONE 2023;18. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0286681

  82. Hancock L, Ralph N, Martino FP. Applying corporate political activity (CPA) analysis to Australian gambling industry submissions against regulation of television sports betting advertising. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0205654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205654.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. General Council of the Judiciary. Judgment 527/2024 2024. https://www.poderjudicial.es/search/contenidos.action?action=accessToPDF&publicinterface=true&tab=AN&reference=b50476705bbb4b52a0a8778d75e36f0d&encode=true&databasematch=AN

  84. van Schalkwyk MCI, Hawkins B, Petticrew M. The politics and fantasy of the gambling education discourse: an analysis of gambling industry-funded youth education programmes in the united Kingdom. SSM - Popul Heal. 2022;18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSMPH.2022.101122.

  85. Collins P, Shaffer HJ, Ladouceur R, Blaszszynski A, Fong D. Gambling research and industry funding. J Gambl Stud. 2020;36:989–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10899-019-09906-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Ladouceur R, Shaffer P, Blaszczynski A, Shaffer HJ. Responsible gambling research and industry funding biases. J Gambl Stud. 2019;35:725–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10899-018-9792-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Wilson J, Rossi R, Bransden N, Amos M, Sakis P. Drivers of gambling marketing Restrictions – An international comparison. University of Bristol & Ipsos; 2024.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank The Directorate General for Regulation of Gambling for collecting and providing the data used in this study.

Funding

This research was supported by a predoctoral grant from the Government of the Principality of Asturias [ref.: PA-21-PF-BP20-015], and by a postdoctoral grant from the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIN/AEI/https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033) and from the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR (ref.: JDC2022-048311-I). The funders had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Deusto, Deusto, Spain

    Gema Aonso-Diego

  2. Addictive Behaviors Research Group, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Oviedo, Plaza Feijoo s/n. 33001, Oviedo, Spain

    Ángel García-Pérez & Andrea Krotter

  3. UNIR, La Rioja, Logroño, Spain

    Andrea Krotter

Authors
  1. Gema Aonso-Diego
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ángel García-Pérez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Krotter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.A.D. and A.K. designed the work. A.G.P. analyzed and interpreted the data. G.A.D. wrote the initial draft. G.A.D., A.K. and A.G.P. revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ángel García-Pérez.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aonso-Diego, G., García-Pérez, Á. & Krotter, A. Impact of Spanish gambling regulations on online gambling behavior and marketing strategies. Harm Reduct J 22, 107 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-025-01219-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-025-01219-7

Keywords

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517