The State Treaty on Gaming pursues a dual and inherently tension-filled approach: On the one hand, aggressive, addiction-inducing forms of advertising are to be prohibited in order to strengthen youth protection and addiction prevention. On the other hand, the legal market must establish a sufficient presence so that players willing to switch or new players are not directly steered toward unregulated black market offerings.
The Legal Framework and the “Advertising Dilemma”
The advertising provisions of the GlüStV 2021 are among the most complex sets of regulations in German media law. According to § 5 GlüStV, advertising for public gambling must not be misleading and, in particular, must not be directed at minors or similarly vulnerable target groups. This is specified through strict time restrictions (including the ban on advertising for online casinos and virtual slot machines on television and the internet between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.) as well as content-related prohibitions, such as the use of active athletes or influencers as advertising figures for sports betting.
The 2026 evaluation will scientifically examine whether these restrictive guidelines fulfill their purpose or whether they—by overly restricting legal visibility—achieve the opposite effect. To this end, the GGL has already commissioned specialized research groups (such as the eye square Institute) to conduct a comprehensive advertising impact study analyzing how the general public, and vulnerable groups in particular, react to the remaining advertising.
Visibility as a Necessary Condition for Channeling
Channeling means steering. However, steering requires that the path to the legal destination be known and recognizable. In the digital attention economy, licensed providers compete directly with illegal offshore platforms for the top spots in search engines (SEO) and advertising networks (SEA).
The evaluation will analyze in detail:
- Search Engine Visibility: When searching for generic terms such as “online casino” or “sports betting bonus,” do providers from the official “white list” appear first, or do affiliate sites linking to illegal offers dominate the results?
- Brand Awareness: Have strict advertising restrictions caused the brands of legal providers to fade in the public eye, while unregulated providers gain ground through aggressive marketing in the “gray area”?
- Consumer Education: How effective are the labeling requirements for legal advertising? Do users recognize the difference between a licensed offering and an illegal site with a Maltese license?
The Affiliate Sector and the Role of Comparison Portals
A critical focus of the evaluation is on a href="/english-news/record-breaking-igb-affiliate-opens-in-barcelona-with-largest-edition-to-date/">affiliate marketing. Comparison portals and bonus overviews often act as “gatekeepers” for the market. Many of these portals operate in a gray area and promote both legal and illegal providers (so-called “double dipping”).
The GGL has already sent a clear signal here through cease-and-desist orders and fines. In 2026, an assessment will be made as to whether this repressive approach has been sufficient to “clean up” the affiliate market, or whether further regulatory steps—such as a licensing requirement for affiliates—are necessary to ensure the integrity of market communication.
The Economic Perspective of Advertising Restrictions
For licensed providers, advertising is the only way to differentiate themselves from unregulated competition and to recoup the high costs of compliance and taxes through customer acquisition. The evaluation will examine the economic impacts of the advertising rules:
- Distortion of competition: Have illegal providers benefited from the absence of legal competition in daytime television programming or on social media?
- Marketing efficiency: How high are customer acquisition costs in the legal market compared to the international average? Insufficient efficiency jeopardizes the long-term viability of the legal market.
Youth Protection and Addiction Prevention in Digital Marketing
A central argument of proponents of strict rules is the protection of young people from the “normalization” of gambling through sports sponsorship and jersey advertising. The 2026 evaluation will assess whether the separation of sports coverage and gambling advertising (e.g., the ban on live betting ads during broadcasts) has led to a demonstrable reduction in the risk of addiction.
This assessment will incorporate data from prevalence studies examining the age of initiation and trigger factors among first-time gamblers. Should the studies demonstrate that advertising continues to provide a critical incentive for non-gamblers despite the restrictions, the evaluation could even form the basis for a complete advertising ban, as is already being discussed or implemented in other EU member states.
International Comparison: Germany’s “Special Path”?
With its detailed time-based bans (nighttime TV regulations) and strict sponsorship guidelines, Germany occupies a middle ground in Europe. Countries like Italy have introduced a total ban on gambling advertising, while other markets such as Denmark rely on stronger self-regulation. The evaluation will examine whether the German balance has been successful: a channeling rate that, according to GGL estimates, is high in the sports betting sector but is demonstrably under pressure in the virtual slots sector.
Setting the Course for Regulatory Policy
Marketing and visibility are not purely commercial issues, but rather instruments of state control. The 2026 evaluation will determine whether the current advertising regime is “stifling” the legal market or whether it leaves the necessary room for healthy channeling.
Should the evaluation show that the visibility of legal providers is insufficient to effectively curb the black market, a debate on relaxing advertising restrictions will be unavoidable—for example, by making time slots more flexible or adopting more modern forms of digital marketing. If, on the other hand, advertising proves to be a significant driver of addiction without providing real added value for channeling, regulation after 2026 could become even more restrictive.
Read the sixth part of our series on the evaluation of the State Treaty on Gaming here.
Want to stay up to date? Subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, X, and Facebook.