Nordic operator Paf, controlled by the Government of Åland, has agreed a pilot scheme with Facebook to stop unlicensed gambling operators from reaching Swiss players through the platform. The deal was revealed by Jesper Eliasson, Paf’s chief business development officer, during the SBC Summit Lisbon on Wednesday, with work due to start next week. It marks a notably different tack from Dutch trade body VNLOK, which days earlier served Meta with a court summons over unlicensed gambling ads on Facebook and Instagram.
The contrast is the story here. One side reaches for the courts. The other sits down with the platform.
What the Paf-Meta Pilot Means for Operators
Before the details, the strategic picture. Paf is betting that cooperation beats litigation when the target is a platform both sides claim to want cleaned up. That calculation carries weight for any licensed operator spending heavily on Meta’s advertising inventory.
- A litigation alternative: Paf’s approach offers a template for engaging Meta directly rather than through the legal system, at a moment when at least one European trade body is doing the opposite.
- Low cost, high signal: Paf is investing “nothing. Only time and talks,” according to Eliasson, which lowers the barrier for other operators watching the outcome.
- Data-sharing is the mechanism, including licence documents and URLs for both operators and affiliates.
- Market defence: For a brand holding more than 30% of a market, keeping unlicensed rivals off the biggest ad platform is a commercial priority, not a compliance footnote.
- Scalability is the prize: Switzerland is the test case, with Paf hoping to export any working model across Europe.
How the Data-Sharing Arrangement Works
Under the pilot, Paf will hand Meta certain data so the platform can tell regulated from unregulated advertisers. That includes licence documentation and URLs, covering operators and their affiliates. The aim is a clearer map of who holds a valid Swiss authorisation and who merely claims to.
Eliasson described the agreement as “absolutely fresh. We decided it today,” speaking to iGB after the panel. He had met Facebook representatives in Lisbon earlier that day alongside Wolfgang Bliem, CEO of Grand Casino Luzern, which owns the Swiss market-leading online casino mycasino.ch. The site now generates more than €100m in annual revenue. Eliasson declined to name who represented Facebook.
The difficulty he described is structural. Offshore operators design creatives that slip past Facebook’s automated checks, and Europe’s fragmented licensing makes their claims hard to disprove. “The licence may come from somewhere else, and it can be hard to detect in that mess of jurisdictions,” he said. He also flagged crypto casinos exploiting what he called “toothless jurisdictions” (a phrase that does some quiet work in a market where enforcement varies wildly from one border to the next).
Why Switzerland Became the Test Market
The choice is part strategy, part self-interest. Eliasson runs Paf’s Swiss business and the Grand Casino Luzern partnership personally. “For me it’s a business question about growing further in the market,” he said.
The numbers behind that interest are substantial. Mycasino.ch launched in 2019 and, by Eliasson’s account, became “a €70 million business and clear market leader” within 16 months. It now holds over 30% of the market. His reasoning for protecting that share is blunt: “I don’t want someone who doesn’t have a licence, hasn’t paid for the licence and the compliance work, and doesn’t take responsible gaming measures to share the market.”
Paf intends to bring the Swiss regulator into the process rather than keep the arrangement bilateral. “We want to connect Facebook with the Swiss regulator too, and put everybody around the table,” Eliasson said.
Switzerland’s Regulatory Gaps
Bliem had outlined the Swiss framework on a separate panel the day before. Online licences are tied exclusively to land-based casinos and taxed progressively, from 20% up to 80%. He identified two weak points in the system.
| Weak point | Consequence |
|---|---|
| No payment blocking | Offshore operators can still process transactions from Swiss players, limiting enforcement reach |
| Lotteries’ monopoly on sports betting | Pushes customers offshore for better odds during major events such as this year’s World Cup, draining regulated-market volume |
Eliasson added a warning about over-correction. Heavy product restrictions, such as slowing games down or banning titles judged “too risky,” could drive players away from licensed sites. “People are still free to use the internet, so they’ll go elsewhere for the best product,” he said. “If politicians get too scared, we could easily end up with the reverse effect.” The irony is hard to miss: rules meant to protect players could hand the black market its customers.
Reading the Industry Response
The reveal landed flat in the room. “I don’t think they believed it. Normally you sue Facebook,” Eliasson said. And that disbelief is itself a measure of how adversarial the operator-platform relationship has become across Europe.
But Paf spends heavily acquiring customers on Meta’s platforms, which aligns its commercial interest with the platform’s stated position. “They don’t want illegal business on the platform,” Eliasson said. Whether that shared interest survives the first difficult enforcement decision is the question nobody answered in Lisbon.
Eliasson was candid about the odds. “I’m not sure whether we’ll succeed, but I’m 100% sure we’ve succeeded with the first step,” he said. If the pilot underperforms, Paf will “rework it and find something else.” Either way, the operator plans to keep working with Facebook against unlicensed operators, and wants a successful Swiss model expanded elsewhere.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly has Paf agreed with Facebook?
A pilot scheme in which Paf shares data, including licence documents and URLs for operators and affiliates, so Meta can distinguish licensed from unlicensed gambling advertisers targeting Swiss players. Work is scheduled to begin the week after the announcement.
How does this differ from the Dutch approach?
VNLOK, the Dutch trade body, served Meta with a court summons over unlicensed gambling ads. Paf chose cooperation over litigation.
What is Paf paying for the pilot?
Nothing in direct cost. Eliasson described the investment as “only time and talks,” with Paf also planning to bring the Swiss regulator into the discussions.
Could the model spread beyond Switzerland?
That is the stated ambition. If the pilot works, Eliasson wants it scaled to other markets and hopes it sets a precedent across Europe, though he openly acknowledged the outcome is uncertain.
