Legal updates and opinions
News / News
AI and gambling, the regulatory gap is growing
by Wendy Rosenberg, Director and Head of Digital Media & Electronic Communications, and Tebogo Sibidla, Director
Artificial intelligence (AI) is ubiquitous, and the gambling and betting sector is no exception. AI is increasingly embedded in gambling and betting products and platforms. The question is not whether to engage with AI, but how to develop, deploy, use and regulate it effectively and responsibly. The policy and regulatory choices made now will influence whether AI is ultimately used to protect consumers or to exploit them.
For gambling operators, AI presents significant opportunities, from processing live information and developing advertising campaigns to creating new features, applications and games. But it also introduces regulatory challenges and risks. AI could support player safety, but it also has the potential to intensify harmful gambling behaviours.
Algorithms allow operators to understand player behaviour and preferences with growing precision. This enables tailored content, services and advertising, while potentially improving the player experience, reducing choice overload, improving stickiness and reducing churn.
AI can also be a powerful responsible-gaming tool, particularly online. Several studies have used player-tracking data and machine-learning models to predict problem gambling using behavioural and monetary indicators. The results have been promising and can inform targeted interventions, including personalised approaches to problem gambling.
Research in France illustrates how this can work. In 2015 and 2016, the French National Gambling Authority, then known as ARJEL, now ANJ, partnered with researchers to develop an online gambling harm-detection system using demographic and behavioural data. The resulting machine-learning models proved highly effective at classifying people by risk level, demonstrating how such research can inform harm-reduction strategies for online gambling.
AI remains an imperfect and developing technology. A key challenge is whether AI systems treat people fairly. AI can perpetuate and exaggerate human biases and inequities, including those based on socio-demographic characteristics. It can hallucinate. Its performance can change over time because of “drift”. It can also simply get things wrong.
AI raises distinct concerns in the gambling context. For example, research has found that large language models repeatedly made irrational, high-risk betting decisions in simulated gambling environments. Because AI systems learn from human-generated data, they can inherit cognitive distortions such as the gambler’s fallacy.
All of this creates a challenge for regulators. South African gambling legislation was drafted for a bricks-and-mortar world. South Africa does have laws protecting consumers in areas including data protection, consumer protection, competition, copyright and cyber law. But it does not yet have AI-specific laws of general application.
Internationally, different approaches are beginning to emerge. The EU AI Act establishes a risk-based classification framework for AI systems. It does not single out gambling, but AI systems used in gambling that fall within high- or limited-risk categories will trigger obligations.
The UK has adopted a cross-sectoral, principles-based approach rather than a single horizontal AI Act. Individual sector regulators, such as the UK Gambling Commission, must apply AI governance principles within their respective domains.
Malta is particularly proactive on this issue. Following consultations earlier this year, on 18 September 2026 the Malta Gaming Authority launched its AI Gaming Charter. The Charter is a sector-specific framework promoting the ethical and responsible use of AI across gaming platforms. It provides a voluntary, principles-based framework to support the responsible, transparent and proportionate use of AI across gaming operations, and practical guidance tailored to the realities of the gaming sector.
In line with the risk-based approach adopted in the EU, the Charter applies a risk-based approach, in which the level of documentation, testing, governance, transparency, human oversight and monitoring applied to an AI system should reflect the nature of the use case and its potential impact on players, player rights, gaming integrity, or regulated outcomes.
The Charter sets out the following principles, which are mapped to the EU AI Act and GDPR, and which are intended to respond directly to the practices, gaps and emerging risks observed across the gaming sector:
- Transparency, accountability and explainability
- Fairness and non-discrimination
- Environmental sustainability
- Data protection, security and governance
- Human oversight and responsibility
- Reliability, safety and robustness
- Compliance, monitoring and AI governance
- Reporting and metrics
- Notification requirements
- Involvement of the Malta Gaming Authority and the Malta Digital Innovation Authority
Existing gambling laws in South Africa and across Africa were not designed for AI. The regulatory gap is real and growing, and the faster AI develops, the harder that gap will be to close.
Latest News
Franchisors Beware! The Competition Commission may come knocking soon
by Paul Coetser, Director and Head of Competition and Kwanele Diniso, Associate The franchising industry has long been a bone [...]
Mind the Conduct: A Guide to COFI – Part 6: COFI – What Really Changes?
by Hilah Laskov, Director Introduction In this article series, we take a deep dive into the South African Conduct of [...]
Remuneration governance under the amended Companies Act: A closer look at some of the key questions
by Kevin Trudgeon, Director and Helena Stoop, Senior Knowledge Lawyer 1. Introduction On 22 May 2026, a proclamation by President [...]
Does the Public Procurement Act provide for an effective dispute resolution mechanism?
by Sarah Moerane, Director and Koketso Rapoo, Senior Associate The National Treasury published the draft General Public Procurement Regulations and [...]
The shift in the evaluation criteria in South African public procurement
By Sarah Moerane, Director and Amogelang Magano, Senior Associate South Africa is in the midst of what could prove to [...]
Mind the Conduct: A Guide to COFI – Part 5: Governance and Accountability
by Hilah Laskov, Director Introduction In this article series, we take a deep dive into the South African Conduct of [...]
