Bulgaria’s opposition is pushing for stronger language in the country’s proposed gambling advertising restrictions, warning that key gaps could render the reforms ineffective.
Assen Vassilev, Chairman of the opposition party We Continue the Change (PP), has publicly called for significant revisions to the latest draft proposal to reform Bulgaria’s Gambling Act.
Vassilev argues that several “loopholes” in the current wording could be exploited by gambling operators seeking to maintain a marketing presence despite sweeping new restrictions.
On 23 September, Prime Minister Rumen Radev and his cabinet published a draft proposal outlining a package of comprehensive changes to Bulgaria’s gambling sector, including a near-total ban on gambling marketing.
The draft restrictions are open for public consultation until 23 October and propose a full ban on affiliates and the promotion of gambling trademarks across all communication channels.
Vassilev’s central concern is the exact wording used to define what constitutes a gambling trademark, which he believes is currently too narrow to be effective.
He urged lawmakers to broaden the definition to include any brand that is associated with, or strongly resembles that of, a licensed gambling operator operating in Bulgaria.
As a practical example, Vassilev referenced a hypothetical scenario in which efbet, one of Bulgaria’s prominent licensed gambling providers, could sidestep restrictions by marketing under a name such as ‘efbetnews’.
This so-called infotainment workaround has already emerged across European jurisdictions with broad gambling marketing bans, with Belgium and Italy standing as the most prominent examples of the trend.
In Italy, Parma FC partnered with Admiralbet.news, while Inter Milan entered a similar arrangement, exploiting gaps left by Italy’s so-called Dignity Decree, which imposed a strict ban on gambling advertising including sports sponsorships.
Despite that decree, several Serie A clubs were still able to strike commercial deals with infotainment websites closely associated with gambling brands, highlighting precisely the risk Vassilev is warning about in Bulgaria.
Beyond trademark definitions, Vassilev also pointed to the issue of betting outlet facades, noting that a large proportion of advertising space sits on these outlets, which have been left out of the draft restrictions entirely.
He further stated that financial penalties outlined in the proposal had not been increased to a level sufficient to deter non-compliance, arguing that stiffer fines are a necessary component of any meaningful reform.
“We will propose that all of this be banned, so that there is a real ban on gambling advertising,” Vassilev said, making clear the opposition intends to submit formal amendments to the draft legislation.
On enforcement, Vassilev highlighted the potential role of banks in blocking transactions linked to unlicensed or non-compliant operators and affiliates, arguing this mechanism is notably absent from the current proposal.
“Banks are very effective in doing so, if the relevant legislation exists. Currently, we don’t see anything in that direction,” Vassilev added, calling for financial institutions to be formally incorporated into Bulgaria’s regulatory framework.
