Gambling Advertising Fines in Ukraine in 2025: When They Can Be Challenged

Fines for gambling advertising in Ukraine are no longer an exception. Bloggers, marketing agencies, IT companies, media outlets, and owners of online platforms increasingly face sanctions. In 2025, regulatory oversight of gambling-related advertising has intensified significantly: the number of inspections, enforcement actions, and penalty decisions has grown, as confirmed by publicly available reports from the regulator.

At the same time, enforcement practice tells a different story. A substantial share of these fines are procedurally or evidentially vulnerable and are regularly overturned by courts — provided that a proper legal strategy is applied.

What Exactly Are You Being Accused Of — and Why It Matters

A fine is not an assumption or a value judgment by the regulator. It is an individual administrative act that must strictly comply with statutory requirements. A lawful decision imposing a fine must clearly specify: the authority that issued it, the exact nature of the alleged violation, identification of the advertising material (URL, screenshots, video, date and method of placement), the specific legal provision allegedly breached, and a reasoned justification.

In practice, however, decisions often contain vague wording such as “placement of gambling advertising on the Internet” without further detail. From a legal standpoint, this constitutes insufficient individualization of the offense, which directly contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine, legislation on state supervision, and administrative procedure rules. Such decisions are already flawed at the review stage.

Evidence Under Scrutiny

In 2025, the quality of evidence remains the central line of defense. The mere presence of a screenshot or hyperlink does not automatically prove a violation. Common issues include screenshots without dates or sources, failure to properly record web pages, inability to confirm the authenticity of content, use of altered or archived pages, and substitution of advertising material with informational or affiliate content. Regulators often fail to prove that a specific person placed the advertisement, that the content was promotional rather than informational, or that it existed at the alleged time.

Court practice is consistent: evidence must be relevant, admissible, and reliable, and the burden of proof rests with the authority imposing the fine. If the evidence does not allow for an unequivocal determination of the elements of the offense, the decision must be annulled.

Who Is Actually Liable for Advertising

Another systemic error by regulators is the automatic attribution of liability to the website or page owner. Ukrainian advertising law clearly distinguishes between the advertiser, the producer of advertising, and the distributor of advertising.

In many defense cases, it is established that the client did not commission the advertising, did not receive any benefit from it, did not control the content, or acted solely as a technical platform or partner. In such circumstances, the subject of the offense is absent, and the fine lacks a legal basis.

Procedure Is Not a Formality

Even if a regulator believes a violation occurred, it is still bound to follow due process. Violations such as improper notification, missed deadlines, denial of the right to provide explanations, consideration of the case in the absence of the affected party, or lack of a reasoned decision are each independent grounds for invalidating a fine. Recent court practice confirms that procedural violations are often decisive, even without delving deeply into the substance of the advertising content.

What Challenging a Fine Looks Like in Practice

Challenging a gambling advertising fine begins with analysis, not emotion. The decision itself, the evidence, the client’s actual role, and procedural compliance are assessed first. This is followed by the preparation of reasoned objections or an appeal, and, if necessary, a court claim.

A gambling advertising fine is not a verdict and not automatic liability. It is a legal act that must withstand scrutiny, analysis, and challenge — and in many cases, it does not. This is precisely where legal work begins: separating formal allegations from the actual elements of an offense.