A Duty to Care or a Duty to Comply? Gambling Operators' Interpretation of the Legal Concept of Duty of Care and Their Responsibility for Preventing Gambling‐Related Harm

ABSTRACT

From the perspective of negotiated governance, this study examines how companies respond to regulatory measures that combine hard and soft elements, assigning them greater responsibility for addressing social problems. Focusing on the Swedish gambling market, the study analyzes gambling operators' interpretation of the legal concept of duty of care. While this duty obliges operators to protect gamblers from excessive gambling, what it entails in practice and how responsibilities are understood are largely left to operators to define. Guided by the concept of responsibility, the analysis shows that interpretations vary and it is unclear what duty of care aims to prevent. Despite variations, duty of care is often framed in terms of responsible gambling, thereby individualizing responsibility for gambling‐related harm, and the action plans largely describe compliance with other legal requirements. In conclusion, the findings suggest a need for greater regulatory clarity regarding the normative foundations of duty of care regulation.