Ireland, Denmark Regulators Sign MoU to Share Gambling Data

Ireland’s Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRAI) and the Danish Gambling Authority signed a Memorandum of Understanding on July 7 to strengthen cooperation between the two regulators, according to Jamma. The agreement covers compliance, market monitoring and enforcement as operators increasingly hold licences in both countries. It follows a recent meeting between GRAI chief executive Anne Marie Caulfield and Danish Gambling Authority director general Anders Dorph.

The MoU is meant to speed up information exchange between the two authorities, Jamma reported. Both regulators oversee several of the same operators, and the agreement aims to align their supervisory practices through shared monitoring standards.

Caulfield described the MoU as “another vital milestone in strengthening cooperation” between regulators in closely connected markets. She said continued dialogue between Ireland and Denmark should support more effective oversight, and added that the deal reflects GRAI’s wider effort to deepen ties with European regulatory partners.

By contrast with earlier bilateral efforts in the region, this agreement comes amid a broader push among European regulators to build direct working relationships without a single EU-wide gambling authority in place. Jamma framed the deal as part of that wider pattern of regulator-to-regulator coordination.

Operators licensed in both Ireland and Denmark are the parties most directly affected. If the two regulators begin exchanging supervisory data on a regular basis, a compliance issue flagged in one market could reach the other authority faster than before.

💡TGJ Take

This MoU is another step toward closer regulator-to-regulator cooperation across Europe, even without a single EU gambling authority. Operators licensed in both Ireland and Denmark should expect faster information sharing between GRAI and the Danish Gambling Authority, particularly on AML and responsible gambling checks. Compliance teams that treat these two markets as separate risk profiles should reconsider that approach now. A weakness flagged in one jurisdiction is unlikely to stay contained to that market for long.