The Lithuanian Gaming Oversight Agency has levied a penalty of €25,000 (£21,552/$26,743) on Top Sport for permitting underage individuals to enter one of their slot machine parlors.
The regulatory body discovered that three individuals, at least one of whom was under the age of eighteen, were able to access the establishment and remain there for over two hours.
The regulatory body observed that Top Sport did not take any measures to remove the three individuals from their premises. As a consequence, this was deemed to be a breach of the Lithuanian Gaming Law, Section 10, Part 10, which regulates rules concerning underage gambling.
Top Sport also failed to identify any of the three individuals upon their entry into the gambling facility.
The regulatory body stated that this contravened Section 20, Part 10 of the Gaming Law, which mandates licensees to verify the identity of all patrons entering slot machine parlors or similar establishments.
Lastly, the regulatory body noted a violation of Section 101, Part 1 of the Gaming Law, which pertains to the posting of warning notices regarding the hazards and potential risks associated with gambling.
The regulatory body asserted that Top Sport did not display such signs in the relevant slot machine parlor, and consequently did not comply with this requirement.
Officials have declared that the verdict is not conclusive and could be challenged.
Top Sport has once again faced repercussions for breaking regulatory guidelines in a recent event. Earlier this year, in April, the gambling firm was slapped with a 15,000 euro fine for breaching remote gambling regulations.
A Top Sport bettor deposited 14,965 euros into his account using another person’s payment card.
Lithuanian legislation dictates that licensed operators can only accept non-cash deposits into registered customer accounts, and third-party deposits are forbidden.
In February of this year, Top Sport was fined 25,000 euros for breaking promotional regulations.
On August 31st of last year, Top Sport sent out an email to its clientele, containing links and details of its betting services. This included information about its mobile application and website.
Authorities stated that by informing customers about its offerings, this was considered a form of advertising, and thus the operator violated national law.