The Kyiv District Administrative Court refused to satisfy the claim of an individual entrepreneur who appealed a fine of UAH 4.8 million imposed by the State Agency of Ukraine PlayCity for violating the requirements of the legislation on gambling advertising.
The Kyiv District Administrative Court refused to satisfy the claim of an individual entrepreneur who appealed a fine of UAH 4.8 million imposed by the State Agency of Ukraine PlayCity for violating the requirements of the legislation on gambling advertising.
The court made the corresponding decision on September 9, 2026.
According to the case materials, the reason for the administrative proceedings was a complaint filed with PlayCity in October 2025. The agency found publications on the finprom.net website about the online casinos Sultan Games and Parik24 with active links to the relevant resources.
In particular, it was about materials with the names “Sultan Casino online as a place for gambling enthusiasts” and “Parik24 login access to games, bonuses and personal settings”. The articles, as the agency noted, described the casino’s features, slot machines, bonuses, registration and other characteristics of the services. The publications contained hyperlinks that redirected users to the Sultan Games and Parik24 websites.
PlayCity found that the agency did not issue licenses to carry out activities in the field of organizing and conducting gambling for these websites or brands.
At the same time, the finprom.net website, according to the court decision, was not registered as an online media intended for persons over 21. It is on such resources that the legislation provides for the possibility of placing gambling advertisements under certain conditions.
The individual entrepreneur who appealed the decision denied the fact of advertising activities. In his explanations, he noted that he maintains a personal blog on the site and publishes review materials to improve financial literacy, in particular on loans, credits and casinos. The entrepreneur also emphasized that he did not receive remuneration for posting the relevant materials.
The court did not agree with these arguments. The decision stated that payment is not the only defining characteristic of advertising. The court referred, in particular, to the practice of the Supreme Court, according to which, for the qualification of information as advertising, its content, method of presentation and objective ability to form or maintain consumer interest in the relevant product or sign are important.
Separately, the court found that it was the plaintiff who admitted posting the publications on finprom.net and his authorship. According to the court, the website also posted information about the individual entrepreneur as a person associated with the administration of the resource.
According to the court, the posting of review articles with active links and mentions of the Sultan Games and Parik24 brands fell under legislative restrictions on gambling advertising.
The court also rejected the argument about the need for a separate scheduled or unscheduled inspection. The decision noted that the legislation provides for various grounds for the application of financial sanctions, in particular, based on an act of violation of the requirements of the legislation on gambling and/or advertising.
As a result, the Kyiv District Administrative Court recognized PlayCity's actions as meeting the requirements of the law and completely refused to satisfy the individual entrepreneur's claim. Thus, the agency's decision No. 186-r dated December 10, 2025 on the application of a fine of UAH 4.8 million remains in force, unless it is canceled following the results of the appellate review.
The court's decision may be appealed to the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal within 30 days from the date of the full text of the decision.
