Almost UAH 5 million fine for an article about esports. Publisher Tribuna.com lost the first court case against the gambling regulator

dev.ua looked into the case materials and tells how an article about Dota 2 and CS2, with mentions of gaming brands and posts on them, cost 600 minimum wages.

The essence of the conflict

In August 2025, the new State Agency «PlayCity» (which replaced the liquidated KRAIL) monitored the Internet and came across an article on the website ua.tribuna.com.

In the «Esports Betting» section , the text was posted: «Esports is gaining popularity… Bets on CS2, Dota 2, League of Legends can be found at all bookmakers that occupy high places in the ranking of the best bookmakers.»

As stated in the decision, the material mentioned brands such as POKERBET, COINS GAME, and BCGAME.

This was a red flag for the regulator. These websites were added to the list of illegal ones in Ukraine. And in October 2025, PlayCity issued a fine of UAH 4.8 million to SPORT TODAY LLC for violating the law on gambling advertising.

Media position: «This is not advertising, but a fine that kills freedom of speech»

The company did not agree with the fine and went to court. The publication’s lawyers built their defense on several key arguments:

• This is just text, not advertising: The disputed publication was purely editorial and reference material.
• Violation of procedure: The regulator conducted its monitoring «outside the law» without notifying the business of the inspection. In addition, the final hearing in the case was disrupted by an air raid siren, and officials made decisions behind the scenes, depriving the company of its right to full protection.
• Disproportionate punishment: A fine of almost 5 million hryvnias is too much. According to the plaintiff, this creates a «chilling effect» on media freedom. The publication believes that the state should first issue a warning or an order, and not immediately hit with maximum sanctions.

What did the court decide?

The judge sided with the state and smashed the media’s arguments to pieces.

1. Monitoring is not a search. The court explained that reading articles on the Internet is not a physical inspection of a business (which must be notified in advance). The regulator has every right to remotely monitor advertising without disturbing the company.
2. This is advertising. The judges decided that stories about the advantages of specific bookmakers, their ratings, and links to their websites are a direct stimulation of readers' interest. And therefore, advertising, and of illegal gambling establishments.
3. A single fine. Regarding the «disproportionateness» of the fine, the court explained the following: the law contains a direct norm. A sanction of 600 minima is without alternative. The regulator simply did not have the legal right to forgive the violation, issue a «warning» or reduce the amount — this would be considered corruption and abuse of power.

«The application of the maximum sanction without prior use of more lenient means does not violate the principle of proportionality, since the legislation does not provide for an alternative to a fine for such violations,» the decision states.

This decision is not final. The parties may appeal.