On 10 June 2018, the same day as the Sovereign Money initiative, Swiss voters decided on the new Federal Act on Gambling (BGS/LJAr). Challenged by referendum, the law aimed to modernise and unify an outdated framework inherited from the 1923 Lotteries Act and the 1998 Gambling Houses Act. Parliament had adopted it by a large majority.
The Act pursued several goals: allowing licensed Swiss casinos to offer online games, exempting almost all player winnings from tax, strengthening protection against addiction, and ensuring proceeds fund the OASI (AHV) old-age insurance and public-interest causes. Its most contested provision required Swiss internet providers to block unauthorised foreign gambling sites.
It was this blocking that triggered the referendum, launched by the youth wings of the FDP, the Green Liberals and the SVP, joined by circles close to the Digital Society. For them, filtering access to websites set a dangerous censorship precedent and breached net neutrality. The Yes camp — Federal Council, cantons, casinos, lotteries and most parties — defended a protective regulation and a tax windfall for the OASI.
The verdict was clear: the law was accepted by 72.9 percent of voters, with a low turnout of around 34 percent. It entered into force on 1 January 2019.
|
▲ Cantons that accepted
All 26 cantons and half-cantons accepted the law, in proportions ranging from around 64 to over 78 percent yes.
|
▼ Cantons that rejected
No canton rejected the law. The yes was a little more moderate in urban and French-speaking cantons, without ever tipping over.
|
Actors and personalities
|
▲ Yes camp
• Federal Council (Simonetta Sommaruga, head of FDJP)
• SP, CVP, SVP, BDP and the parliamentary majority
• Cantons, Loterie Romande, Swisslos, Swiss casinos
• Sporting and cultural circles (beneficiaries of the proceeds)
|
▼ No camp
• Young FDP, Young Green Liberals, Young SVP (referendum committee)
• Digital Society (Digitale Gesellschaft)
• FDP and Greens (divided, without unanimous support)
• Net-freedom circles and foreign operators
|
Arguments and verdicts
|
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp)
The law protects players and funds the OASI and public interest « Gambling proceeds must stay in Switzerland, for the benefit of the OASI and public-interest causes » — Federal Council and Yes committee, 2018 ✓ Argument confirmed Confirmed: in force since 2019, the law legalised and taxed Swiss online casinos. In 2023 the gambling board (ESBK) transferred some 358 to 364 million francs to the OASI from the casino tax, and online casinos generated over 150 million in tax revenue. Player winnings are also largely tax-exempt. Source : ESBK, admin.ch (2023-2024) Blocking foreign sites effectively protects the regulated market « Without blocking, foreign operators would keep operating with no player protection whatsoever » — Yes committee, 2018 campaign ✓~ Partly confirmed Partly confirmed: DNS blocking was implemented from July 2019, with dozens of sites listed, and channelled some players towards the legal offering. But the authorities themselves admit these blocks are circumventable and that an illegal market persists, estimated at a substantial share of online stakes. Source : ESBK, Gespa, RTS (2019-2026) |
▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp)
Blocking sets a dangerous censorship precedent « A dangerous precedent for web censorship and an attack on net neutrality » — Referendum committee, 2018 ✗~ Partly refuted Partly refuted: since 2019 the blocking has stayed strictly confined to unauthorised gambling sites. No extension to other types of content occurred, and the feared slide into generalised censorship did not materialise. The filtering mechanism was nonetheless genuinely established. Source : ESBK, Gespa, admin.ch (2019-2025) Blocking is ineffective and easily circumvented « In two clicks, with no special knowledge, you can get around the obstacle » — Referendum committee, 2018 campaign ✓~ Partly confirmed Partly confirmed: federal authorities admit that DNS blocks "can be circumvented" via VPN, proxies or changing DNS. In 2025-2026 several analyses estimated a significant share of online stakes still escaped the regulated market, confirming the technical permeability the opponents denounced. Source : ESBK, RTS, Tribune de Genève (2025-2026) |
Factual record
1 Confirmed | 2 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | A concrete tax windfall for the OASI The law kept its financial promise: casinos, including online, feed the OASI by several hundred million a year (around 358-364 million in 2023), and legal online-gaming revenue grew quickly. Channelling towards a regulated, taxed Swiss offering is a reality. Source : ESBK, admin.ch |
| ~ | A useful but porous block Filtering of foreign sites was implemented, but its effectiveness remains partial: VPNs and other tools allow circumvention, and an illegal market persists. The authorities themselves acknowledge the technical limits of the system, a debate still current in 2025-2026. Source : ESBK, Gespa, RTS |
| ~ | No censorship slide, but a tool installed The precedent feared by opponents did not translate into an extension of filtering to other content. Blocking stayed confined to gambling. The mechanism nonetheless now exists in Swiss law, keeping alive the question of principle about filtering the net. Source : admin.ch, Digital Society |
Eight years on, the gambling law looks like a textbook case of a vote where each camp was partly right. The Yes kept its central promise: legalising Swiss online casinos created a regulated, protective and fiscally lucrative market that transfers several hundred million a year to the OASI.
The opponents, for their part, saw their technical critique confirmed. Blocking foreign sites, billed as the keystone of protection, proved porous: circumventable by VPN, it leaves an illegal market that authorities still struggle to contain in 2026. On that point, the No camp scepticism was well founded.
Their strongest argument, however — the censorship precedent — did not pan out. Filtering stayed strictly limited to gambling, with no spillover to other content. The fear of a Swiss internet under surveillance did not materialise, even if the blocking mechanism now exists.
The record is therefore nuanced: a law that meets its tax and channelling goals, with an imperfect but contained blocking tool. The real underlying debate — the actual effectiveness of regulation against a borderless internet — remains open.