France has moved commercial telephone marketing to an opt-in model, creating a new compliance threshold for gambling operators that use calls to acquire, reactivate or retain customers. From August 11, 2026, a consumer generally cannot be contacted by telephone for commercial prospecting unless the consumer gave prior consent or the call concerns an existing contract and relates to that contract.
The reform is broader than the gambling industry, but its application to licensed gambling is clear. Guidance prepared by the Autorité nationale des jeux (ANJ) with the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) says consent is, in principle, the legal basis for gambling-sector commercial prospecting across channels, including telephone calls.
For operators, the change is not simply a new sentence for a privacy notice. It affects how telephone numbers are collected, how consent is recorded, how leads are transferred between companies and how call lists are built. A phone number in a customer database is no longer, by itself, permission to make a marketing call.
France Replaces the Bloctel Opt-Out Model
Before the reform, France relied on an opt-out framework supported by the Bloctel opposition list and rules governing permitted calling times. The new system reverses the starting point. Rather than assuming that a call may be made unless the consumer has objected, the professional must be able to establish that the consumer agreed in advance.
Article L223-1 of the Consumer Code now prohibits direct telephone prospecting, including calls made through a third party acting for a business, where the consumer has not previously expressed consent. The law defines that consent as free, specific, informed, unambiguous and revocable, expressed through a clear positive act.
A July implementing decree sets rules for collecting, retaining and withdrawing consent. French consumer authorities explain that consent is valid for no more than one year and that proof must be retained for at least three years. A business must make that evidence available to the consumer on request.
The contract exception is important but should not be treated as a general marketing exemption. An operator needs to determine whether a proposed call genuinely concerns the performance of a current contract and is connected to its subject. A broad reactivation campaign aimed at inactive customers should not automatically be classified as contract administration.
Why the Rule Applies to Gambling Marketing
ANJ and CNIL published a gambling-specific data protection guide in May 2026. It addresses player accounts and commercial prospecting, excessive or pathological gambling prevention, and anti-money-laundering obligations. The guide states that gambling is a regulated sector in which operators process substantial volumes of player data and must reconcile the GDPR with sector-specific duties.
On commercial outreach, the guide says consent is generally the appropriate legal basis regardless of the channel. It expressly identifies telephone, post, email, SMS, MMS and automated calls. It also states that commercial prospecting is possible only where the person explicitly consented before the marketing contact.
This sector context matters because gambling marketing carries risks beyond ordinary retail promotion. A reactivation call may reach a person who has shown signs of excessive play, entered a self-exclusion process or asked not to receive promotional communications. Operators therefore need both a valid marketing permission and controls that suppress contact where responsible-gambling or account restrictions apply.
Consent is only one layer. ANJ advertising standards, GDPR principles, consumer law and responsible-gambling obligations continue to apply. A recorded opt-in does not make every message appropriate, nor does it displace the need to limit data use to the disclosed purpose.
CRM and Reactivation Programs Need a New Gate
Customer relationship management systems often contain numbers collected for identity checks, account security, withdrawals or customer support. Those operational purposes do not automatically cover sales calls. Operators should map the source and purpose of every number before placing it in a campaign audience.
A compliant consent record should identify who agreed, which operator was authorised, what type of telephone marketing was described, when the consent was given and how it was captured. It should also record the wording shown to the consumer so the operator can demonstrate that the choice was informed and specific.
Pre-ticked boxes, consent buried in general terms or a single permission covering unrelated partners create risk because the law requires a clear positive act and a specific choice. A withdrawal mechanism must also be simple. Once consent is withdrawn, suppression should reach the dialler, CRM, outsourced call centre and any marketing partner without delay.
Reactivation campaigns deserve particular review. A person who has not logged in for months may still have an account, but that does not necessarily mean a promotional call relates to execution of the existing contract. Treating every dormant account as an unrestricted contract exception would undermine the opt-in principle and expose the operator to consumer-law and data-protection risk.
Third-Party Leads and Call Centres Increase Exposure
The Consumer Code covers calls made directly and through a third party acting on the professional’s behalf. Outsourcing therefore does not remove responsibility. An operator benefiting from unlawful telephone solicitation may be presumed responsible unless it can show that it did not originate the violation.
Affiliate and lead-generation arrangements should specify how consent is collected, which brands are named, what evidence must be delivered and how quickly withdrawals are propagated. Operators should reject a lead where the permission cannot be tied to the intended caller and the stated marketing purpose.
Call-centre contracts need audit rights, list controls, agent training and incident reporting. A vendor should not be able to import an unverified file into a dialler simply because it contains telephone numbers. Campaign approval should depend on a documented consent source and a current check against responsible-gambling, self-exclusion and marketing-suppression data.
Record retention also needs discipline. Keeping proof for the required period is different from retaining marketing data indefinitely. Operators should define separate schedules for consent evidence, campaign records and the underlying customer information, with access limited to staff who need it.
What Gambling Operators Should Change
The first task is an inventory of every telephone campaign and every source of numbers. Operators should separate service communications from marketing, identify the legal basis for each use and stop campaigns that rely only on the absence of an objection.
Consent language should name the operator and telephone channel, describe the commercial purpose, explain withdrawal and avoid making marketing permission a condition of an unrelated service. The technical record should preserve the version of that language, timestamp and collection route.
Next, the CRM should enforce expiry and withdrawal. If consent is valid for a limited period, an old record cannot remain active forever. Automated rules can prevent expired permissions from reaching campaign tools, while dashboards can show how much of an intended audience is actually callable.
Finally, governance should connect marketing compliance with player protection. A valid telephone opt-in should never override a self-exclusion, marketing ban or decision to restrict contact because of gambling-harm indicators. CasinoWire’s responsible gambling coverage tracks how these operational safeguards increasingly intersect with advertising and data use.
Bottom Line
France’s August 11 reform changes telephone prospecting from an opt-out system to prior consent. Gambling operators must be able to prove a free, specific, informed, unambiguous and revocable opt-in before making most commercial calls, subject to a limited exception for communications tied to an existing contract.
For casino and betting businesses, the practical work sits inside CRM architecture, lead controls, call-centre governance and responsible-gambling suppression. The safest reading is straightforward: possession of a telephone number is not permission to market, and a campaign should not launch until the operator can demonstrate exactly why every recipient may lawfully be called.
Primary sources: French Consumer Code; Decree No. 2026-662; ANJ/CNIL gambling data-protection guide.
