New Zealand invites operators to submit Expressions of Interest for online gaming licenses

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

New Zealand moves from policy design to market test

New Zealand’s launch of the Expression of Interest stage marks the point at which a long-running policy project becomes a commercial contest. Since the government first outlined plans in July 2024 to license online casinos, the central question has been how to bring an already active offshore market under domestic oversight without creating an uncontrolled expansion of gambling.

The Department of Internal Affairs has now put prospective operators on notice that the licensing process will be selective, capital-intensive and compliance-heavy. The EOI requirements, including ownership details, platform information, licensing histories, source-of-funds disclosures and checks on relevant individuals, indicate that New Zealand is not treating the process as a simple market opening. It is using licensing as a filter.

That approach reflects the rationale Secretary for Internal Affairs Paul James has repeatedly set out. In earlier remarks reported by New Zealand Secretary of Internal Affairs Paul James on channeling players to licensed operators, he argued the bill is designed to close a regulatory gap rather than introduce online casino gambling to New Zealanders. The government’s position is that offshore gambling is already entrenched and that the state must decide whether to regulate the activity or leave it outside local consumer protection, tax and enforcement systems.

The offshore market shaped the licensing model

New Zealand’s current framework has long restricted domestic online casino gambling while offshore websites remained accessible to residents. That mismatch created a grey market in which consumers could gamble with companies beyond New Zealand’s licensing regime and outside the direct reach of local harm-minimization rules.

Internal Affairs officials have framed the new system as a channeling exercise: move players from unlicensed offshore platforms to approved websites that can be monitored, taxed and sanctioned. James has said the bill would make online casino gambling legal only within a controlled structure, with penalties for operators that stay outside it. The earlier legislative outline included website-blocking powers and fines of up to NZ$5 million for unlicensed operators, signaling that the licensing regime is intended to work alongside sharper enforcement.

The size of the opportunity explains why the EOI stage matters. Government estimates cited in the earlier bill debate put New Zealanders’ online casino spending at about NZ$1.3 billion in 2025, up 10% from a year earlier. Officials also said more than 95% of New Zealanders who gamble online use about 15 offshore websites, a figure that helps explain the government’s cap of up to 15 licenses. The number is not arbitrary. It is designed to match the scale of existing demand while limiting fragmentation in the regulated market.

Early engagement became a warning to operators

The government has been preparing operators for a staged process. Before the formal EOI window opened, the Department of Internal Affairs encouraged companies to identify themselves and engage with regulators as the system was being built. In New Zealand’s earlier register of interest for prospective online operators, officials said early engagement would help shape a clear and efficient licensing process.

Trina Lowry, director of the Online Gambling Implementation Programme, said at the time that regulators wanted to understand what information operators needed and what experience they brought to the process. That phase was less about granting market access than about preparing both sides for a licensing framework that would be new to New Zealand but familiar to international operators that already work across regulated jurisdictions.

The EOI requirements show how that early engagement has translated into practical thresholds. The NZ$19,000 fee and NZ$7.5 million minimum capital requirement are intended to screen out under-resourced bidders. The demand for disclosure of investigations or breaches in other jurisdictions shows that New Zealand plans to rely heavily on an operator’s international compliance record. For global gambling companies, past conduct in markets such as Europe, Latin America or Australia is likely to matter as much as the strength of their New Zealand business plans.

Domestic incumbents pushed for a narrower field

The cap on licenses has become one of the most contested elements of the reform. SkyCity Entertainment Group, the country’s dominant casino operator, has argued that the government should issue no more than five online casino licenses and restrict them to local companies. As reported in SkyCity’s call for New Zealand to limit online gaming licenses to five, the company said domestic incorporation would help ensure online casino profits are subject to New Zealand income tax.

SkyCity’s position reflects a broader defensive concern among incumbent gambling businesses. Land-based casino operators and wagering businesses have established brands, regulatory relationships and tax obligations in New Zealand. A licensing process open to multinational online casino operators could shift market share toward companies with stronger digital platforms, larger marketing budgets and deeper product libraries.

TAB NZ raised similar concerns, warning that an open market could let multinational operators dominate, cannibalize existing gambling revenue and weaken funding streams for racing and sport. Those objections highlight the political tension behind the licensing design. The government wants to reduce offshore leakage and protect consumers, but domestic operators want a structure that protects existing business models.

Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden has resisted calls to favor local firms, saying the government’s role is to create a fair regulated market rather than protect particular incumbents. She has also noted that preferences for domestic operators could raise free-trade concerns. That position makes the EOI stage especially important: if New Zealand will not formally reserve licenses for local companies, the compliance and suitability process becomes the main tool for deciding which firms enter the market.

Brazil offers a contrast in speed and scale

New Zealand’s cautious rollout contrasts with Brazil’s rapid licensing buildout after its legal betting market launched on Jan. 1, 2025. In Brazil’s approval of eight operators for full licenses, the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets expanded the market to 191 fully licensed brands across multiple licensing rounds. Brazil has also moved to approve suppliers, including in the licensing of 3 Oaks Gaming by the Brazilian regulator, showing how quickly a new regulated market can attract both operators and content providers.

The comparison is useful because it shows the strategic choices facing new jurisdictions. Brazil has pursued scale, with many brands moving from provisional to full licenses. New Zealand is taking a more limited approach, with up to 15 licenses and a competitive process. That smaller field could make oversight easier and improve channeling if the approved operators are strong enough to draw players away from offshore sites. It could also intensify competition for licenses and make unsuccessful bidders more likely to challenge the process or continue targeting New Zealand from abroad.

The stakes now shift to enforcement and credibility

The success of New Zealand’s model will depend on whether licensing, advertising rights and enforcement tools work together. Legal operators will be able to market to New Zealanders, a major change from the current prohibition. That advantage is central to the channeling strategy. If licensed sites can advertise, offer trusted payment routes and operate under recognizable consumer protections, the government has a better chance of moving players away from offshore alternatives.

But the framework also carries risk. Too few licenses could limit consumer choice and leave space for unlicensed sites. Too many could weaken oversight and increase gambling harm. A process perceived as favoring incumbents could undermine confidence among global operators, while a process dominated by offshore companies could sharpen domestic political opposition.

The EOI stage is therefore more than an administrative step. It is the first market signal of who is willing to meet New Zealand’s standards, disclose ownership and funding, submit to suitability checks and compete under a capped regime. The government has argued that online casino gambling is already part of New Zealand life. The question now is whether regulation can bring that market onshore without magnifying the harms it is meant to control.