Lithuania and Latvia Gaming Licences: The Baltic Markets Compared

The Baltic states are small, but they are fully regulated, EU-member online gambling markets with loyal player bases and relatively little competition. Lithuania and Latvia each run their own licensing regime, and the differences between them matter for operators planning a regional strategy. Here is how they compare.

Lithuania: strict, local and land-based-first

Lithuanian gambling is supervised by the Gaming Control Authority under the Ministry of Finance. The defining feature of the regime has been its link to land-based operation: historically a remote licence could only be obtained by a company that also holds a land-based licence and operates physical premises in Lithuania. The requirement has been relaxed in stages, but a local Lithuanian company, substantial share capital and local management remain necessary. Remote gambling is taxed on gross gaming revenue at a rate that has been rising, and advertising rules are among the tightest in the EU, with a near-total ban on gambling advertising in force.

Latvia: more open, but with high fixed costs

Latvia’s Lotteries and Gambling Supervision Inspection licenses interactive gambling to Latvian-registered companies without a land-based precondition. Share-capital requirements are significant and annual licence fees are high in absolute terms, which favours operators with an established revenue base. Interactive gambling is taxed as a percentage of GGR, and the regulator maintains a blacklist of unlicensed domains that is actively enforced through ISP and payment blocking. Latvia also imposes a state-run self-exclusion register that all licensees must connect to.

Common ground

Both markets require locally registered companies, certified gambling software, connection to national self-exclusion systems, strict AML and player-identification procedures, and local language customer service. Both actively block unlicensed operators. And both are genuinely enforced markets: regulators issue fines and revoke licences, so a Baltic licence is a commitment rather than a formality.

Which one first?

Operators usually start with Latvia when they want a lower-friction entry into the region, and add Lithuania once they can justify the local presence and higher tax burden with a clear market plan. Estonia, the third Baltic state, has its own regime and is often the preferred regional base because of its digital administration and EU credibility.

Practical considerations

Payment integration with local banks, translation and localisation, and compliance with each country’s marketing restrictions are the areas where new entrants most often underestimate the work required. A phased Baltic plan with realistic timelines avoids launching in one market with a compliance function sized for another.

For a regional Baltic strategy, our jurisdictions team can map licence requirements, timelines and costs across all three markets.