New Jersey fines Super Group US$112K for self-exclusion failures

A top-tier online operator just took a regulatory hit in the U.S. market.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement has fined Super Group’s subsidiary Digital Gaming Corporation (DGC) around US$112,000 for responsible-gaming failures—particularly relating to self-exclusion and deposit limits.

From my position as a gambling regulation expert, this is more than a fine—it’s a wake-up call. Operators must treat self-exclusion systems and deposit-limit controls as central to compliance, not optional add-ons.

Read on—I’ll breakdown what happened, why it matters for the industry, and what operators should do next.

Key Points

• DGC failed to timely add self-excluded individuals to New Jersey’s official Self-Exclusion List between March 2024 and January 2025.
• Between 18 July and 7 August 2024, certain self-excluded players regained access or formed new accounts on DGC’s platforms.
• In June and July 2025, DGC permitted players to exceed their own deposit limits—another breach of responsible gaming rules.
• The DGE imposed a civil monetary penalty of US$112,188.96, and required disgorgement of US$5,278 in winnings from self-excluded players.
• The regulator emphasised that although no further action is announced now, any future violation could trigger more serious disciplinary consequence.

Super Group Hit With US$112K Fine in New Jersey for Self-Exclusion Breakdown

When I review this enforcement action, several things stand out—especially for operators in regulated markets like the U.S.

What Went Wrong

Between March 2024 and January 2025, DGC lagged in its processing of self-excluded individuals. That meant individuals who opted out of gambling in New Jersey still had the ability to wager on some of DGC’s platforms.

Then, in the span of 18 July to 7 August 2024, the DGE found that DGC’s self-exclusion list process faltered—some excluded persons reclaimed accounts or opened new accounts.

Later, in June and July 2025, DGC allowed players to exceed their self-imposed deposit limits. Those limits are meant to be a key tool in responsible-gaming regimes.

In regulatory terms, these weren’t isolated slip-ups. The DGE described them as systemic failures in internal controls and compliance procedures—violating the Casino Control Act and applicable codes.

Why It Matters

From my view, the enforcement action carries several implications:

• Consumer protection is front and centre. Self-exclusion and deposit-limits are tools meant to protect vulnerable players. When they fail, regulator trust erodes.
• Regulated operators face real compliance risk. The fine is modest in size for a large operator, but the reputational hit and signalling effect are substantive.
• Regulator expectations evolve. Operators must not treat self-exclusion and deposit-limit mechanisms as check-boxes—they must be effective in practice.
• Exit or restructure doesn’t negate liability. Interestingly, the case comes as Super Group announced its exit from U.S. operations, yet past conduct remains on the hook.

Strategic Lessons for Operators

Operators active in regulated jurisdictions should heed these lessons:

• Audit your self-exclusion process end-to-end. Ensure that persons who opt out are fully removed from active player pools or blocked appropriately.
• Deposit-limit controls must be enforced. When a player sets a limit, that limit must serve its protective function—not be easily overridden.
• Compliance culture must be ongoing, not periodic. Systemic failures point to cultural or procedural issues over time.
• Prepare for regulator scrutiny even if you plan to exit. Past lapses may still attract enforcement while you wind-down or restructure.
• Document and monitor. Retain audit trails of self-exclusion processing and deposit-limit enforcement to defend if regulator questions arise.

My Professional Take

In my opinion, this enforcement case is a bell-wether for where U.S. state regulators are heading: marrying player-protection obligations with live operational compliance. The fact that the violations spanned months shows that regulators are no longer satisfied with mere licences—they demand working systems.

For operators, this means compliance departments must shift from reactive to proactive. The smallest breakdowns—say, a late update to a self-exclusion list—can propagate into wagering opportunities for excluded players and trigger regulatory action.

Moreover, the fine reinforces that responsible gaming is not just a peripheral concept—it is central to the licence condition. Especially in markets like New Jersey, which pride themselves on regulated integrity, non-compliance undermines the regulated ecosystem.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement has imposed a US$112,188.96 penalty on Digital Gaming Corporation, a subsidiary of Super Group, for significant lapses in self-exclusion processing and deposit-limit enforcement.

From my analysis, the case underscores that in regulated online gambling markets, seemingly technical matters like exclusion-list processing and limit enforcement carry strategic weight. Licensed operators must treat these obligations not as after-thoughts but as core compliance foundations.

Tags: SuperGroup, NewJerseyGaming, SelfExclusion, ResponsibleGaming, DGEEnforcement

📢 Join the Conversation!

Want to share your thoughts or ask questions about our latest articles? Stay connected and be part of the discussion by joining our Telegram and WhatsApp channels!

🔹 Get real-time updates
🔹 Share insights with industry peers
🔹 Ask questions & get expert answers

👉 Join us on Telegram 👉 Join us on WhatsApp

Let’s keep the conversation going!