You are obviously right since it was Swedish authorities that reviewed EU; but, the definition still has some relevance. I personally cannot speak Swedish (I applaud all multilingual people, I am horrible at foreign languages) so I looked up the definition in the American version. What was interesting was that a defining characteristic was the relevance of skill vs. randomness. In common usage that difference is rarely highlighted. I doubt if google translate would catch it.
Exactly
That's why I posted the definitions, not the laws. It gives a common starting point for discussion.
This is where the first definition gives light. A lack of certainty in return isn't the defining characteristic, or even required. The character of the game is whether the defining element of success is luck vs skill. True, this may not be the same for the Swedish authorities. But if it is similar, (and if it isn't
anything could be considered a gamble) it would give a valid reason for their results - without requiring the individual loot results to be predictable (non-RNG based).
True, and that would imply a lack of skill in choosing what actions to do.
In the end, I'm not trying to say that no people 'gamble' in EU, as much as understand why EU was not classified as gambling, and what that would imply (or not imply) about the game's systems.
(shame on me)