Harris Hagan Harris Hagan
  • Home
  • About
  • People
  • Work
    • Gambling
      • Online gaming
      • Land-based gaming
      • Licensing
      • Compliance
      • Enforcement
      • Training
    • Commercial & Corporate
    • Liquor & Entertainment
  • Recognition
  • Blog
  • Contact
Harris Hagan

Responsible Gambling

Home / Responsible Gambling
22Apr

The Affordability Debate (2): Ambiguous Regulatory Requirements

22nd April 2021 David Whyte Anti-Money Laundering, Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 100

Following the closure of the Gambling Commission’s (the “Commission”) consultation Remote customer interaction – Consultation and Call for Evidence (the “Consultation”), on 9 February 2021, which yielded some 13,000 responses, we are now in the midst of an ‘affordability debate’. However, this debate is largely focused on the future, to the detriment of the present. At a time when licensees are proactively striving to improve their standards and prioritising their approach to safer gambling, it is apparent that licensees are unsure as to precisely what they need to do to remain compliant with present Commission affordability requirements, what those requirements are, and where they are specified.

Tim Miller, in his speech at the CMS Conference in March 2021, stated that “the process of giving detailed consideration to all the evidence is still ongoing with extensive further work and engagement likely to be needed.” Mr Miller went on to state that “clarifying existing rules will be our immediate priority in any next steps.” What Mr Miller does not say, however, is when that will be and what is going to happen in the interim.

A cynic may say that this lack of clarity operates to the benefit of the Commission in its pursuit of its affordability objectives as outlined in the Consultation. Two consequences are clear. Firstly, there are signs that the Commission is subjecting licensees to a series of requirements, none of which are clearly set out in licence conditions, codes of practice, or formal guidance issued by the Commission under its statutory remit.

Secondly, licensees concerned to ensure that they adhere to the Commission’s expectations are likely to interpret the limited formal guidance on affordability cautiously; many in our experience even taking into account the Consultation itself. This can only be to the advancement of the Commission’s affordability objectives. We will deal in a later article with the impact of this precipitate action by the Commission on the Consultation and the Gambling Review.

Current position

Despite what some licensees may have experienced when engaging with the Commission, the measures proposed in the Consultation are not in force. The Commission’s present requirements are instead spread across its last two annual enforcement reports and one formal guidance document, in addition to its published regulatory sanctions and/or settlements.

The Commission takes the view that its enforcement reports serve as indicators to licensees of its expectations, for which licensees can be held to account; these reports therefore arguably contain policy positions that, if enforced, are more akin to licence conditions or code provisions. We have discussed previously our concerns that the Commission may be making indirect changes to licence conditions and/or code provisions through its introduction of requirements to adhere to guidance and this is perhaps another, somewhat broader, example of the same.

We do not agree that the enforcement reports carry the weight of formal guidance. It is clear from the content of the licence conditions and codes of practice (“LCCP”) that in cases where the Commission expects licensees to adhere to formal guidance, it says so. Social Responsibility Code Provisions 2.1 (anti-money laundering – casino) and 3.4 (customer interaction) are examples of the Commission explicitly requiring licensees to adhere to, or take into account, specific formal guidance, the latter requiring that licensees take into account the Commission’s formal guidance on customer interaction. Nowhere in the LCCP is there any reference to the enforcement reports carrying such weight: the closest the Commission comes to this is in licence condition 12.1.1 (3) which, solely in relation to licensees’ obligation to ensure they have appropriate policies, procedures and controls to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, requires that they:

“… take into account any applicable learning or guidelines published by the Gambling Commission from time to time.”

Putting aside the breadth by which this statement may be interpreted, it is clear that this obligation relates to anti-money laundering and not directly to safer gambling or affordability. This appears to be the cause for ambiguity in this area; an evolution of affordability from its apparent origins as a money laundering concern – historically some licensees’ customers having been identified as having gambled with criminal spend – to it now being central to the Commission’s expectations from a safer gambling perspective.

This is further evident from a consideration of the Commission’s introduction to its section on affordability in Raising Standards for Consumers – Enforcement report 2018-19 (the “Enforcement Report 2019”) where it states:

“Some of these individuals have funded their gambling activity through the misappropriation of monies from businesses, the taking out of unaffordable loans and misappropriating the funds from vulnerable people.”

The obligation, as outlined in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, that licensees who hold casino operating licences obtain evidence of source of funds and source of wealth on a risk-based approach in order to mitigate money laundering risks will of course extend to their consideration of affordability. However, this should be as a risk factor that may, when subjectively assessed, increase the risk of money laundering and the financing of terrorism and trigger further enquiries. It is not at present a requirement at a certain level of spend.

When affordability is considered solely from a safer gambling perspective, a formal requirement to obtain evidence of affordability is impossible to identify and the Commission’s expectations are ambiguous at best, even more so given our contention that the enforcement reports may not operate as formal guidance on this matter. How then, is it reasonable for the Commission to hold licensees to account for failings in this area?

1. Enforcement Report 2019

The Enforcement Report 2019 outlines various open-source data sources that may help licensees to “assess affordability for its GB customer base and improve its risk assessment and customer interventions.” This data focusses largely on Office of National Statistics (ONS) and YouGov data highlighting average annual salary and monthly personal disposable income. The report goes on to state that:

“The above disposable income data identified clear benchmarks that should drive Social Responsibility (SR) triggers which will help to identify gambling-related harm by considering affordability.”

“Benchmark triggers should be a starting point for engaging with customers and are not intended to definitively demonstrate a customer is suffering from gambling related harm – but they can help identify instances when an operator needs to understand more about a customer, their play and affordability.”

“If an operator is going to set specific triggers for a customer base not representative of the general public, various documents sources should be relied upon, but they must contain sufficient information to substantiate the trigger level set.

In conclusion, we would recommend that operators revisit their framework on triggers and consider their customer base and their disposable income levels as a starting point for deciding benchmark triggers.”

It is of note that there is no recommendation in the Enforcement Report 2019 that licensees should obtain evidence of affordability from customers whose losses reach national average incomes. As we have discussed above, this requirement, it seems, comes from the Commission’s interpretation of money laundering legislation and certain licensees’ obligations to obtain, on a risk-based approach, evidence of source of funds and source of wealth. Rather, the Enforcement Report 2019 focusses on disposable income data being used to set “benchmark triggers” as a starting point for engagement.

2. Customer interaction – formal guidance for remote/premises based gambling operators – July 2019 (the “CI Guidance”)

When describing the Commission’s expectations as to how licensees must identify customers who may be at risk of experiencing harms associated with gambling, the CI Guidance refers to affordability and states:

“Operators should aim to identify those experiencing or at risk of harm and intervene to try to reduce harm at the earliest opportunity. Reliance on deposit or loss thresholds that are set too high will result in failing to detect some customers who may be experiencing significant harms associated with their gambling. It is therefore imperative that threshold levels are set appropriately.

Open source data exists which can help operators assess affordability for their GB customer base and improve their risk assessment for customer interactions. Thresholds should be realistic, based on average available income for your customers. This should include Office of National Statistics publications on levels of household income.”

Again, as with the Enforcement Report 2019, there is no suggestion in the CI Guidance that licensees should be obtaining evidence of affordability from customers whose losses reach national averages, rather it suggests that affordability is a factor that should be considered when developing customer interaction policies and aiming to identify customers who may be experiencing or at risk of experiencing harm. There is a significant difference between “ to try to reduce harm at the earliest opportunity” and requiring customers to produce extensive evidence to justify their level of spend when they reach a threshold.

3. Raising standards for consumers – Compliance and Enforcement report 2019-20 (the “Enforcement Report 2020”)

The Enforcement Report 2020 was published three days after the Consultation – a decision that will not have helped licensees to understand what is, and what is not, required. In referring to the recommendations it made in the Enforcement Report 2019, and considering customers who have “demonstrated gambling related harm indicators and been able to continue to gamble without effective engagement”, the Commission states:

“Furthermore, these individuals have funded their gambling without satisfactory affordability checks and appropriate evidence being obtained.”

The Enforcement Report 2020 goes on to outline various open source data sources that can help licensees to “assess affordability for GB customers and improve risk assessment and customer inventions”. Again, the data presented primarily focusses on average annual salary as outlined in the ONS survey of Hours and Earnings. The Commission goes on to state that:

“Open source information is an important element of an affordability framework because it is a parameter to consider when setting benchmark triggers that will drive early engagement with customers.”

“We are concerned licensees are creating complex and convoluted matrices and mappings within their affordability framework to place customers into trigger groups well over the gross earnings stated above, before disposable income is factored in. Of more concern, these trigger groups are set without any sort of customer interaction to influence their true affordability determination.”

“Operators must interact with customers early on to set adequate, informed affordability triggers to protect customers from gambling related harm. Failure to do so could render the operator non-compliant.”

“Customers wishing to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information to support a higher affordability trigger such as three months’ payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements which will both inform the affordability level the customer may believe appropriate with objective evidence whilst enabling the licensee to have better insight into the source of those funds and whether they are legitimate or not.”

Importantly, outside of the Consultation, this is the first occasion on which the Commission makes any reference to licensees requiring customers to provide information or evidence in relation to affordability. This time, suggesting evidence is required only when customers wish to “spend more than the national average”. The obvious question here, and a conundrum which we know licensees have been struggling with, is “to what national average does the Commission refer?”

There is a significant difference between the national average salary (stated as c£30,500) and average weekly gross earnings (stated as c£585.00). Should customers be evidencing affordability for losses exceeding £585 per week, or for losses exceeding £30,000 per year; or is there another average that is relevant?  

What is expected now?

In his Speech at the CMS Conference in March 2021, Tim Miller suggested in that he did not expect the Commission to be announcing its plans on affordability imminently. Mr Miller also stated:

“…in our casework and compliance activity we continue to see example after example of operators who have allowed people to gamble amounts that are clearly unaffordable with very limited or no customer interaction until a very late stage. Just to be clear, we are not talking about grey areas here. We are talking about clearly unaffordable levels of gambling.”

Some of the handpicked examples in the enforcement reports demonstrate what almost all would agree are, without evidence of affordability, “clearly unacceptable levels of gambling”, for example a customer losing £187,000 in two days with no regular source of income. However, other examples of which we are aware are not so straightforward and are certainly not at, on any reasonable interpretation, “clearly unacceptable levels”. This is, in practice, most certainly a grey area. The consequence is that licensees who have prioritised safer gambling and, due to their misunderstanding of the Commission’s expectations, are at best criticised, or at worst subjected to regulatory action, because of a failure to meet those expectations in relation to affordability.

Since the publication of the Consultation, we have heard of licensees being criticised during compliance assessments for failing to obtain evidence of affordability from customers who have exhibited no clear signs of problem gambling, are at a low risk of harm, have never raised any concerns themselves, and who have informed licensees that they are comfortable with their gambling spend. This is not to say that licensees should not adhere to the CI Guidance and conduct customer interactions with these customers when and if they reach internally identified thresholds. It is also not to say that licensees should not take affordability into account and discuss the same with customers; but when are they required to evidence affordability?

Ambiguity inevitably leads to inconsistencies. Can “benchmark triggers” or “trigger groups” roll over and/or reset monthly/annually or are they expected to be final? Spend of say £60,000 presents very differently when it has taken place at a consistent rate over 10 years. The same applies to losses of £5,000 in a 3–6-month period when there are no other reasons for concern; yet examples such as these are being raised as concerns by the Commission. These customers are not spending “above the national average”, whatever average to which the Commission means to refer in the Enforcement Report 2020, and therefore it is at least reasonable for licensees, to decide at their discretion that there is no need to require evidence of affordability in these cases.

Licensees’ use of open-source data is also criticised for being inadequate, even in cases where this data more than adequately mitigates risk by demonstrating income at or above the national average, despite reference in the Enforcement Report 2020 to the same being “an important element of an affordability framework”.

The result of this ambiguity is that in our experience Commission activity demonstrates a much lower tolerated threshold than the CI Guidance and enforcement reports suggest; a threshold more aligned with the Consultation. In the current climate, this not only exposes licensees to unreasonable criticism from the Commission, but also places those licensees who are unlucky enough to undergo a compliance assessment at a time of such uncertainty, at a commercial disadvantage; a diligent response to criticism being to reduce thresholds and require evidence of affordability sooner, even if this is neither deemed necessary nor yet a formal requirement. One may question whether the Commission has overlooked its statutory obligation to “permit gambling, in so far as thinks it reasonably consistent with the pursuit of the licensing objectives”.

The impact

It is no secret that licensees are frustrated and confused, and understandably so. Discretion has given way to prudence; licensees are in the unenviable position of having to second guess what the Commission really expects and compliance assessments are becoming one-sided affairs where, in the main, Commission employees attend with an almost preconceived view as to what is and is not acceptable application of discretion. Nobody is perfect and, due to ambiguity, it is easy enough to call into question individual cases. This is not to say, however, that the vulnerable are not being protected. A very large proportion of the customers whose accounts are reviewed by the Commission never have and never will identify as problem gamblers; they are simply spending their money as they wish, even if at a level that Commission considers inappropriate.

Of course, the regulatory framework permits licensees to challenge the Commission’s findings. The reality, however, is that few choose to do so. Commercial realities, protracted Commission investigations, publicity considerations, cost and perhaps shareholder influence, result in most licensees entering into regulatory settlements with the Commission or accepting its findings. This is often their decision whatever the merits of their case. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that a general consensus amongst licensees is that the ultimate sanction will likely be the same anyway, particularly given the ambiguous guidance, so why incur further costs and prolong the inevitable?

Rather than regulate an industry that operates in fear: not the fear of deserved punishment, but fear of a being chosen and inevitably sanctioned for failing to do something it did not fully understand, the Commission would be better placed regulating an industry that is clear on what is expected of it. The present regulatory expectations in relation to affordability are grey and unclear. The Commission has acknowledged as much by consulting on prescriptive requirements. That Consultation now appears stymied, and it is incumbent upon the Commission to back up Tim Miller’s positive acknowledgement that “clarifying existing rules will be immediate priority” and act with urgency to clarify the existing requirements against which it is enforcing. The Commission had no reservation in moving quickly to issue additional formal guidance for remote operators during the Covid-19 outbreak last year, albeit without consultation, so it is capable of acting in haste.

Better understanding will raise standards and could easily be achieved through clarity in guidance. Informal engagement and discussion with the industry, and even possibly training (both internally and externally) controlled, prepared or delivered by the Commission would also be of benefit. How better to put effectively to use some of the £30 million paid in financial penalties and regulatory settlements in the past 12 months? In the meantime, what is absolutely not acceptable is for the Commission to wield its powers through compliance assessments to impose affordability requirements upon licensees which it has so far failed to implement through statutory consultation.

With thanks to Julian Harris for his invaluable co-authorship.

Read more
31Mar

Gambling Commission Consultation Response on Online Slots Game Design and Reverse Withdrawals

31st March 2021 Lucy Paterson Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 96

In July 2020, we blogged about the Gambling Commission’s consultation on online slots game design and reverse withdrawals, which proposed several changes aimed at reducing gambling-related harm caused by online slots games by reducing the intensity of slots play. The consultation proposed amending the Gambling Commission’s Remote gambling and software technical standards (“RTS”) to introduce new controls on online slots and to remove operators’ ability to reverse customer withdrawal requests.

The consultation closed on 3 September 2020, and on 2 February 2021 the Gambling Commission published its consultation response, announcing the new measures to be introduced in the updated RTS. The new provisions, which come into force on 31 October 2021, are clearly marked in red within the updated RTS, which are now available online.

Neil McArthur, now former Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, said:

“This is another important step in making gambling safer and where the evidence shows that there are other opportunities to do that, we are determined to take them.” 

The Gambling Commission, as expected, has proceeded with almost all of the proposed changes set out in the consultation document. We set out below the changes to the RTS and the Gambling Commission’s rationale for their introduction.

Display of elapsed time and net position

Expenditure and time spent gambling have been identified as the most relevant data points in minimising the risk of gambling related harm for consumers. From 31 October 2021, licensees providing slots will be required to permanently display consumers’ net position and time spent during slots gaming sessions on the screen. For the purposes of this new RTS, a “gaming session” begins when the game is opened or once play commences.

Display of elapsed time:

RTS requirement 13C

The elapsed time should be displayed for the duration of the gaming session.

RTS implementation guidance 13C

  1. Time displayed should begin either when the game is opened or once play commences
  2. Elapsed time should be displayed in seconds, minutes and hours

In relation to display of net position:

RTS requirement 2E:

All gaming sessions must clearly display the net position, in the currency of their account or product (e.g. pounds sterling, dollar, Euro) since the session started.

RTS implementation guidance 2E:

  1. Net position is defined as the total of all winnings minus the sum of all losses since the start of the session.

Prohibiting auto-play functionality for online slots

The Gambling Commission’s proposal to prohibit auto-play functionality received low rates of support from all consultation respondent categories. Concerns raised ranged from the evidential basis for banning auto-play, to suggestions that auto-play could be used as a way to control gambling expenditure, and that removing it may negatively affect access to play for those with disabilities or other physical conditions. Given the views expressed, the Gambling Commission carried out further research (set out in Annex 2 of its consultation response), which, it states, supported its concerns regarding the potential intensity impact of auto-play. In our view, the Gambling Commission’s further research was very limited in scope.  The sample size, which the Gambling Commission considered to be a “sizeable base”, was a mere 190 adults (from 358 online slots players) who had indicated they had used auto-play.

The Gambling Commission is therefore introducing a new RTS provision which will prohibit auto-play for slots from 31 October 2021.

RTS requirement 8C:

The gambling system must require a customer to commit to each game cycle individually. Providing auto-play for slots is not permitted.

Prohibiting reverse withdrawals 

Reverse withdrawals allow customers to change their mind about withdrawing funds from their account by cancelling a withdrawal before the transfer to their bank or wallet is completed. In its guidance to remote operators issued on 12 May 2020 in the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Gambling Commission advised that remote operators should “prevent reverse withdrawal options for customers until further notice”. The changes to the RTS mean that this temporary ban on reverse withdrawals will be permanent from 31 October 2020. Importantly, the prohibition on reverse withdrawals will apply to all remote operators, and not just remote operators offering slots games.

RTS requirement 14B:

Consumers must not be given the option to cancel their withdrawal request.

RTS implementation guidance 14B:

a. Once a customer has made a request to withdraw funds, they should not be given the option to deposit using these funds. Operators should make the process to withdraw funds as frictionless as possible.

Prohibiting multiple slot games

The Gambling Commission consulted on this proposal due to concerns regarding the introduction of functionality deliberately designed to encourage play on multiple slots simultaneously via a split screen. The new RTS requirement will prohibit operator-led functionality specifically designed to facilitate such play, but will not go as far as proposed in the consultation in requiring licensees to ensure that customers can only play one slot game at a time across multiple tabs, browsers, applications or devices, on the basis that this would be very complex to implement (though the Gambling Commission is continuing to explore this as part of its Single Customer View project).

RTS requirement 14C:

The gambling system must prevent multiple slots games from being played by a single account at the same time.

RTS implementation guidance 14C:

a. Operators are not permitted to offer functionality designed to allow players to play multiple slots at the same time. This includes, but is not limited to, split screen or multi-screen functionality.

b. Combining multiple slots titles in a way which facilitates simultaneous play is not permitted.

Introducing speed of play limits

The Gambling Commission is introducing a minimum game cycle of 2.5 seconds for online slots. The new provision also applies to any game played with funds made available to a customer in lieu of a stake, such as bonus funds.

RTS requirement 14D:

It must be a minimum of 2.5 seconds from the time a game is started until a player can commence the next game cycle. It must always be necessary to release and then depress the ‘start button’ or take equivalent action to commence a game cycle.

RTS implementation guidance 14D:

a. A game cycle starts when a player depresses the ‘start button’ or takes equivalent action to initiate the game and ends when all money or money’s worth staked or won during the game has been either lost or delivered to, or made available for collection by the player and the start button or equivalent becomes available to initiate the next game.

b. A game cycle starts when a player depresses the ‘start button’ or takes equivalent action to initiate the game and ends when all money or money’s worth staked or won during the game has been either lost or delivered to, or made available for collection by the player and the start button or equivalent becomes available to initiate the next game.

Prohibiting player-led ‘spin stop’ features

The Gambling Commission is introducing the proposed requirement to prohibit features that speed up play or give the illusion of control such as turbo mode, quick spin and slam stop. Features that allow customers to skip the animation that plays after the result is communicated are still permissible, as are “genuine” choice elements of play such as picking which box to open, or the number of steps to progress in a feature and/or bonus round.

RTS requirement 14E:

The gambling system must not permit a customer to reduce the time until the result is presented.

RTS implementation guidance 14E:

a. Features such as turbo, quick spin, slam stop are not permitted. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list but to illustrate the types of features the requirement is referring to.

b. This applies to all remote slots, regardless of game cycle speed.

c. This requirement does not apply to bonus/feature games where an additional stake is not wagered.

Prohibiting effects that give the illusion of “false wins”

The Gambling Commission’s consultation set out its concerns about the fairness of celebratory effects and the psychological impact that this could have by inducing a “hot state” in a customer, and proposed prohibiting such effects where the return is less than or equal to the amount staked. Despite concerns from many licensees that this would require redesign, redevelopment, internal and independent testing, the new RTS provisions will prohibit such effects in the circumstances set out in the consultation.

RTS requirement 14F:

The gambling system must not celebrate a return which is less than or equal to the total amount staked.

RTS implementation guidance 14F:

a. By ‘celebrate’ we mean the use of auditory or visual effects that are associated with a win are not permitted for returns which are less than or equal to last total amount staked.

b. The following items provide guidelines for reasonable steps to inform the customer of the result of their game cycle:

  • Display of total amount awarded.
  • Winning lines displayed for a short period of time that will be considered sufficient to inform the customer of the result. This implementation should not override any of the display requirements (as set out in RTS 7E).
  • Brief sound to indicate the result of the game and transfer to player balance. The sound should be distinguishable to that utilised with a win above total stake.

The suite of measures set out above must be implemented by licensees by 31 October 2020, although members of the Betting and Gaming Council (“BGC”), or supplying BGC members, will find that implementing the BGC’s Code of Conduct, they are one step ahead and will already have introduced some of the Gambling Commission’s new measures, including slowing down spin speeds and banning certain gaming features such as turbo play and multi-slot play.

Importantly, those licensees required to implement the new measures should bear in mind that they must satisfy themselves that they are offering games that are compliant. Where they are not sure, any existing game will require independent retesting by a Gambling Commission-approved testing house. Given that demand on external testing houses is likely to be high as licensees surge to implement the new measures, we would urge that licensees review their games now with a view to ensuring that testing is complete and games are updated in time for 31 October 2021 deadline.

If you would like any advice on implementing the Gambling Commission’s new RTS, please get in touch with us.

Read more
02Feb

The Affordability Debate: Protection, Responsibility and the Right to Choose

2nd February 2021 Julian Harris Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 112

That affordability checks are a critical issue for the British gambling industry is undeniable; they place a yet further onerous burden on an already stretched gambling industry.  However, without fear of exaggeration, they also raise a question about the rights of British adults to make their own free choices, both good and bad and to have responsibility for their own actions. Other industry commentators have written at length on this controversial issue, but its importance is such that it bears further examination, not least as to the way in which this line of regulation is developing.

Where’s the evidence?

In its Consultation and call for evidence – Remote customer interaction requirements (the “Consultation”), the Gambling Commission identify the problem leading to the consultation and proposed new measures as being that some operators have inadequate customer interaction processes and triggers which are set too high, as evidenced by research, casework and “lived experience” evidence. They conclude that the resolution of this will be defined affordability assessments at thresholds set by the Gambling Commission.

Ultimately, the Gambling Commission seeks to reform the way that operators are required to identify customers who may be at risk of gambling harms, by imposing mandatory triggers for activity that should flag such customers to the operator, what action must be taken by operators when such triggers are identified, and how operators must ensure that they evaluate the effectiveness of their approach to interacting with customers. A new customer interaction ‘manual’ is proposed as part of the customer interaction reforms, which will explain the new requirements of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice and how operators are expected to meet these requirements. This would replace the current guidance, Customer interaction – formal guidance for remote gambling operators (July 2019). The actual spending limits on which the Gambling Commission will settle, remain to be determined following the Consultation. However, the references in the Raising standards for consumers – Compliance and enforcement report 2019-20 (the “Enforcement Report”) and the Consultation suggest very low figures indeed before intervention is mandated and evidence required: the Gambling Commission have referred to “firm requirements”.

We are concerned that the Gambling Commission is not adopting a risk based and proportionate approach, combined with the fact that the evidential basis for this Consultation includes research in which customers admit to having sometimes lost more than they can afford, rather than their gambling being unaffordable. Have not we all sometimes had more to drink than is good for us, without being harmed by alcohol any more than we choose to be? Further, the Gambling Commission cite the Enforcement Report, as evidence in support of these measures, when in fact the Enforcement Report deals with “clearly unaffordable’ gambling, whilst the proposed affordability constraints go far beyond customers losing tens of thousands, extending to affordability checks after lifetime losses of as little as hundreds of pounds. The Gambling Commission seems intent on eliminating any harm at all from gambling, seemingly believing all gambling to be inherently bad.

It is unfortunately the case that, as the Gambling Commission’s casework demonstrates, some operators are having insufficient regard for the existing requirements as to intervention and triggers at appropriate levels, leading to licence reviews and sanctions. This, however, is manifestly a problem which the Gambling Commission is addressing as regulator. Operators may not all have adapted to the tsunami of changes and additional requirements as quickly as they should, but progress has been made, and the cases referred to in the Enforcement Report are not sufficient evidence for a de facto penalty against the industry as a whole. Better surely to educate, persuade and, where necessary, take action to ensure compliance with current measures.

A further cogent reason for adopting this approach is that by prescribing fixed thresholds, the Gambling Commission would be moving away from the risk based system of regulation which is the basis of the legislation and regulation.

One additional word of caution; currently the Consultation is expressed to apply only to the online gambling industry. Do not take from this. In our opinion it will inevitable be applied to the land based sector as well; indeed the signs are that it already is.

Does the end justify the means?

One of the stated objectives of the Government’s Response to the House of Lords Gambling Industry Committee Report (the “Report”) is to “ensure balance between consumer freedom and preventing harm to the vulnerable”. We share the concern of others, that these fine words, stating a noble aim, may not reflect genuine intent. As yet, there is no new legislation, the Gambling Review has only just commenced, but already draconian new measures requiring affordability checks are effectively in force. Support for this approach is to be found as early as paragraph 5 of the Report’s introduction, which states:

“The Committee is also right to say that further progress to make gambling safer does not need to wait for the outcome of the Act Review.”

We have written previously of the Gambling Commission’s worrying foray into creating what is in effect new law and regulation without due process or consultation, commenting then that the Gambling Commission was “taking a novel approach that facilitates prescriptive changes to its regulatory framework without consultation or notice” (our blog on 18 May 2020: “New Gambling Commission Guidance for Online Operators: Changing the Basis of Regulation?”). Now that approach is apparently beingsanctioned by Government. Not that the Gambling Commission even waited for that rather pale green light; in the Enforcement Report, the Gambling Commission stated that operators must interact with customers early on to set adequate affordability triggers to protect customers from gambling related harm, threatening that “failure to do so could render the operator non-compliant.” Customers wishing to spend more than the national average disposable income should, according to the Gambling Commission, be asked to provide evidence to support a higher trigger. The Enforcement Report was published on 6 November 2020, just three days after the Gambling Commission launched its consultation on further checks.

Without being unduly cynical, once again the Gambling Commission has jumped the gun. It appears, as has been previously established with such consultations, that they are little more than a box ticking exercise; at worst, with no real intention to entertain alternative opinions and suggestions, or even expertise.

In this case, the emperor truly has been shown to have no clothes; the Gambling Commission has not simply disregarded the results of the Consultation, it has pre-empted it, demonstrating that the exercise is a sham. In effect, the word of the Gambling Commission is now law. We do not need to question their motives, which may be all to the good, with a genuine desire to protect the vulnerable. However, the end cannot always justify the means. The idea that the Gambling Commission has the power, in effect, to regulate by decree, an instrument reminiscent of autocracy or totalitarianism, is abhorrent.

Where’s the balance?

Tim Miller of the Gambling Commission has expressed the intention of having “an open discussion with the gambling industry, consumers, people with lived experience and other stakeholders, to ensure we strike the right balance between allowing consumer freedom and ensuring that there are protections in place to prevent gambling harm.”

Operators will no doubt do their utmost to challenge as part of the Consultation, the levels at which these inevitable new requirements are to be set. However, the evidence on which the Gambling Commission is likely to rely, will almost certainly not include the views of the silent majority of consumers who safely enjoy gambling; they are not included in the group of “people with lived experience”, which is made up solely of those adversely affected by gambling. But the real issue of liberty here is the principle that adults should be free to make their own choices: even bad ones. Most people would regard as unacceptable, the suggestion that their spending should be questioned by any authority; for example when buying alcohol. Nor do most consider it right that anyone, and certainly not a commercial enterprise, should demand private financial information from them. The fact that this is coming to pass in this industry perhaps illustrates the strength of the anti-gambling lobby and its sympathisers, if not supporters, within the regulatory authority. This is a threat to us all.

What are the implications?  It does not need a Sherlock Holmes, or even an Inspector Clouseau to understand that in the absence of operators adopting affordability checks now, their licences are at risk of review, and consequently, of suspension or revocation. Indeed, we have already seen the Gambling Commission requiring such checks of those numerous operators currently the subject of regulatory action. Inevitably this, temporarily at least, places them at a disadvantage to their competitors. The means to protect the vulnerable are already in place. We do not need to assume that all gamblers, or all drinkers or any other class of consumer, is inherently and automatically at risk of harm. We must preserve the principle of freedom of choice.

Read more
20Jan

Covid-19: Gambling Commission reminder to online operators

20th January 2021 Ting Fung Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 92

Gambling Commission CEO, Neil McArthur, issued a reminder on 11 January 2021 on the continued need for online operators to provide their customers with additional protection.

The latest national lockdown, which began on 5 January 2021, is one of the primary reasons for the regulator’s call for extra vigilance. Its reasoning being that:

“Most people will be spending more time at home and many people are likely to be feeling more isolated and vulnerable as a result of the length of the pandemic period, the new restrictions and further uncertainty about their personal or financial circumstances.”

The reasoning also relates fundamentally to operators’ licence requirements under the social responsibility code provisions of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”), Part 3 – Protection of children and other vulnerable persons. This includes helping customers to gamble safely and responsibly by:

  • helping customers to not spend more time or money than they can reasonably afford; and
  • recognising behaviours which may be indicative of risk or harm.

The other reasons given for the reminder relate to Phases 1 and 2 of the Gambling Commission’s research on the impact of Covid-19 on UK gambling, the evidence of which was published in its National Strategic Assessment 2020. Both phases indicated that:

  • consumers, such as highly engaged gamblers who play a range of products, are likely to spend more time and money gambling;
  • the continuation of sports provides greater opportunities for betting customers to gamble; and that
  • some people may gamble for the first time as a result of the current circumstances.

The Gambling Commission will continue to assess the impact of Covid-19 on gambling and asks online operators in the meantime to:

  • Continue following its “additional formal guidance”, in particular, ensuring that close interest is given to data which indicates that customers are expanding their games portfolio and/or spending more time or money than before;
  • Interact directly with customers where triggers are reached and increase email engagement with customers more generally;
  • Ensure that marketing remains compliant and non-exploitative of the current situation; and proceed very cautiously when cross-selling products;
  • Take particular care when on-boarding new customers and carefully consider affordability information and checks, especially in light of any recent or subsequent changes to financial circumstances.

In turn, the Gambling Commission has stated that it will continue to:

  • Permanently strengthen regulatory requirements in respect of RTS and LCCP updates to further protect customers; and
  • Monitor both operator and consumer behaviour closely as well as conducting compliance assessments during the latest lockdown.

For a full reminder of the additional steps that online operators should be taking, please see our blog post from last May regarding the Gambling Commission’s “additional formal guidance”.

Read more
24Nov

The Gambling Commission’s First National Strategic Assessment

24th November 2020 Ting Fung Anti-Money Laundering, Harris Hagan, Marketing, Responsible Gambling 150

On 6 November 2020 the Gambling Commission published its first National Strategic Assessment (“NSA”) alongside its annual, Raising Standards for consumers – Compliance and Enforcement report 2019 to 2020.

What is it?

The NSA is a document comprised of the latest available evidence with the aim of assessing the issues and risks associated with gambling related harm. Gambling Commission Chief Executive, Neil McArthur has stated:

“We will use our National Strategic Assessment as the foundation for prioritising our work over the coming months and years.”

In the accompanying press release, Neil McArthur adds:

“We look forward to working with the government on the forthcoming review of the Gambling Act and alongside that work we will be working hard to address the issues that we have identified in our Strategic Assessment.

We have demonstrated that we are willing and able to respond quickly to emerging issues and risks and that we will use the full range of our powers to protect consumers.  We and have made considerable progress in many areas to make gambling safer – but we want to go further and faster.”

The report outlines the Gambling Commission’s assessment of the key issues faced in making gambling fairer, safer and crime free, and sets out the priority actions and an overview of progress that has been made since 2019.

The Gambling Commission acknowledges that whilst neither gambling participation nor problem gambling rates are increasing, the continually evolving landscape of gambling presents new risks and ongoing challenges.  In the Executive Summary the Gambling Commission states:

“We must see the industry doing more to proactively identify and address the risks within their businesses.  An approach to raising standards for consumers which is heavily dependent on the Commission using its formal regulatory powers will continue to damage the industry’s reputation, restrict activities and result in escalating penalties.”

The regulator maintains that the best and most sustainable way forward is for operators to allow the distinction between regulatory and commercial considerations to diminish if not disappear altogether.

How will it work?

The Gambling Commission will use “priority actions” to target relevant risks and issues whilst highlighting areas where significant progress has been made.  Assessment is built on four “pillars” relating to:

  1. the Person gambling (Chapter 1);
  2. the Place gambling occurs (Chapter 2);
  3. the Products available to customers (Chapter 3); and 
  4. the Provider of facilities for gambling (Chapter 4).

The NSA is structured around these pillars, which are coupled with sections on measuring the effectiveness of gambling regulation (Chapter 5), Covid-19 and its impact on gambling consumers (Chapter 6) and the timeline for action (Annex 1).

The NSA is essential reading for any Gambling Commission licensee.  Unsurprisingly, the content is closely aligned to the Compliance and Enforcement Report (see our blog on 18 November 2020), published on the same day, and there is a strong emphasis on affordability (Chapter 1, pages 14-18).  We strongly encourage B2Cs to review this section carefully, particularly figure 7 and the “clearly unaffordable gambling” case studies.

The NSA’s scope of evidence aims to be wide ranging, drawing on:

  • the Gambling Commission’s own compliance and enforcement work;
  • its advisory bodies, the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling as well as the Digital Advisory Panel;
  • the Interim Experts by Experience Group (involving those with direct experience of gambling related harm);
  • industry colleagues and representatives; and
  • the findings of recent Parliamentary reports (see here).

Why now?

Such a document is no doubt in line with the Gambling Commission’s licensing objectives and follows on from regulatory action and research that the Gambling Commission has already performed (see Annex 1 of the NSA for a timeline of action). However, it is also arguable that the speed and depth of their action is partially motivated by the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee assessment in June this year that more and faster action was needed by the Gambling Commission to protect vulnerable customers and consumers’ rights to redress. Neil McArthur seems to echo this in his above statement that “ to go further and faster” with its progress.

What to expect next?

The NSA includes numerous “GC actions” throughout.  We have summarised these, by chapter, as follows:

Chapter 1: the Person gambling

In response to the key issues and risks regarding:

  1. ineffective KYC approaches including affordability checks;
  2. delayed and ineffective responses to at-risk behaviours;
  3. inadequate controls for more engaged gamblers;
  4. underage gambling; and
  5. gaps in evidence and understanding of gambling-related harms.

The Gambling Commission proposes to act on the following:

  • Consultations regarding more effective KYC and early identification and effective responses to at-risk behaviour, to include: responding to and implementing the Gambling Commission’s customer interaction consultation on themes of affordability, vulnerability and identifying and acting on harm indicators, including the management of high value customers. In addition, the Gambling Commission will issue a consultation on streamlining the approach to tracking of gambling participation and prevalence of at-risk and problem gambling, with the aim of implementing consultation outcomes in 2021. The Gambling Commission also intends to publish a statement setting out the principles and key areas of work in its approach to vulnerability.
  • Developing first-rate evidence to inform regulation and legislation, including but not limited to: added questions to the Gambling Commission’s quarterly online omnibus survey to understand the public’s experience of gambling-related harms; longitudinal study of gambling behaviours and problem gambling to inform future improvements to gambling research; a permanent advisory body (Experts by Experience) to build on the Gambling Commission’s interim arrangements.
  • Developing risk-based approach to harm minimisation in response to more engaged gamblers, such as, developing solutions to provide a ‘single customer view’, and including an updated approach to and use of technology.
  • Regulatory powers: continued regular investigation of operators’ adherence to social responsibility code provisions and review of its commitment to Annual Assurance Statements; ensuring compliance with strengthened age verification controls and supporting industry bodies generally in their legal and regulatory oversight.

Chapter 2: the Place gambling occurs

In response to the key issues and risks regarding:

  1. the accessibility of online gambling;
  2. the anonymity associated with premised-based gambling; and
  3. socially responsible advertising.

The Gambling Commission will take action in the following ways:

  • Partnership and industry engagement, to include: partnership with key regulators to ensure gambling is fair, safe and crime free; working with product design groups to challenge the industry to implement better consumer protections; engaging the non-remote sector and promoting initiatives that reflect the Gambling Commission’s compliance and enforcement activity elsewhere.
  • Research and knowledge, to include: increasing knowledge on digital industries and emerging technologies to ensure regulation remains fit for purpose and responsive to emerging risks; gathering evidence on the most effective ways to prevent bonuses being offered to consumers displaying indicators of harm; building on its interim guidance issued during the first Covid-19 lockdown; monitoring progress on the use of ad-tech to proactively target online marketing for gambling away from children, young people and those who are vulnerable to harms.
  • Regulatory powers: targeted actions using the Gambling Commission’s regulatory powers to continue to raise standards; monitoring the effectiveness of the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising which came into effect on 1 October 2020.

Chapter 3: the Products available to customers

In response to the key issues and risks regarding:

  1. potential harms associated with online game and platform design
  2. regulatory risks presented by gaming machine product characteristics and environments
  3. matching controls to the risks presented by product characteristics such as speed of play, accessibility and return to player; and
  4. making consumer and regulatory outcomes equivalent to commercial outcomes.

The Gambling Commission will work on the following:

  • Consultations and responses, to include: publishing a response to the Gambling Commission’s consultation on safer game design; publishing a response to its proposal to ban reverse withdrawals.
  • Research and knowledge, to include: publishing the findings of the randomised controlled trials with three large operators into anchoring and commitment devices; active engagement in research programmes including the GambleAware-funded project on online patterns of play, led by NatCen.
  • Testing: implementing the enhanced test house framework and ensuring that the United Kingdom Accreditation Service assessments of test houses are robust and effective.

Chapter 4: the Provider of facilities for gambling

In response to the key issues and risks regarding:

  1. transparent cooperation regarding ownership and governance;
  2. the evolving risks presented by illegal gambling; and
  3. upholding the licensing objective of keeping crime out of gambling.

The Gambling Commission will take the following action:

  • Consultations and responses, to include: publishing the response to the consultation on the Gambling Commission’s corporate governance including its approach to regulatory panels.
  • Research and knowledge, to include: publishing clear metrics to measure the effectiveness of regulatory interventions; increasing understanding of the scale of illegal gambling and exploring disruption techniques.
  • Daily operations, to include: improving data systems and capacity to ensure quicker identification of and response to consumer issues; expanding capacity and availability of accredited online investigators and necessary software tools respectively, in order to tackle illegal gambling.
  • Regulatory powers, to include: upholding stringent processes to assess the suitability of prospective licensees and taking swift enforcement action against non-compliant licensees; updating the Gambling Commission’s money laundering risk assessment; and continuing to support the sport and sports betting integrity action plan.

With regards to the impact of Covid-19 on gambling consumers (Chapter 6), the Gambling Commission has stated that it will continue to collect and publish data to inform on the ongoing impact and associated risks. 

As stated in relation to the providers of facilities for gambling (Chapter 4), the Gambling Commission is preparing key metrics on the impact of its regulation and where it is making progress in changing the behaviours of operators. It will use these metrics along with the four pillars of assessment to help prioritise its responses to harm minimisation in the short and long term. With its evidentiary emphasis, the NSA is a foundational document for the Gambling Commission to continue to develop its regulatory approach and impact and help inform stakeholders. The Gambling Commission itself states:

“Good regulation is informed by good evidence. We continually seek to improve the evidence base; to have access to better data, to move away from just counting problem gamblers to understand more about specific gambling-related harms.”

Read more
18Nov

Gambling Commission Compliance and Enforcement Report 2019-2020

18th November 2020 Bahar Alaeddini Anti-Money Laundering, Harris Hagan, Marketing, Responsible Gambling, Training 145

On 6 November 2020 the Gambling Commission published its annual Raising Standards for consumers – Compliance and Enforcement report 2019 to 2020 (the “Enforcement Report”).  The Enforcement Report has been expanded this year and is laid out in the following eight sections:

  1. Chief Executive’s message;
  2. Triggers and customer affordability;
  3. Customer interaction and social responsibility failings;
  4. Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing;
  5. Personal management licence (“PML”) reviews;
  6. Illegal gambling;
  7. White label partnerships; and
  8. Betting exchanges.

Chief Executive’s message

In the very first sentence of his message, Gambling Commission Chief Executive, Neil McArthur, reminded readers that:

“Holding an operating licence or a personal licence is a privilege, not a right, and we expect our licensees to protect consumers from harm and treat them fairly.”

He goes on to summarise the Gambling Commission’s compliance and enforcement work in the last financial year (April 2019 to March 2020), in which:

  • 49 section 116 licence reviews were commenced against PML holders;
  • 5 operating licences were suspended;
  • 11 operating licences were revoked;
  • 12 financial penalty packages or regulatory settlements, totalling over £30 million, were imposed; and
  • 350 compliance assessments (land-based and online) were conducted.

Neil McArthur also emphasised:

“Those in boardrooms and senior positions need to live up to their responsibilities and we will continue to hold people to account for failings they knew, or ought to have known, about…Regulatory settlements are a way of resolving enforcement cases which we have used to good effect. Frankly, however, there are too many occasions where settlement proposals are made at a late stage of our investigation process or approached as if a licence review is a commercial dispute to be negotiated. That is not acceptable…Settlements are only suitable where a licensee is open and transparent, makes timely disclosures of the material facts, demonstrates insight into apparent failings and is able to suggest actions that would prevent the need for formal action by the Commission. Only licensees who meet those criteria need make settlement offers; licensees who choose to contest the facts before conceding at a later stage need not make offers of settlement…Everyone has a part to play to make gambling safer and learning the lessons from the failings identified in this report is one way of doing that.”

Summary of other key points from the Enforcement Report:

Triggers and customer affordability

“Customer protection has continued to be a priority for the Commission and consideration of affordability should be a significant driving factor in customer risk assessments.”

Affordability is a top priority and the Gambling Commission remains dissatisfied by industry progress.  Open source information remains an important element of an affordability framework, because “it is a parameter to consider when setting benchmark triggers that will drive early engagement with customers”.  Open source information shows:

  • median gross weekly earnings* for full-time employees in the UK of £585;
  • 50% of full-time employees in the UK receive less than £30,500 gross earnings* per year;
  • 50% of full-time managers, directors and senior officials (the highest weekly earners) in the UK receive less than £45,000 gross earnings* per year.

*These are gross earnings before expenses such as income tax, national insurance, mortgage/rent payments, travel, food etc. are deducted.  The Gambling Commission expects expenses to be considered “so the starting point adequately reflects the true level of available disposable income for that individual.”

Further, the Gambling Commission is concerned that:

  • affordability frameworks “are not being implemented at pace despite guidance and advice”;
  • “complex and convoluted matrices and mappings” are being developed based on gross earnings before disposable income is factored in;
  • “trigger groups are set without any sort of customer interaction to influence their true affordability determination”; and
  • operators are not interacting early on to set “adequate, informed affordability triggers to protect customers from gambling related harm”, which it goes on to say “could render the operator non-compliant”.

Most notably, the Gambling Commission adds that:

“Customers wishing to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information to support a higher affordability trigger such as three months’ payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements which will both inform the affordability level the customer may believe appropriate with objective evidence whilst enabling the licensee to have better insight into the source of *those funds and whether they are legitimate or not.”

Operators should review lessons in the Enforcement Report and re-assess affordability triggers whilst preparing for any new requirements that may emerge from the Gambling Commission’s consultation on remote customer interaction. We will publish a blog on this consultation next week.

Customer interaction and social responsibility failings

“We have set out clear expectations for operators in relation to safer gambling. We expect operators to actively work and accelerate cooperation with each other to prevent, mitigate and minimise harm, collaborating to accelerate progress and evidence impact. We want a focus on ‘what works’ and we expect operators to empower and protect consumers.”

The scope of social responsibility is broad and includes identification and engagement with those who may be at risk of or experiencing harms.

The responsible teams for social responsibility should be adequately resourced.

Operators are encouraged to consider whether they can evidence the following:

  • effective safer gambling policies and procedures in place which are tested and periodically reviewed and updated to reflect impact assessments and new research;
  • policies and procedures that are truly implemented in the business and are being acted upon;
  • appropriate safer gambling triggers in place that lead to meaningful customer interactions, which are regularly reviewed by management to critically assess their impact on customers and overall effectiveness;
  • effective challenge and oversight by senior management with clear accountability throughout the organisation; and
  • teams responsible for conducting social responsibly interactions are adequately resourced so that at-risk customers are not missed or identified too late.

Licensees are strongly encouraged to review the Gambling Commission’s notable enforcement cases, helpful case studies and good practice guidelines.

Anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing

“Work to ensure gambling stays free from crime and the proceeds of criminal finance continues to be a major area of concern for the Commission. Significant and substantial assessment continued for both land-based and online gambling businesses, including money service businesses activities offered by the casino sector.”

The Gambling Commission continues to see operators falling down on the following:

  • insufficient depth of knowledge demonstrated by PML holders, leading to competency and integrity concerns;
  • deficient Risk Assessments leading to ineffective policies, procedures and controls;
  • operators and PML holders failing to learn lessons from the Gambling Commission’s compliance and enforcement activity; and
  • failure to provide regular, quality training to staff.

Licensees are strongly encouraged to review the Gambling Commission’s notable enforcement cases, helpful case studies and good practice guidelines.

PML Reviews

“The Commission has been signalling for the past few years that we will increasingly focus on the role played by Personal Management Licence holders (PML) when undertaking Compliance and Enforcement investigations.”

Common failings have emerged from:

  • Failures to assess if decisions being made at Executive level are being implemented within businesses.
  • Overly complicated lines of decision making and accountability.
  • Lack of technical knowledge and oversight of areas that PML holders have specific responsibility for, especially in respect of AML.
  • Prioritising commercial outcomes over regulatory responsibility.

This section ends with a stark reminder, which we always provide to our clients and training subjects, “businesses do not make decisions – people do.” The Gambling Commission adds that “icensees can expect us to continue to take action against accountable individuals to ensure standards are raised to the levels required, whether in relation to the business or individual capability.”

Illegal gambling

“Part of our statutory remit and a key licensing objective is to keep crime out of gambling. We are particularly focused on identifying and disrupting those illegal websites which are targeted at the young and vulnerable gamblers and which often provide little, or no, customer protection. When consumers access illegal gambling sites, they expose themselves to many risks and are not afforded the protections in place in the regulated sector.”

The Gambling Commission’s focus has been on investigating unlicensed gambling facilities and unlicensed advertising, with 59 instances of remote unlicensed operators and 245 illegal lotteries referred by Facebook for closure.  Its investigations have shown:

  • consumers identified as users of the websites have in the main been vulnerable with some having previously self-excluded via GamStop;
  • consumers often contact the Gambling Commission because they have been unable to withdraw funds;
  • when consumers have complaints with unlicensed operators these are often not dealt with, and consumers have no right to appeal;
  • the protection of consumers’ personal information cannot be relied upon; and
  • such websites may be linked to organised crime.

The Gambling Commission urges licensees to remain vigilant as to the risk of illegal sites using their software without authorisation and to report any such instances immediately

White label partnerships

“The white label operating model continues to be popular within the GB market with there being over 700 white label partners within the industry at present. One of the reasons this model is becoming increasingly popular is that this type of arrangement can bring global exposure to an operator’s products, via the arrangements their white label partners have in place with sports teams for example. However, there is a concern that unlicensed operators who would potentially not pass the Commissions’ initial licensing suitability checks, are looking to use the white label model to provide gambling services in Great Britain.”

White labels have been a key area of focus for the Gambling Commission in the last year.  It showed that licensees were failing to appropriately mitigate the risks to the licensing objectives, including:

  • a failure to properly scrutinise the ownership of white label partners;
  • ineffective AML controls with individual white label partners or across the customers’ activity; and
  • poor oversight of activities performed by white label partners, particularly in relation to customer interactions.

Responsibility for compliance always sits with the licensee.  In accordance with social responsibility code provision 1.1.20 (responsibilities for third parties) safeguards should always be implemented before committing to contractual obligations to ensure compliance with the LCCP.  Failure to do so is likely to bring into question the suitability of the licensee.

Operators are encouraged to:

  • Conduct risk-based due diligence with a view to mitigating risk to the licensing objectives before entering a relationship with a white label partner;
  • continually manage and evaluate its white label partner relationships;
  • ensure service agreements between the licensee and white label partner explicitly articulate where overall responsibly for regulatory functions lie;
  • ensure white label partnership contracts contain a clause permitting the licensed operator to terminate the business relationship promptly where the partner is suspected of placing the licensing objectives at risk or fails to comply with the requirements contained in the LCCP;
  • provide training to their partners and conduct ongoing oversight of the activities which should be clearly documented and retained for the life of the business relationship;
  • ensure that any system the licence holder has in place to manage or detect multiple accounts for individual customers, works across all white label partners so they will have a holistic view of customer activity; and
  • ensure that source of funds, affordability or markers of harm triggers are based upon this holistic view and not solely on an individual domain basis.

Licensees are strongly encouraged to review the Gambling Commission’s notable enforcement cases, helpful case studies and guidance on white labels.

Betting exchanges

“This year has seen increased regulatory activity related to betting exchanges; an area of growing complexity as operators expand the breadth of markets available and the jurisdictions from which they draw their customers.”

The Gambling Commission reminds betting exchanges that they must apply “critical risk-based thinking” and must not assume that something good enough for one regulator will be acceptable to another. Due diligence should be undertaken for each individual customer.  In particular, source of funds and source of wealth must be monitored by adequate checks and controls, particularly where these may be obscure, unconventional and/or especially large – for instance, in relation to account to account transfers or syndicates.

Licensees are strongly encouraged to review the Gambling Commission’s notable enforcement cases.

We strongly encourage all Gambling Commission licensees and applicants to read the Enforcement Report carefully.

Read more
22Oct

Betting and Gaming Council Announces Game Design Code of Conduct

22nd October 2020 Jessica Wilson Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 148

On 25 September 2020, the Betting and Gaming Council (“BGC”) announced the new Game Design Code of Conduct (the “Code”). The Code is a product of the industry’s Safer Products Working Group which was formed in January 2020 and tasked with pursuing the opportunity to reduce gambling harm through game and product design.

Compliance with the Code is to be undertaken by BGC members, including where operators use non-BGC game suppliers.

The Code applies to online slot products and is intended to be a “living document, evolving as the research base and understanding around game design continues to develop”. The Code sets out 14 principles to show a commitment to “transparency, player education, innovation and research with the overarching aim of enhancing player safety” which can be categorised into the following areas:

Game Characteristics: Working with academics, regulators, consumers, individuals with lived experience of gambling related harm and other technical experts to identify and agree on features that are correlated to greater player risk.
Informed Player Choice:Empowering customers to play more safely through the provision of clearer information on product and game rules, including mathematical properties such as risk, the chances of winning and optimal strategies.
Enhancing Control Innovation: Improvements in safer gambling tools that help players both monitor and control their gambling, including spend, loss, win and time-based measures.
Governance and Continuous Improvements:Process for reviewing and updating any Code of Conduct, in addition to transparency, disclosure and independent evaluation.

The Code is divided into two phases:

Phase 1

This phase introduces four standards of game design. The requirements are in line with the Gambling Commission’s recent consultation on online slots game design which aims to make these standards applicable to the whole industry. The Code of Conduct requires BGC members to have the measures in place by 30 September 2020, making BGC members “amongst the first to commit to these standards”.

The four standards are as follows:

1. Minimum game cycle speed of 2.5 seconds

A game cycle starts when a player has paid for an initial wager and depresses the ‘start’ or ‘spin’ button or takes equivalent action to initiate the game and ends when all money or money’s worth staked or won during the game has been either lost or delivered to, or made available for collection by the player and the start button or equivalent becomes available to initiate the next game. Where auto play or auto start is permitted then a game cycle is measured from the point at which the game is initiated by the system (equivalent to the player depressing the start button) to the point at which it is able to automatically start the next game.

2. Removal of turbo play

Turbo play or equivalent features will be not be allowed. Such features enable the player to speed-up the base game cycle speed of the game.

3. Removal of base game slam stops

Slam stops or equivalent features will not be allowed within the base game. This is the ability for the customer to interact with the base game to end it before it has naturally concluded e.g., by hitting or pressing a button whether online or on a physical machine. This includes promotional free wagers paid for by the operator.

4. Removal of multi-slot play within a single gaming client

Functionality that allow players to place multiple, separate stakes on multiple slots games within a single gaming client will not be allowed.

Phase 2

Phase 2 requires BGC members to implement additional measures for new games by 31 January 2021 to “enhance transparency and add friction for players”.

1. Wins below the stake size

Total wins below the stake will be informative and will be differentiated from wins that are equal to or greater than the stake. Specifically:

  • The win amount will be displayed
    • The win line is displayed long enough for player to understand the impact of the bet (in line with existing RTS 7E)
    • A brief sound can be used to make the player aware of the result (the return of funds to wallet)

In contrast, total wins equal to or greater than the stake may be celebratory and allow the following elements:

  • The win amount can be displayed in a differentiating manner e.g., the win display could be in a text size that is greater and could utilise dynamic win animations, for example coin showers
    • The win line can be displayed with additional animation permitted
    • Celebratory sound effects can be used.

2. Bonus game notifications

Bonus games outside the base game will not be automatically triggered without a customer intervention, e.g., clicking a button to acknowledge that a bonus game has been won and can now be entered. In addition, after the end of a bonus game, the player will receive a notification informing them the bonus game has finished before re-entering the base game. If Auto-play is used during the bonus game, it will automatically stop before re-entering the base game. In the exceptional case that a bonus game is not triggered before the platform would normally time out, the operator has the right to clear down the game with any winnings being added to the player’s balance.

The implementation timeframe of the following two measures will be agreed in the coming months:

1. Access to safer gambling information

While a player is playing a game, the display will include a link to safer gambling information that will be available to view within a prominent place on the gaming client. This will display a safer gambling icon and messaging and contain links to the customer account pages of the operator, with quick links to all limit setting functionality (e.g., deposit, loss, time, timeouts, and self-exclusion).

2. Mandatory player interaction

A mandatory player interaction will be initiated every 60 minutes or at the conclusion of the subsequent game cycle. This will require the customer to acknowledge the message.

The BGC has stated that it may recommend to the Gambling Commission that the Phase 2 measures are adopted as part of the Gambling Commission Remote Technical Standards.

Innovation and Testing Lab

The BGC have created a work programme for the BGC Innovation and Testing Lab to use an evidence-based approach to development of the Code and to inform future changes. The BGC intends to be “transparent in the reporting of findings, methodology and data”.

The Innovation and Testing lab will be focussing on the following projects:

  • Game labelling – work on creating a consistent safer gambling icon and a common game labelling scheme for key features such as volatility and persistence
  • Increased staking – work to assess the prevalence of increased staking in slots sessions, whether this behaviours correlates to a risk of harm and how safer gambling messaging can be incorporated to enhance player safety
  • Auto-play – work on the relationship between auto-play and staking behaviour and whether any risk mitigation is required
  • Display of net position and elapsed time – work on providing players with quick access to information on their net spend and time elapsed

BGC’s Game Design Code of Conduct has introduced significant changes to the design and functionality of online slots games. The industry should expect to see more changes due to ongoing work in the industry and the awaited Gambling Commission response to its consultation on online slots which closed on 3 September 2020. See our blog on 10 July 2020 for further details. BGC members, and those supplying BGC members, are reminded of the Phase 1 measures were implemented on 30 September 2020.

Read more
14Oct

Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising, Sixth Edition

14th October 2020 Ting Fung Harris Hagan, Marketing, Responsible Gambling 121

“From ancient times in China, Egypt and Rome, it has been present as a pastime, affording enjoyment for many, corrupting some and harming not a few…”

Of gods and mortals

In his introduction in the Chambers and Partners Gaming Law Global Practice Guide, Julian Harris writes of Palamedes, the god to which the Greeks ascribed the invention of dice, as well as weights and measures. With the publication of the sixth edition of the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising (the “Industry Code”), now under the custody of the Betting and Gaming Council (“BGC”), it is this dichotomy of play and balance that is held in mind.

As technology and its consumption changes and continues to advance, consumers across industries are more exposed to advertising than ever, maximising fun but also magnifying potential harm. With the scope of online advertising presenting the greatest influence, and arguably the most risk, it is unsurprising that one of the key areas of update in the Industry Code relates to social media, in respect of marketing and its use to promote consumer awareness.

What licensees need to know

From 1 October 2020, Gambling Commission-licensed operators are required to enforce the following:

  • Sponsored/paid-for social media advertisements must be targeted at consumers aged 25+. This requirement relates solely to prospecting campaigns where the targeted audience is not already verified through an operator’s own age verification processes;
  • Given improvements in identification technology if a social media platform can verifiably prove that its age gating systems can prevent under 18s from accessing the gambling advertising content, a possibility exists that the above age filter may be reduced to 18+;
  • Organic YouTube content produced by an operator as well an operator’s own YouTube channels must be age-restricted to 18+ to ensure users log in to age-verified accounts in order to view content;
  • Operators should undertake reasonable endeavours to exclude from their paid-for social media campaigns (a) customers with an active self-exclusion or cool-off period and (b) those assessed by an operator as ‘higher risk’;
  • Operators must use their own social media pages to post frequent safer gambling related information; and
  • Operators must provide information (in an easily accessible and sufficiently prominent manner) on how customers can limit their exposure to gambling advertising across social media platforms.

In other areas, further changes to the Industry Code include:

Search activity

  • Search advertisements must clearly contain 18+ messaging in the advertisement copy, along with safer gambling messaging within the core ad format;
  • The BGC will collate (and regularly update) a shared blacklist of negative keywords, against which no gambling advertising should be served. This blacklist will include keywords that (a) indicate vulnerability and (b) relate to children. Operators must, “in a timely fashion”, incorporate the keyword blacklist into all relevant campaigns where applicable;
  • These requirements will also apply to any affiliate marketing carried out on behalf of an operator.

Affiliate compliance

  • All affiliates must be subject to due diligence and PEPS/sanctions checks. KYC checks should also be conducted, wherever relevant.
  • Affiliates must comply with all relevant regulatory and legislative requirements including CAP’s guidance on ensuring advertisements are obviously identifiable as such. In order to promote consistency, all relevant affiliate ads should be clearly and prominently marked ‘#ad’;
  • Relevant affiliates must share safer gambling related content on a regular basis with each individual operator with whom that affiliate has an agreement;
  • It is expected that (a) compliance with the above requirements will be managed by way of contractual obligations imposed by operators and (b) operators will terminate relationships with affiliates that cannot or do not comply, the Industry Code adding that this will be “preferably on a one strike and you’re out rule” basis.

As many will already be aware, ordinary code provision 5.1.8 of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice states: “icensees should follow any relevant industry code on advertising, notably the Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising”.

The Industry Code states that it aims for the above changes to “better protect children and vulnerable consumers online”, with BGC Chief Executive, Michael Dugher, further adding:

“We have made excellent progress in recent times and the Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising is updated as technology evolves. The latest edition is further evidence of our determination to continue to ensure that standards are rising and are as high as they can possibly be”.

The measures are certainly timely in light of the Advertising Standards Authority’s findings published in August 2020, which revealed that four operators had breached age-restricted advertising rules.

Whistle-blowing at its finest

By contrast, in other avenues of advertising, the ‘whistle-to-whistle’ ban (introduced under John Hagan’s leadership as former Chair of IGRG) has proven markedly effective, with the BGC noting that betting advertisements seen by children has since fallen by 97% and that the amount of gambling advertisements viewed by children has fallen by 70% over the full duration of live sport programmes.

Read more
09Oct

Gamcare releases first of its kind financial harms toolkit

9th October 2020 Lucy Paterson Harris Hagan, Responsible Gambling 127

This week, Gamcare released its Gambling Related Harm: Core Messages and Financial Harm Toolkit, which is aimed at organisations helping customers affected by gambling harm, including gambling operators, financial institutions and debt advice agencies. The toolkit sets out Gamcare’s core messages and draws together information on the various tools customers can be signposted to for assistance controlling their gambling, including safety tips that can be provided to customers who do not wish to stop gambling completely.

The toolkit, which is the result of a cross-sector collaboration initiative by Gamcare and the first of its kind in the UK, is intended to be a comprehensive guide for organisations across the UK to help them recognise, support and refer customers experiencing gambling-related financial harms and provide consistent communications across all points of the customer journey.

The materials draw together best practice and are informed by the experiences both of those who have been harmed by gambling and experts from each sector, in order to tangibly improve customer interactions in future. The toolkit contains referral pathway guidelines tailored to each sector and guidance on training staff to provide them with the confidence to support customers who are impacted by gambling harms.

Gambling related financial harm is an important area of focus for Gamcare, which reports that 70% of callers to the National Gambling Helpline mention some level of gambling debt and/or financial hardship. Gamcare’s progress in this area has now seen eight banks offer customers the option to place blocks and ‘cooling off’ periods on gambling transactions to assist in controlling their gambling.

Gamcare hopes that the toolkit will help frontline staff in key industries provide effective, sensitive support to customers in order to ensure they receive the help they need.

Anna Hemmings, CEO at GamCare, said:

“People struggling with gambling present in different ways and often opportunities are missed to provide the support they need. Ensuring that frontline staff are equipped to help and refer to appropriate support is a huge step in improving the outcomes these customers experience. This toolkit, with the support of businesses, charities and gambling operators themselves, is vital to putting those pathways in place.”

Read more
20Jul

Gambling Commission Consultation on High Value Customers

20th July 2020 Julian Harris Harris Hagan, Marketing, Responsible Gambling 140

Introduction

Following a breakfast briefing conducted by Neil McArthur in October 2019, the Gambling Commission announced the formation of three industry working groups, one of which was to focus on high value customer incentives.

The proposals from the working groups, co-ordinated by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), was published on 1 April 2020 with operators agreeing to implement the changes rapidly, some by as soon as 14 April. At the time of publication of the proposals the Gambling Commission stated that it “would launch formal consultations to ensure that the new measures are incorporated into its regulatory framework.” The Gambling Commission further stated that it “expects the industry to implement its code as soon as possible and considers most measures should be implemented within 3 months” and that it “will monitor and support implementation of the industry’s code as an interim measure.”

The proposals made were to:

  • Restrict and prevent customers under 25 years of age from being recruited to high value customer schemes.
  • All customers must first pass through checks relating to spend, safe gambling and enhanced due diligence before becoming eligible for high value customer incentives.
  • Reward programmes will also be required to have full audit trails detailing decision making with specified senior oversight and accountability.

The consultation was published on 26 June 2020 and closes on 14 August 2020.

New Licence Condition

The Gambling Commission proposes to introduce a new licence condition on rewards and bonuses. This will apply to all licences, except gaming machine technical and gambling software licences and will require that:-

  • any incentive or reward scheme must be designed to ensure that the circumstances and conditions are clearly set out and readily accessible to customers to whom it is offered;
  • neither the receipt nor the value is dependent on gambling for a pre-determined length of time or frequency, or alters or increases if the activity or spend is reached within a shorter time;
  • if the benefit comprises free or subsidised travel or accommodation the terms are not directly related to the level of gambling
  • if incentives or reward schemes are offered to customers designated “high value”, “VIP”, or equivalent, they must be offered in a manner consistent with the licensing objectives.

Most importantly, licensees are required – by use of the word “must” –  take into account the Gambling Commission’s guidance on high value customer initiatives.

New Guidance

In its guidance, the Gambling Commission goes further than the three points that are outlined above. For example, in addition to those, it requires:-

  • Specific policies and procedures for the operation and governance of HVC schemes, to include authority levels for key decision making, and appropriate oversight arrangements.
  • A named individual, at senior executive level or equivalent, accountable for the programme’s compliance. Except for small scale operators this should be a PML holder.
  • Licensees should consider what additional steps are required to ensure staff are equipped and motivated to manage HVCs effectively, including enhanced training on safer gambling and AML risks specific to HVC management; job descriptions reflecting that protection of the licensing objectives are the basis for all activity carried out by staff involved with HVC rewards programmes; staff should not be incentivised or remunerated based on a customer’s loss, spend, or activity; the performance management of HVC staff should be consistent with the principle that commercial pressures should never override regulatory considerations or customer welfare; and ensuring staff managing multiple accounts retain their ability to assess risk on an individual basis.
  • HVC incentives should not be used to exploit vulnerable customers or to encourage problematic behaviour. Licensees must be able to evidence how their rewards and bonuses are compliant with the provisions in section 5.1 of the codes of practice.
  • Licensees will be expected to take all reasonable steps to verify the information provided to them and conduct ongoing checks, with frequency of checks to be determined by the assessment of risk from ongoing monitoring of the customer’s activity, behaviour and circumstances. In the absence of any change in the risk assessment, licensees should as a minimum undertake a review of a HVC’s account at least quarterly.

It is important to note the Gambling Commission’s statement at paragraph 1.5 of the proposed guidance: “We have used the word ‘must’ to denote a legal obligation, while the word ‘should’ is a recommendation of good practice, and is the standard that we expect licensees to adopt and evidence. We expect licensees to be able to explain the reasons for any departures from that standard.”

The Gambling Commission has consulted on these proposals, as it is required to do under section 24(10) of the Gambling Act 2005, before issuing or amending a code of practice. However, the addition of lengthy and detailed guidance bears resemblance to the approach the Gambling Commission has taken to customer interaction. The VIP guidance makes it explicitly clear from the wording above that, despite using the word “should”, it expects licensees to adopt the standards set out and maintain evidence of doing so. This is essentially a requirement. The manner by which the guidance has been issued, arguably opens the door to the Commission taking similar steps to that which it took in relation to customer interaction, this time in relation to the requirements for VIP customers. Essentially the Gambling Commission will be able to amend this guidance, perhaps substantially, and to add onerous additional requirements, without consultation. Whether they will do so remains to be seen, but we highlight the point as a warning to operators to be watchful. The guidance is detailed, and as we know, the devil lurks in the detail.

We recommend to operators that they reply to the consultation, seek clarity as to paragraph 1.5, and make it clear that they expect the Gambling Commission to consult prior to amending its guidance further.

With thanks to my colleague David Whyte for his invaluable co-authorship.

Read more
    • 12345