20Jan

Covid-19: Gambling Commission reminder to online operators

20th January 2021 Ting Fung 301

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”.

24Jun

Preserving the Value of Regulatory Assets in a Restructure

24th June 2020 Hilary Stewart-Jones 348

Covid-19 has not been all bad news for the beleaguered gambling industry – both anecdotally and from the statistics released in the public domain the online gambling industry is having a booming trading period (a current growth rate of 13.2%). However, as the retail industry braces itself for a cautious re-opening, and the ensuing expected second wave, it is inevitable that a number of companies, with a large retail footprint will need to think about restructuring and possible sale of assets.

However, there are key regulatory issues in Great Britain that cannot be neglected at this critical time despite the wider trading challenges. Compliance adds value, which may be key to assessing the business proposition in any due diligence required by a lender in a rescue situation – it also would be ironic if the rescue package itself caused operational non-compliance. Administration or receivership (as well as creditor schemes) of any company is a priority key event needing to be disclosed to the Gambling Commission (as a licence condition requirement ) under the Licence conditions and codes of practice (“LCCP”). Disclosure needs to be made as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event within five working days and any failure to do so (whether intentional or not) will be treated seriously, all the more so where the story may be picked up in media in advance of disclosure. Likewise, the making of any loan by an entity not regulated by the FCA or the non-UK equivalent and any investment not by way of shares (see licence condition 15.1.2(1), (5) and (6) of the LCCP) needs disclosure. It is also not entirely clear how the Gambling Commission may regard the various governmental loans/cash bailouts to UK businesses, but it is probably best to err on the side of caution.

Restructuring falling short of an insolvency (where it impacts a key position is also notifiable) as are the breaches of banking covenants (see LCCP 15.1.2 (9) and (11)). (Any re-organisation is also a code disclosure requirement). Whilst only liquidation will cause a licence to lapse (see section 114 of the Gambling Act 2005), any large scale operational changes will undoubtedly lead to regulatory scrutiny, and may even prompt a licence review, despite the operator being able to avoid any formal creditor arrangements. Furthermore, insolvency practitioners are not necessarily or likely to be well versed in the wider regulatory constraints in selling or extracting value from regulated assets.

Operating licences are not assignable, which adds to the complexity of an asset sale, and changes of corporate control after a sale can be time consuming without any certainty of outcome, especially where there is a desire to take key functions away from the old management (prompting PML or Annex A applications). The peculiarity of the provisions under section 102 of the Gambling Act 2005 allowing for the sale to complete before Gambling Commission approval has proven endlessly perplexing for corporate advisors. Corporate restructures short of an administrative sale commonly require a financial advisor to take a Board seat, and even if this does not require the individual (likely to be from an audit firm) to hold a PML , he or she may have to undergo suitability , personal probity checks not commonly sought for other industries. In short, this would require some navigation and clever strategizing, to create value for the operational business and creditors where the regulatory issues should not be (but could very well be) inhibitors to a third-party financier’s involvement.

Also, few operators are solely based in the UK; many of the online and retail operators hold a multiplicity of licences in a number of different jurisdictions so the impact of any reporting of a restructuring event or the event itself will vary as well as the likely outcome. Worse than that there may be a jurisdictional tug of war to establish which court and legal system should lead on any administration or insolvency, and strategies around timing may be critical. The location and value of the underlying businesses may be hard to determine where, for example, IP may be used across several business verticals. The new Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill may assist in the UK (if passed) for a moratorium on some debts but may not trump the entire insolvency process in a complex multi-national business restructure.

Key supply contracts may also be imperilled; provisions which may have created a breathing space with a properly drafted force majeure clause will in most cases still enable the non-breaching party to terminate in the event of an administration event, ceasing to trade or changes of control. Certainly, in a number of gambling supply contracts there is a catch all provision for any wider regulatory taints, and depending on the circumstances may also prompt key suppliers to consider their options prompted by, for example a distressed operator undergoing a regulatory review because of an administration event.

However, the industry has always been resilient even with the constant media and regulator criticisms and challenges it currently faces as well as the economic uncertainties. If the various financial downturns in Las Vegas have taught us anything, then banks operating regulated assets is far from ideal, albeit the various stakeholders may have little choice in the short term. What is clear is that the myriad parties involved cannot lose sight of the importance of maintaining the licences, without which there is no viable business to trade out of the crisis or to sell. Some early checks with regulatory lawyers will at least eradicate or pre-empt the predictable snags, when the energies and focus of management and third-party advisors may be elsewhere.

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

18May

New Gambling Commission Guidance for Online Operators: Changing the Basis of Regulation?

18th May 2020 Julian Harris 360

Introduction

The Gambling Commission’s recently published purported “guidance” for online operators (“New Guidance”), issued under social responsibility code provision 3.4.1 (“SRCP 3.4.1”) of the LCCP, highlights how carefully it is focusing on a perceived risk presented by the current COVID-19 crisis. If this risk does exist – and the evidence on which the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) relies is questionable at best – it is unlikely that anybody would dispute the need to recognise and address it: operators do not want to benefit from problem gamblers, consumers must be protected, and the depreciating reputation of the industry in the wider public eye must be addressed.

However, the manner by which the Commission has implemented the New Guidance and the strength of its content, is suggestive of the Commission taking a novel approach that facilitates prescriptive changes to its regulatory framework without consultation or notice.

The data is, we have said, questionable, which is an issue for separate discussion. However, even if accepted at face value, it does not support emergency measures introduced at little notice without consultation. In their press statement, the Commission notes that “during lockdown gambling participation is down overall” and concludes that “there is no evidence to suggest an increase in problem gambling.”

The law

The Commission issued SRCP 3.4.1 under section 24(2) of the Gambling Act 2005. Section 24(10) which requires that before issuing or revising a code of practice, the Commission shall consult (inter alia): the Secretary of State; Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise; one or more persons who appear to the Commission to represent the interests of persons who carry on gambling businesses and are likely to be affected by the code or revision; and one or more persons who appear to the Commission to have knowledge about social problems relating to gambling.

SRCP 3.4.1 is not a licence condition; it is a code provision that, by virtue of section 82 and as a consequence of it being a SRCP, is subject to the licence condition that it is complied with. This is an important distinction as, were it to be a general licence condition under section 76 the requirements for general licence conditions under that section would apply. These prescribe that, before specifying the licence condition the Commission must consult and that at least three months’ notice be provided to the holders of affected operating licences. Section 76(5) permits the Commission to specify a licence condition without providing this required notice “if it thinks it necessary by reason of urgency”, but requires it to “give as much notice as it thinks possible in the circumstances”.

By combining its reference to SRCP 3.4.1 and the New Guidance in the same paragraphs when publishing it on its website, the Commission has caused confusion and led some operators and commentators to conclude that it has amended this SRCP. This misapprehension is then compounded by the fact that when the Commission first introduced its guidance on customer interaction in July 2019 (the “2019 Guidance”), it consulted on that change.

The Commission cannot properly have amended SRCP 3.4.1; had it done so, it would have acted in breach of the requirements of the Gambling Act 2005 by failing to consult in line with section 24. In this case, the Commission has introduced additional formal guidance under the SRCP.

2019 guidance

SRCP 3.4.1 requires that licensees “take into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction”. The 2019 Guidance sets out why customer interaction is a requirement and provides operators with suggestions as to how the Commission’s expectations can be met. The Commission states in this guidance:

“For compliance and enforcement purposes, we will expect licensees to demonstrate how their policies, procedures and practices meet the required outcomes. This can be through implementing relevant parts of the guidance or demonstrating how and why implementing alternative solutions equally meet the outcomes.”

Introducing guidance under SCRP 3.4.1 was an arguably sensible approach. It enables the Commission to outline to operators in more detail how they can meet its expectations in applying the SRCP.

The New Guidance: not what it seems

The New Guidance issued by the Commission is not as broad as the 2019 Guidance. It uses very different wording and is less outcome focused. It requires licensees to undertake specific measures. This is clear from the requirement that operators “prevent reverse withdrawal options for customers until further notice”, an issue that has justifiably been on the Commission’s radar for some time, now brought into effect and, given the Commission’s reference to a consultation on this issue following later this month, that is unlikely to change. By including such specific directions, this is guidance in name only; the consequence being that whether intentional or not, the Commission has amended the SRCP by the back door, avoiding the need to adhere to the requirements of the legislation

The New Guidance is made all the more difficult for operators to understand, given the mismatch between the press statement accompanying the New Guidance, and the New Guidance itself. An example of this is the statement included that “operators must take account of the Commission’s guidance, which makes it clear they should: … interact with customers who have been playing for an hour in a single session of play”. This is inconsistent with the New Guidance, which requires operators to “specifically, review time indicators to capture play in excess of one hour as this is a proxy for potential harm”. Should all customers be interacted with after an hour, or is this just an indicator to be considered?

Operators therefore find themselves in an unenviable position. Despite their ongoing efforts to protect consumers during the COVID-19 crisis, they are forced, with little notice and no consultation, to make immediate changes to their policies, procedures, terms and conditions and processes, in order to take into account prescriptive guidance. In the absence of any consultation, this guidance is difficult to interpret, it is based on limited and questionable data, and may be inconsistent with their own experience and observations: all at potential detriment to other valuable projects in the consumer protection field that may have to be side-lined.

Nobody would challenge efforts by the Commission to protect consumers throughout this crisis. However, a demonstrable understanding of the industry it regulates, sympathy for the time it takes to implement change, and adherence to the outcomes based flexibility that allows operators to focus on the consumer risks identified in their business, may ultimately produce better results. Arguably, a consultation, however short, would have enhanced the impact of the New Guidance, avoided confusion, and provided at least some notice.

A sign of things to come?

By taking the course of action that it has, the Commission has perhaps signalled a questionable new approach. Its introduction of guidance under SRCP 3.4.1 has, whether intentionally or not, made indirect, prescriptive changes to code provisions carrying the weight of licence conditions, without it having to consult, or provide notice. Operators should be aware of this and be ready to take prompt action the next time the Commission introduces further guidance at short notice. Whatever the merits of changes introduced by the Commission, it is vitally important that it acts transparently, proportionately and fairly in accordance with its own Statement of principles for licensing and regulation, if high standards are to be achieved and the industry’s trust in its regulator is to be maintained.

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

14May

New Gambling Commission Guidance for Online Operators

14th May 2020 Jessica Wilson 356

On 12 May 2020, the Gambling Commission issued new “additional formal guidance” for online operators in response to “evidence that shows some gamblers may be at greater risk of harm during lockdown”.

Online operators must now take this new guidance into account and they are “expected to make changes to act on this guidance as soon as possible”.

The new guidance is issued under social responsibility code provision 3.4.1 of the LCCP which requires licensees to interact with customers in a way which minimises the risk of customers experiencing harms associated with gambling. This includes identifying customers, interacting with customers, understanding the impact of the interaction, and taking into account the Gambling Commission’s guidance on customer interaction, which now includes the new guidance of 12 May 2020.

The new measures, to be “implemented into customer interaction frameworks” by licensees, are as follows:

Reviews of all thresholds and triggers used to track vulnerability to ensure that they reflect changed financial circumstances that many consumers will be experiencing. An emphasis should be placed on those thresholds and triggers being proactively reset on a precautionary basis to ensure customers with emerging vulnerability, such as increased time spent at play or increased spend can be identified
Specifically, reviewing time indicators to capture play in excess of one hour as the Gambling Commission believes this is a proxy for potential harm.
Set additional or modify existing thresholds and triggers which are specific to new customers reflecting the operator’s lack of knowledge of that individual’s play and spend patterns.
Implement processes that ensure the continual monitoring of the operator’s customer base, identifying customers whose patterns of play, spend or behaviours have changed in the last few weeks.
Conduct affordability assessments for customers identified by existing or new thresholds and triggers which indicate customers experiencing harm. Consider limiting or blocking further play until the checks have been concluded and supporting evidence obtained.
Prevent reverse withdrawal options for customers until further notice.
Stop bonus offers or promotions to customers displaying indicators of harm.

Guidance or requirement

Whilst guidance may be appropriate to ensure vulnerable customers are protected, particularly during the current Covid-19 pandemic, it is questionable whether the measures can be considered to be “guidance” and whether they are wholly proportionate and necessary in the light of the data on which the Gambling Commission has based these measures. The wording of the measures appears to create an obligation on the part of licensees to “stop bonus offers” and “prevent reverse withdrawals” which give the impression of requirements, rather than guidance.

Data

The Gambling Commission published two sets of data. A first set collected through a YouGov survey and a second from “the biggest operators, covering approximately 80% of the online gambling market”.

YouGov data

The YouGov data was collected from just over 2,000 people, some of whom may have taken the survey multiple times. The data is based on gambling habits of customers within four weeks from “mid-March 2020”. Whilst the data does show increased spend on online gambling, for example a 2% increase on online slot games and 1.7% on sports betting, the biggest increase of 16.4% was on National Lottery products which are regulated separately and to whom the new guidance does not apply. The data analysis also fails to consider the potential adjustment of gambling habits due to the closure of land-based venues as an explanation for the increase of spend and time on certain products, as opposed to an increase in gambling habits.

Gambling Commission data

The second set of data was collected over the period 31 March 2019 to 31 March 2020. This period only covers one week in which the country was in lockdown. It follows that this data cannot be reliable evidence that customers are at a greater risk of harm during lockdown. Further, the data shows a decrease in reverse withdrawals. The new guidance at point 6 above includes the prevention of withdrawal options until further notice. It is clear that this measure was not based on the data published by the Gambling Commission, which questions whether it was necessary and proportionate to be included within this particular guidance. The Gambling Commission, supported by research, already considered reverse withdrawals to be a flag for potential gambling harms; however, action to tackle this through an industry consultation would have been more appropriate than a strict measure introduced under the guise of guidance.

Absence of consultation

The absence of an industry consultation on the guidance is particularly disappointing. When a code of practice is amended, the industry would usually be offered the opportunity to respond to a consultation on the proposed new amendments. This was the case when the Gambling Commission last issued guidance under social responsibility code 3.4.1 in July 2019. However, it seems that the Gambling Commission has decided to omit this stage due to lockdown being a present and continuing issue. The press statement notes that the Gambling Commission will bring forward plans to consult on whether further targeted protection measures are required on a permanent basis.

The Gambling Commission’s Statement of principles for licensing and regulation begins by stating that the Gambling Commission regulates in a “straight-forward, risk-based and transparent manner”. The lack of industry consultation here is plainly neither transparent, nor based on sufficient evidence of risk.

The new requirements are significant and will no doubt be burdensome for licensees to implement “as soon as possible”. However, they are likely to be welcomed by Culture Minister Nigel Huddleston (see our blog of 24 April 2020) and the Public Accounts Committee following Neil McArthur’s appearance at the session Gambling regulation: problem gambling and protecting vulnerable people on 27 April 2020.

To comply with the new measures significant updates are likely to be required to systems, customer terms and conditions and policies, each requiring input from different people, perhaps even third-parties, which will no doubt be a challenge given the current crisis. If, as the press release suggests, operators are expected to “interact with customers who have been playing for an hour in a single session of play” the impact will be significant, particularly for large operators who may have several thousand active customers at any one time. The threat of interim licence suspension, or licence review, increases this burden, which was thrown upon licensees without consultation, warning or a timeframe to implement the required changes.

As Julian Harris wrote in our previous blog, “for regulation to be effective it requires a healthy and collaborative working relationship between regulator and whom it regulates”. This statement is echoed here and whilst both the Gambling Commission and the industry as a whole are in agreement that new measures should be introduced to protect the most vulnerable during this novel and rare situation, any changes should be proportionate, necessary and founded upon strong and clear evidence.

A further blog post on the implementation of the new guidance will follow.

24Apr

Betting and Gaming Council Announces Safer Gambling Strategy

24th April 2020 Jessica Wilson 376

Last month the industry association, the Betting and Gaming Council, announced a new 10-point safer gambling action plan for its members in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The action plan, which came into force on 27 March 2020, aims to strengthen consumer protection and build upon existing safer gambling measures implemented by its members.

Whilst overall gambling has dramatically declined due to cancellation of sporting events and the closure of betting shops and casinos, the Government’s lockdown and social-distancing guidelines mean more people are spending time in their homes. Customers may now be gambling online more frequently and, during this difficult time, could be at their most vulnerable and a greater risk of problem gambling. The Betting and Gaming Council’s action plan consists of 10 pledges which set out the standard expected of operators to increase their safer gambling measures and to protect customers during the crisis.

The 10 pledges are as follows:

Members will increase safer gambling messaging across all sites, apps and channels including inbox messaging to all existing and new customers reminding them of the safer gambling tools available.
Members will implement heightened monitoring and data collection in the knowledge that customers are required to abide by social distancing measures. Any material change in customer play patterns, including any increase in time and spend, beyond normal patterns before the crisis, indicates potential markers of harm and operators must step up interventions.
Members, operating heightened monitoring, shall actively promote deposit limits and send a deposit limit message with link to the tool to any player exhibiting abnormal patterns of play that are a marker of harm.
Members shall commit to an immediate and ongoing review of their marketing and advertising – in volume, content and targeting – and will act to ensure it is both appropriate and responsible given the increased risk.
Members will report to the BGC instances of illegal rogue and inappropriate advertising and the BGC will report these to the regulator.
These Pledges will fully apply to all affiliates. Members will enforce a strict one-strike-and-you’re-out policy for breaches of these pledges.
Members will sign-post to Gamcare advice and the 24-hour free to call National Gambling Helpline and GamStop for self-exclusion in their safer gambling messaging, particularly where issues around anxiety or isolation are apparent from monitoring systems or customer interactions.
Members restate their commitment to maintaining the vital flow of important funding for Research, Education and Treatment (“RET”).
Members shall conduct welfare checks on employees during this crisis.
Members should play a full part in supporting the Government’s ‘National Effort’ by encouraging staff to volunteer for community service, as well as offering premises where possible for use by those supporting the effort to tackle the Coronavirus.

Commenting on the pledges, Michael Dugher, chief executive of the Betting and Gaming Council, said:

“In this time of national crisis, with so many people self-isolating and social distancing at home, it is vital that we do everything possible to ensure safer gambling and to protect potentially vulnerable or at risk people.”

Building on these pledges, and in response to a letter from the Sports Minister, members have this week committed to further safer gambling measures, as detailed in a letter from Michael Dugher to the Sports Minister in which he says:

“I can give you 100 per cent assurance that despite the severe financial pressures the industry is under at present, our members in the regulated sector are fully committed to working with you and the Government to address all concerns on safeguarding customers.”

These additional measures include:

Responding to the Sports Minister’s request for safer gambling messages to be given more prominence in all adverts across all channels. This is being treated as an immediate high priority.
Ensuring that the Gambling Commission’s recent request for data is urgently provided.
Expediting agreed changes to VIPs, advertising technology and game design.
In addition to implementing restrictions on VIP accounts for anyone under 25, members will look to bring forward age-gating on advertising technology to help prevent under 25s receiving advertising along with all other measures.

The letter also provides an assurance that Betting and Gaming Council members are “firmly committed to increasing funding for RET despite the severe financial pressures.”

The pledges and additional measures, together with the marketing code for the Virtual Grand National which took place on Saturday 4 April 2020, demonstrate the industry’s renewed commitment to safeguarding customers and raising standards. This is despite the disappointing response to the current crisis from the Gambling Commission, which we wrote about in our blogs on 25 March 2020 and 3 April 2020.

31Mar

Productivity in This Time of Crisis

31st March 2020 David Whyte 362

The widespread closure of land-based gambling businesses, coupled with the impact of a hiatus in sport may, however undesirably, present some operators and suppliers with the opportunity to take advantage of additional spare time and ease regulatory and commercial burdens prior to the much-coveted return to normality.

Annual fees

In its recent update, the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) has confirmed that due to the structure of its fee system, which is based on secondary legislation, it is unable to offer a reduction in annual fees or accept payment by instalments.

The only two options presented by the Commission are:

licence surrender; and
reducing the annual fee payable by applying to vary an operating licence to decrease the fee category where there is a reduction in gross gambling yield (“GGY”).

While option 2 may sound attractive, only some licensees will benefit. We recommend considering the following points when making a variation application to decrease a fee category:

it is the cheapest type of application and only costs £25.00;
it can be submitted quickly and easily though the Commission’s eServices portal;
apply as early as possible – the guideline processing time (up to eight weeks) is likely to be lengthened as the Commission experiences increased levels of absence;
the annual fee reduction will not take effect until the next annual fee is due; and
licensees who have recently paid their annual fee will not benefit from any such variation this year because the Commission does not issue refunds, as it has no statutory mechanism to do so.

Licensees whose annual fees are due in the coming weeks/months and expect to see a significant reduction in GGY should move quickly and submit variation applications as soon as possible.

Please remember that, in accordance with section 100 of the Gambling Act 2005, annual fees are payable before the licence anniversary and the Commission has the power to revoke an operating licence for non-payment.

Compliance

Neil McArthur, CEO of the Commission, has reminded licensees, particularly online operators, of the safer gambling and AML risks presented by COVID-19 and that consumer protection is paramount. In a message to online operators, on 26 March 2020, he said:

“…whilst I recognise the enormous challenges businesses are facing, I want to make the Commission’s expectations absolutely clear… If we see irresponsible behaviour we will step in immediately. So, whilst I know that the current climate is unprecedented, gambling operators must play their part in making sure that people are kept safe…”

As a follow-up to his blog on 25 March 2020, The Gambling Commission’s Response to the Coronavirus Crisis, Julian Harris will be posting his views on Neil McArthur’s latest message shortly. In the meantime, we strongly encourage licensees to view the Commission’s warning as an opportunity to take stock and respond positively and proactively as this is likely to result in improved business practices. Inevitably, this will reduce workloads when gambling businesses are finally able to operate as normal:

We recommend licensees consider the following:

AML business risk assessment

In accordance with licence condition 12.1.1 of the LCCP, all licensees (other than gaming machine technical and gambling software licences) are required to conduct an assessment of the risks of their business being used for money laundering and terrorist financing. This risk assessment must be reviewed at least annually and amongst other things in the light of any changes in circumstances or other material changes.

Licensees may wish to begin their review of this AML risk assessment now, considering internal business changes and the risks presented by COVID-19 (almost certainly a change in circumstances or other material change). Risk assessments that are part completed in draft now will require less time when premises reopen or sport recommences, meaning key employees can focus on other matters.

AML and safer gambling policies

Licensees should review their AML and safer gambling (“SG”) policies. This review should not just consider the adequacy of the policies now, but also the risks presented by COVID-19. Particular attention should be paid to the levels which trigger AML and SG customer interactions, and the approach taken to consider the customer’s affordability given the likelihood of disrupted income. Consideration should also be given as to how audits are completed, and whether any changes are required. Again, the completion of amendments in draft now will mean less effort and time is spent on this review when normality returns.

Marketing

Operators should review their marketing policies, ensuring new customers are on-boarded in a socially responsible way, cleanse customer marketing databases and review relationships with affiliates. They may wish to audit their affiliates and renegotiate terms to strengthen control and their position to deal with non-compliant affiliates.

Training

Employees who have been furloughed and/or who have not been operating in their primary role for prolonged periods of time, may need refresher training on key areas on their return to work. Licensees should take steps now to ensure that they have plans in place for this, to ensure that the high standards being adhered to prior to COVID-19 are maintained. We will discuss training in a separate blog post shortly.

The strong messages from the Commission to the remote industry during the COVID-19 crisis maintain a pre-existing tone that is likely to continue. Land-based and sports betting operators and suppliers should use this opportunity to their advantage so that they have a renewed sense of focus when the time eventually comes to return to normality.

If you would like to discuss any of these issues, please do get in touch with us.