03Apr

No Love in the Time of Coronavirus

3rd April 2020 Julian Harris 399

On 1 April 2020 the Gambling Commission published its annual business plan for 2020-2021. Inevitably this was drafted prior to the onset of the Coronavirus crisis and the ensuing shutdown of all land-based gaming in the UK, although the Gambling Commission has said that it will review the plan at the end of the first quarter, and publish a revised plan if considered appropriate.

In our blog last week I expressed disappointment at the Gambling Commission’s response to the current crisis and suggested a number of measures that complete shutdown of all venues, mass furloughing, redundancies, coupled with continuing costs and zero revenue. Aside from arcane activities such as Russian table tennis there is no mainstream sport on which to offer bets, so the online industry is also affected to a considerable extent.

No such measures have been adopted by the Gambling Commission. Instead, there has been a series of warnings issued to the industry, including a message from Neil McArthur, the CEO, on 25 March 2020. Whilst recognising the impact on the industry of the crisis and referring to a planned assessment of that by the Gambling Commission, in common with his foreword to the business plan, Neil McArthur refers to evidence of an increase in online slots, poker, casino gaming and virtual sports. This is followed by a warning which in effect summarises operators’ obligations under the law and regulations, following the phrase “I want to make the Commission’s expectations absolutely clear”. As regulator, it is perhaps timely to remind operators of their responsibilities. However, while the negative inference here is that there is an increase in gambling overall, the reality is more likely that there is a spike in those products which remain available online, which is more than matched by the disappearance entirely of many others, and the closure of land-based venues.

Similarly, in his foreword to the business plan, Neil McArthur states: “gambling related harm must be drastically reduced”. It is well known that the levels have been static for many years; in fact, they have slightly reduced over the past 10 years. Of course, in an ideal world, no-one would be harmed by gambling. The numbers should be reduced, which is, on any view a laudable aspiration, given we are talking about 400,000 people. Unfortunately, the suggestion that gambling harm must be “drastically” reduced is not only also probably unrealistic, it suggests that it is out of control, which it is not. Once again, this statement risks harming the reputation of the industry and the level of public confidence in it, at a time when the future of certain sectors is in doubt.

The foreword continues with a statement that if operators cannot protect customers from harm the Gambling Commission will suspend and revoke licences. This is standard fayre, but once again the Gambling Commission has expressed its intention to “get even tougher”. This is an indication of an even stricter approach to enforcement. We believe that this may mean even higher financial penalties, fewer regulatory settlements, with more referrals to regulatory panel and possibly more licence revocations in the most serious cases. Most importantly, licensees should be prepared for many more suspensions of licences at the beginning of the enforcement process.

There is a good news story to note. Following collaboration between three industry working groups, the Gambling Commission and the Betting and Gaming Council (the “BGC”), the UK industry has agreed to a series of safer gambling measures, including:

to ensure that VIP players are over 25 and subjected to spending, safer gambling and enhanced due diligence checks;
to set a minimum 2.5-second spin speed on all slots by September 2020 and remove addictive features, such as slam stops and turbo buttons, as well as split-screen features; and
to improve its use of customer data to target advertisements on social media away from vulnerable groups, rather than towards potential customers, as well as creating media only primarily attractive to those over the age of 25.

In their announcement of this development, reported in more detail in our blog yesterday, the Gambling Commission have welcomed the progress made by collaboration with industry, with encouraging and positive remarks about significant progress. There is always more to do, as indeed the BGC acknowledge.

However, the Gambling Commission has accompanied their announcement with comments from Neil McArthur which has in effect downgraded the good news aspect and undermined the good work done by the industry and the new BGC by stating that: “the proposals do not go far enough and we will now consider what additional measures we should impose on operators.” So instead of accepting that this first collaboration has been successful, the industry is pilloried yet again. This further encourages public opprobrium and demonstrates the degree of responsibility that lies with the regulator for the public perception of gambling. It is then followed by another unnecessary threat that risks reputational harm: “Ultimately actions speak louder than words and any operator that does not put consumer safety first will find itself a target for enforcement action.” These remarks dominate and destroy the positives, calling into question whether in such attempted collaboration the Gambling Commission can be regarded as a trusted partner.

This is profoundly disappointing. When even a good news story is translated into further criticism of the industry and threat of enforcement action in relation to new agreed measures not yet even in force, one has to question whether the Gambling Commission has joined the ranks of the anti-gambling lobby. Of course, it should encourage further collaboration with a view to having a well-regulated industry that protects its consumers and the wider public, and take a firm line against those who do not comply with their obligations. But it is not the job of any regulator to wage a publicity campaign against an entire industry. Indeed, to do so, particularly in the midst of a crisis, and as a result continually erode public confidence in the industry, is not only improper, it is likely to raise questions about confidence in the Gambling Commission as regulator.

The Gambling Commission’s own Statement of principles for licensing and regulation requires the Gambling Commission to regulate gambling in accordance with the Regulators’ code “in a supportive, straightforward, risk-based and transparent manner”. In the current crisis, in its recent actions and publications there is little evidence of it being supportive or straightforward. Those on the receiving end of its enforcement action may also question its transparency. It is certainly taking a novel approach to the “need to maintain public confidence in the gambling industry”, as it is obliged to do.

For regulation to be effective it requires a healthy and collaborative working relationship between regulator and those whom it regulates. Playing to the gallery, the press and those who would abolish gambling risks creating an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion. The Gambling Commission justifiably wants to make gambling fair and safe for all to enjoy. Progress can be made more effectively and speedily by developing the sort of measures just announced in working together with the industry and those who represent it. If, however the industry cannot trust the Gambling Commission to approach such cooperation in good faith, then the future is bleak.

A more detailed blog on the Gambling Commission’s new business plan will follow next week.

02Apr

Update on Gambling Commission Industry Working Groups

2nd April 2020 Bahar Alaeddini 389

On 2 October 2019, Neil McArthur, CEO of the Gambling Commission, delivered a speech at a CEO Breakfast Briefing in London in which he looked back at the year, talked about the challenges in the industry and three opportunities to reduce gambling harm:

opportunity 1: game and product design;
opportunity 2: inducements to gambling; and
opportunity 3: advertising technology.

We discussed these opportunities and industry working groups, formed in January 2020 in pursuit of these opportunities, in a blog post on 17 January 2020.

Yesterday, the Gambling Commission published an update on its “collaborative work” with the industry working groups, which included over 30 licensees, co-ordinated by the Betting and Gaming Council, and involved GamCare and people with lived experience of gambling harm.

Whilst “encouraged by the progress”, Neil McArthur challenged the industry to go further and deliver “real and rapid change for consumers”. He said:

“We set these challenges in order to deliver real and rapid change for consumers in key areas of risk. However, it is important these commitments are implemented as soon as possible. It should not take months to implement safeguards many would expect to be in place already…Whilst we are encouraged by industry proposals for making gambling products safer, we now call on operators to implement those proposals rapidly; but the proposals do not go far enough and we will now consider what additional measures we should impose on operators…Ultimately actions speak louder than words and any operator that does not put consumer safety first will find itself a target for enforcement action.”

Safer Products Working Group (opportunity 1: game and product design)

The industry has agreed to:

A minimum spin speed of 2.5 seconds on all slots.
Removal of game features which may encourage intensive play such as slam stops and turbo buttons.
Removal of split-screen slots which have been associated with potential loss of control.
A more detailed work plan which will include in-game messaging and the creation of a Betting and Gaming Council Testing Lab to investigate other game features.
Publication of the final industry code in September 2020.

The Gambling Commission’s response:

“…this work must now go further and faster, in particular around using demographics and behaviours to indicate risk.”
It will issue a consultation on “priority areas” for immediate action “as soon as possible”.

Incentivisation of High Value Customers Working Group (opportunity 2: inducements to gambling)

The industry has agreed to:

Restrict and prevent under 25s from being recruited to high value customer i.e. VIP schemes.
All customers must first pass thorough checks relating to spend, safer 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.
Implement some measures from 14 April 2020.

The Gambling Commission’s response:

It will issue a consultation on how to makes these permanent changes as part of the LCCP.
Expectation that the industry implements its industry code “as soon as possible and considers most measures should be implemented within 3 months.”
It will monitor and support implementation of the industry’s code as an interim measure.

Safer Advertising Online Working Group (opportunity 3: advertising technology)

The industry has agreed to:

Amend the Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising by July 2020 to include the points below.
A common list of negative search terms (e.g. how do I self-exclude from gambling?) and suppression websites, which will help shield vulnerable groups from online gambling ads.
Better and more consistent use of customer data to ensure paid-for-ads are targeting away from vulnerable groups across social media platforms, instead of targeting for business.
Implement an approach which means that advertising is only targeted at +25 age in social media and “Pay Per Click” advertising where platform facilities permit. This will protect young people and increase confidence in the social media platforms’ own age-gating.
Age-gating YouTube channels and content.
Adopting and rolling out to all affiliates a code of conduct which will be amended and updated on a regular basis to ensure all measures undertaken by the industry will be implemented equally by affiliates.

This working group will also:

Establish a permanent cross-industry Adtech Forum.
Continue the proactive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders (including platforms).
Work with the Gambling Commission to publish and promote consumer advice, and work with online platforms and broadcasters to identify a more effective, simple and consistent approach, about blocking gambling advertising.
Commit to monitoring and evaluating all actions to ensure only effective solutions are pursued.

The Gambling Commission’s response:

“The industry has developed an appropriate set of commitments which should help further limit exposure to online gambling adverts by vulnerable groups.”
It expects industry to work collaboratively with social media platforms to identify and implement further solutions.
Operators will be “held account for these commitments” from July 2020.

Final thoughts

At the October 2019 CEO Breakfast Briefing, Neil McArthur’s final words were:

“If we work together, I am sure we can make gambling fairer and safer.”

The industry’s response to working with the Gambling Commission and investment in meeting tough timeframes should be applauded. Much work is still to be done, particularly to deliver “real and rapid change for consumers”, as the Gambling commission expects. Widespread action and engagement across the industry when the industry codes are implemented and consultations published will be paramount.

31Mar

Productivity in This Time of Crisis

31st March 2020 David Whyte 379

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.

31Mar

PMLs: Maintenance or Renewal?

31st March 2020 Julian Harris 359

We have encountered some misunderstanding, not least on the part of the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”), as to the nature and status of personal management licences (“PMLs”). These licences are required for individuals performing certain defined functions in the gambling industry. Holders of PMLs can be held personally liable for failures on the part of entities holding an operating licence.

The Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) provides that a PML has effect unless and until it ceases to do so, by reason either of surrender, lapse, forfeiture or revocation. The Explanatory Notes for section 131 of the 2005 Act, which deals with duration of PMLs, specifies that

“Subject to surrender, lapse, forfeiture or revocation, all personal licences will be of unlimited duration. The Commission does not have the power to introduce limited durations for personal licences.”

However, regulations do provide that a PML holder pay fees every five years of the tenure of the licence. The Explanatory Notes to the 2005 Act explain that these fees are to be paid by the PML holder to the Commission to maintain the licence, and which are used by the Commission to cover the costs of regulation.

On its website the Commission sets out the maintenance process, which involves completing an application including provision of various documents (ID documents, a DBS application (UK and Channel Islands), police report (if overseas) and credit report (if overseas)) and paying the £370 fee. PMLs will no longer receive a maintenance pack in the post. Instead, the Commission will send an email, to their registered email address, informing them that they can sign in to the Personal eServices to start the maintenance process. We understand that this email will be sent on or shortly before the PML anniversary date. If the application is not made within 30 days of the anniversary date (five years from issue and every 5 years thereafter), then the licence will be revoked. Subject to that, and provided of course that the application is properly completed, the process is automatic; it is not a renewal application, and therefore cannot involve any reappraisal as to the PML holder’s qualification, fitness or suitability to hold such a licence. Any such question must form the subject of a licence review under separate provisions.

Until recently there was a reference on the “Personal licence maintenance” page of the Commission’s website to “renewal” of PMLs. This has now been corrected as a result of submissions made by Harris Hagan, that this was wrong in law, as there was no such provision or power. Nevertheless, there is a leftover of this on the webpage, in the inappropriate use of the word “application” to describe the process; this assumes that there is something the Commission is being asked to grant, and therefore something which can be refused, which it cannot. This is an automatic process, the purpose of which is solely the provision of updated information about the PML holder, such as for example, current address and position, and payment of the fee. It is for the Commission simply to check and record the information.

Whilst this may seem pedantic and of little importance, it is vital that the Commission does not assume powers which it does not have, and that PML holders are not confused about their position, or stressed by a pending “application”, which they may believe could be refused. This concern has been thrown into sharp focus in circumstances where PML maintenance has been delayed, or put on hold, by the Commission on the misconceived ground that enforcement action was current in relation to the PML holders’ employer, which potentially could, at some future date, result in a licence review of PMLs. Once your PML maintenance is submitted and the fee paid, and providing this is within time, your obligations are fulfilled. The Commission may ask for further information if necessary. Otherwise the PML continues, and there is no question either of grant or refusal. Job done!