26Jun

White Paper Series: DCMS speaks at IAGA 40th Annual Gaming Summit in Belfast

26th June 2023 Harris Hagan 196

On 21 June 2023, Ben Dean, Director of Sport and Gambling from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) participated in the International Association of Gaming Advisors (“IAGA”) 40^th annual International Gaming Summit in Belfast.

Dean delivered a keynote and joined the subsequent panel discussion on the Government’s plan for reform of gambling regulation following the review of the Gambling Act 2005, and its potential impact on the future of the regulated UK gambling industry. This was the first time that DCMS had spoken publicly since the publication on 27 April 2023 of its White Paper: High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age (the “White Paper”).

Keynote – White Paper on Gambling Reform in Britain – Overview and Next Steps

Dean recognised the importance of the gambling industry in Great Britain and that gambling is enjoyed by a large percentage of the population each month, with the majority of gamblers suffering no ill effects. He made clear however that gambling comes with risks and that problem gambling can have a devastating impact, noting it was important that Government put their best efforts into making gambling safer. Dean acknowledged the delay in publishing the White Paper, attributed to the numerous changes in Prime Ministers, and underlined that the many Secretaries of State he had supported during the Gambling Act Review had consistently pointed out that it is not the job of a Conservative Government to tell people how to spend their money.

A key challenge faced during the Gambling Review was finding the balance between freedom and protection. Dean said DCMS believes that the balance is probably right because campaigners complain Government did not go far enough and industry believe it went too far.

Dean highlighted DCMS’ strong desire to keep working with the industry, continuing to hear views on both sides, and recognised the importance of getting the detail right as the 62 measures come into force to protect those most vulnerable without interfering with the freedoms of the majority. He noted that the under-25 cohort was of particular importance and focus for DCMS, and said that the White Paper includes specific protections taking into consideration the continuing brain development of that group.

One encouraging remark by Dean, regarding the proposed frictionless financial risk checks, was that:

“We know how important the frictionless commitment is and have said the measures won’t come into force until they genuinely are frictionless.”

Though they will not of course be frictionless for those customers in respect of whom flags are raised.

Dean said DCMS will launch two of its consultations, including one relating to land-based modernisation measures, before the summer recess (July) and a further consultation immediately following that recess over the Summer. Government aims to implement the majority of key measures by Summer 2024, but Dean acknowledged this will require Government to “keep their feet to the fire” and those requiring primary legislation will likely take longer.

In conclusion, Dean praised submissions in the call for evidence for the White Paper and encouraged stakeholders to engage in the consultations and speak with DCMS directly so as to ensure the successful implementation of the commitments in the White Paper.

Panel – The Long-Awaited White Paper on Gambling Reform in Britain

Moderated by Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners, the following panel of experts then discussed next steps in Great Britain following publication of the White Paper:

Andrew Herd, Managing Director, Lancashire Court Capital Ltd
Antony Gevisser, Senior Vice President – Legal & Operational Affairs, Super Group
Ben Dean, Director of Sport and Gambling, DCMS
Helen Rhodes, Director of Major Projects, Gambling Commission
Wes Himes, Executive Director, Betting & Gaming Council

The panel discussion was a lively and engaging debate. The panel agreed that credit should be given when it is due: the White Paper was balanced, proportionate and evidence-based and had generally been well-received by the industry and its stakeholders as a whole. However, the focus now is on implementing the many commitments therein in both a timely and an effective manner.

Rhodes noted that 24 of the 62 measures in the White Paper were in the Gambling Commission’s court, with many not involving consultations and some measures requiring increased resources at the Gambling Commission. Rhodes was “very confident” with the Gambling Commission’s structured consultation programme, which will include pre-consultation briefings and a phased implementation to ease the effect on the industry, and emphasised the Gambling Commission would keep communication lines with the industry open and that it was “absolutely keen to collaborate”. She also confirmed that financial risk checks would be in the first batch of consultations this summer.

It was also interesting to find out that the long overdue response to the Gambling Commission’s consultation on customer interaction guidance (about which we have previously written) would be published before the further White Paper consultations were launched in Summer 2023.

Dean confirmed that the Secretary of State wanted to get the consultations within its remit out as soon as possible and that it would not wait to release the consultations in one batch, preferring instead to keep the ball rolling.

It was noted by the panel that frictionless financial risk checks involved competing interests which need to align prior to the introduction of that requirement – and that it would be important to test the accuracy of the final methods that would be used to determine financial risk. Herd described this as an “existential issue”, and Gevisser emphasised the “need for th industry to survive and thrive”.

Himes stated that one of the biggest challenges is that the technology relating to frictionless checks is still evolving, with the accuracy of such checks needing to be tested. Himes notes that if it can be done right, there will be a positive future.

Rhodes acknowledged that checks could not be frictionless for every customer but considered that, if implemented properly, the introduction of financial risk checks would represent a positive change for the industry as a whole and would affect only c.5% of customers. Rhodes also said that the Gambling Commission is 100% committed to working with the finance sector and the Information Commissioner’s Office to deliver the frictionless checks. It will be for the operator to use the results of those checks to support identified customers and reduce their risk profiles. Dean also recognised that creating and implementing a system for frictionless checks would not be easy, particularly given the importance of proportionality and the risk of driving people to the black market.

All panellists agreed that it would be paramount that the industry continues to engage, and encouraged those present to participate in the various consultations being run by DCMS and the Gambling Commission and also to contribute to any supplementary work undertaken by industry bodies, such as the Betting and Gaming Council’s work on industry codes.

We extend our thanks to DCMS, the Gambling Commission and other panellists for their valuable contributions.

31May

White Paper Series: “Hurry up and wait”

31st May 2023 John Hagan 240

As the dust settles (at least temporarily) following the publication of the White Paper, we have “take time to think” so that we may share our insights in a series of blogs and vlogs on the many and varied aspects of the proposed gambling reforms. With the Gambling Commission already seeking to manage expectations by saying that the implementation of the White Paper “will likely take a number of years to fully complete” and urging “more haste, less speed”, this may be a long running series… We will focus on what we consider is important or interesting, ideally both, and our content will be concise and hopefully thought provoking.

Speaking about the White Paper recently in the House of Lords, Lord Grade referred to a saying in the film industry – “hurry up and wait” (also a song by Stereophonics and a military motto) – describing where you get to the location after being forced to spend a lot of time waiting, everybody is standing around, ready, but nothing happens. Having waited nearly 30 months for the publication of the White Paper, coupled with the latest (estimated) indication from the Gambling Commission that the first wave of consultations will not be seen until mid-July, this saying seems apt.

1. Spirit and intention of the White Paper

Throughout our White Paper Series, we will have as our touchstone the aim of the Gambling Review when it was published on 8 December 2020:

“The Government wants all those who choose to gamble in Great Britain to be able to do so in a safe way. The sector should have up to date legislation and protections, with a strong regulator with the powers and resources needed to oversee a responsible industry that offers customer choice, protects players, provides employment, and contributes to the economy.”

The White Paper is true to that laudable aim. As the Secretary of State says in her Ministerial Foreword, at the heart of the Government’s Review is making sure it has the balance right between consumer freedoms and choice on the one hand, and protection from harm on the other. The Government seeks to achieve this balance through an extensive package of measures across all facets of gambling regulation. If it is to be successful, the Government – and Gambling Commission – will need to retain an unerring focus on this balance, essentially the spirit and intention of the White Paper, as it is inevitably buffeted by vested interests through consultation, regulation, and legislation.

2. All things to all people

The first thing to say about the White Paper is that it has been broadly well received; when it was delivered in Parliament, within all sectors of industry, by the NHS, in the third sector and at the Gambling Commission. This was equally broadly unexpected, given the acrimony and divergence of views between stakeholders during the “hurry up” phase, so why has the White Paper been such a resounding success? At the risk of oversimplifying, but not wishing to overlook the obvious (including the lack of detail and long grass kicking), it is precisely because the Government has achieved a healthy balance in its proposed reforms, for which it deserves enormous credit, and it is because there is something valuable in the White Paper for everyone.

Responding to its publication, and demonstrating some of the “wins” for the respective stakeholders, comments on the White Paper included:

“Given the correct powers and resources, the Gambling Commission can continue to make gambling safer, fairer and crime free. This White Paper is a coherent package of proposals which we believe can significantly support and protect consumers, and improve overall standards in the industry.” Gambling Commission CEO, Andrew Rhodes.
“BGC members will now work with Government and the Gambling Commission to deliver targeted and genuinely ‘frictionless’ enhanced spending checks to further protect the vulnerable, a new Ombudsman to improve consumer redress, and overdue plans to modernise the regulation of UK casinos.” Betting & Gaming Council CEO, Michael Dugher.
“..it should not be left to the health service to pick up the pieces left behind by a billion-pound industry profiting on vulnerable people, so I fully endorse the statutory levy set out in today’s White Paper and look forward to reading the proposals in detail.” NHS Mental Health Director, Claire Murdoch.
“At GamCare, our priority is making sure that people who need help receive it as quickly as possible. We therefore welcome the clarity the Government has provided on how research, education and treatment will be funded.” Gamcare CEO, Anna Hemmings.
“As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, I welcome this long overdue White Paper. In the APPG’s 2019 interim report, we asked for affordability checks, parity between land-based and online stakes, an independent ombudsman, a curb on advertising and, most importantly, a statutory levy. Job done.” Carolyn Harris MP.

The introduction of a statutory levy paid by licensees and collected and distributed by the Gambling Commission under the direction and approval of the Treasury and DCMS ministers, is a flagship reform. The long debate as to whether there should be a statutory levy is at an end, there will be a DCMS consultation on the details of its design and, critically, the total amount to be raised. The statutory levy will fund research, education and treatment of gambling harms and is a load-bearing pillar of the reforms for those advocating the “polluter pays” principle.

Financial risk checks, maximum stakes for online slots and the creation of an independent gambling ombudsman have also been very warmly received by key stakeholders and will all be consulted upon by DCMS. The new non-statutory ombudsman will be the subject of our next blog in this White Paper Series.

The Gambling Commission most certainly did not get everything its own way, with Government not religiously following the advice from the regulator, but the Gambling Commission will be the recipient of powers and resources intended to make sure that all gambling is overseen by a “beefed up, better funded and more proactive” regulator. Licence fees will be reviewed (upwards of course) to ensure it has the resources to deliver the commitments across the White Paper. When Parliamentary time allows, it will even get greater power to set its own fees. Detailed analysis of the Gambling Commission’s additional enforcement powers will be the subject of one of our early blogs in this White Paper Series, including some which may have passed below the radar in all the excitement.

The industry positives from the White Paper are more nuanced. The land-based industry can certainly look forward to the long overdue modernisation of casinos and bingo clubs – including greater machine entitlements, credit in casinos for non-UK resident customers, sports betting in all casinos, and additional opportunities for customers to win on the main stage bingo game – and cashless payments across all land-based gambling sectors (following consultation by the Gambling Commission on the player protections which would be required).

From an online industry perspective, the White Paper is arguably as good as could reasonably have been expected in the present political, media and regulatory environment. The Government has resisted calls for bans on advertising, rejected demands for blanket and intrusive low-level affordability checks, and will consult on maximum stakes for online slots at higher levels than leaked previously. However, in outlining the Government’s vision for the future of gambling in moderately business-friendly terms, the White Paper does provide policy direction to which to hold the Gambling Commission accountable, the beginnings of some certainty and a glimpse of what political and regulatory stability might look like, not to mention the hope that the next gambling review might be a generation away.

3. The upcoming consultations

Yes of course everyone wishes the White Paper had gone further (in their direction, naturally). Yes of course there is a lot of work to be done to implement the reforms, once we are no longer “waiting”. Yes of course the devil will be in the detail. But as even the Gambling Commission and the Betting and Gaming Council (the “BGC”) agree in their welcoming press releases, the White Paper is a “once in a generation” opportunity for change. All the key stakeholders will now be seeking to secure their respective prize and imploring Government to prioritise their interests and deliver on its promises at the earliest opportunity, not least through Government and Gambling Commission consultations.

If the risk of the reform process descending into warring factions and reaching a standstill is to be mitigated, and this would not be in anybody’s interests, it is imperative that the process itself remains balanced and that all the key stakeholders see comparable progress in relation to their interests. From an industry perspective, this means engaging positively, constructively, and wholeheartedly with the upcoming consultations, proposing pragmatic and sensible solutions to the difficult challenges the Government and the Gambling Commission face, not least in relation to cashless solutions and frictionless checks, substantiated by evidence wherever possible. It also means holding the Gambling Commission to account on what is expected of it by the Government in the White Paper, with fair prioritisation of its (no doubt stretched) resources and no reforms being left far behind, even when the Gambling Commission is not in favour of them. It means focusing on its prize and not seeking to “re-litigate” settled issues or actively seeking to frustrate other stakeholders, or indeed otherwise antagonising Government which has delivered upon a balanced vision.

The proposed reforms are going to take longer than any of the stakeholders want as they seek to claim their prizes, but they are worth waiting for, the consultation phase will be critical, with both Government and the Gambling Commission under immense pressure to listen, and we will of course be happy to assist clients with their responses where that would be helpful, as we did in the last once in a generation opportunity in 2005!

17May

White Paper Series: The End of the Beginning VIXIO Webinar

17th May 2023 Harris Hagan 232

On 16 May 2023, Bahar Alaeddini appeared as a panellist on a VIXIO GamblingCompliance webinar titled “The End of the Beginning” together with Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners, in which they discussed some of the key proposals of the White Paper, where we go from here and the impact:

16May

Reporting of Deaths by Suicide: consequence and practical implementation

16th May 2023 David Whyte 185

The Gambling Commission’s consultation on three changes it proposes to make to its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (the “Consultation”) is due to close on 23 May 2023 and there is one issue to which licensees should pay careful attention: the proposal to add a specific reporting requirement to Licence Condition 15.2.2 requiring licensees to notify the Gambling Commission when they become aware that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide.

The Gambling Commission’s proposed wording is:

“The licensee must notify the Commission, as soon as reasonably practical, if it knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a person who has gambled with it has died by suicide, whether or not such suicide is known or suspected to be associated with gambling. Such notification must include the person’s name and date of birth, and a summary of their gambling activity, if that information is available to the licensee”.

There is no question of licensees not wishing to prevent suicide and ostensibly, the arguments in favour of this proposed requirement are logical and reasonable. However, this is an incredibly sensitive issue about which stakeholders will have opposing views. Indeed, we have some concerns ourselves: that a gambler commits suicide does not necessarily mean that the gambling is a contributory factor, nor is the Gambling Commission qualified to make such a judgement. It is therefore questionable whether it is appropriate for the Gambling Commission to require the provision of information of this nature.

As has been the case on many occasions in the past, the Gambling Commission is likely to proceed with imposing this requirement, irrespective of the responses it receives to the Consultation. Consequently, rather than explore the basis of the proposed requirement, this article considers its wording and impact, which as presently drafted potentially exposes licensees to a risk of regulatory bias, imposes a disproportionate burden upon them and is likely to be interpreted inconsistently.

Intention and consequence

The Gambling Commission explains in the Consultation that, in the past, some licensees have notified it when they have become aware that a customer has died by suicide; likely under ordinary code provision 1.1.1 which suggests that, as a matter of good practice licensees should inform the Gambling Commission “of any matters that the Commission would reasonably need to be aware of in exercising its regulatory functions”. However, to enable it to “assess the licensee’s compliance with conditions of its licence” and to help “inform ongoing consideration of policy” the Gambling Commission has determined it necessary to make this notification a licence condition, the breach of which would enable it to commence enforcement action and if appropriate impose a regulatory sanction.

The Gambling Commission also states in the Consultation that, to avoid placing a burden on licensees to determine which deaths by suicide they should notify it about, it proposes that “licensees are required to notify us where a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide irrespective of whether any link between the person’s death and gambling has been established or suggested” and that “the death should be notified to the Commission irrespective of the period of time that has elapsed between the death and the most recent gambling activity.”

The Gambling Commission, many of its key stakeholders, and indeed many of its critics, have made it abundantly clear that gambling related suicide must be a key focus, and rightly so. However, suicide is almost invariably the result of a complex array of factors, and it cannot be the case that irrespective of the time that has lapsed between an individual’s gambling and their suicide, gambling will necessarily have been a contributory factor. An investigation is therefore inevitable, and care needs to be taken by the Gambling Commission when conducting that investigation to ensure that there is no internal regulatory bias on its part: its focus should be on licensee’s adherence to their regulatory requirements and not to the tragic circumstances that have led to the notification being submitted.

A regulatory bias in relation to gambling related suicide, or at least an indication of it, is evident in the Gambling Commission’s consultation Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators, where the Gambling Commission tells licensees that their staff “need to be trained on the skills and techniques they need to help them carry out customer interactions, including what to do if a customer becomes distressed or there is a risk of suicide”. Wording such as this suggests that, in the Gambling Commission’s view, it is the responsibility of licensees or their employees to identify the risk of suicide, and to act upon it. As we have set out in a previous article, this cannot be right: it is the responsibility of qualified professionals to identify that risk, not licensees, and it is dangerous on multiple levels, including in relation to the wellbeing of licensees’ employees, to suggest otherwise. Further, this risks suggesting there is a duty of care at law on the part of licensed gambling operators to prevent suicide, which is a dangerous precedent.

Whether or not licensees are expected to investigate, the Gambling Commission will be doing so. The extent of that investigation is likely to extend beyond the licensee who has submitted the notification: how else will the Gambling Commission ensure that all licensees are adhering to the licence condition and/or that the individual concerned has not gambled elsewhere? Having been identified it is therefore inevitable that the Gambling Commission will have to request information from other licensees; the burden on licensees potentially extending considerably and a consistent and proportionate response difficult to maintain. If gambling is a contributory factor, we suggest it is more likely than not the individual will have gambled with many operators.

As most licensees who have been through a burdensome compliance or enforcement investigation process with the Gambling Commission have experienced, the Gambling Commission can be very unforgiving in its approach, 20/20 hindsight is applied and it is rare that such a process leaves a licensee unscathed. Many licensees have found themselves subject to criticism, and in some cases may have agreed a regulatory settlement, in cases where theirs and the Gambling Commission’s view about some failings identified are not perfectly aligned. Following a notification under this proposed requirement, licensees might be forgiven for being concerned about how any Gambling Commission investigation will be conducted and any consequences of that investigation, particularly given the risk of unintentional bias and the imbalance of power between the regulator and its licensees.

Practical implementation: expectation versus reality

The Gambling Commission states in the Consultation that:

its “current view is that licensees should notify when they become aware that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide”;
it proposes a specific reporting requirement that “would impose a requirement on gambling licensees to notify the Commission if they become aware that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide”;
that licensees “would only be able to notify us that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide if they themselves are aware of this, either through direct contact or other means, such as media reports”; and
it “would not expect licensees to actively investigate or verify the information in order to make such disclosures – rather, would expect licensees to notify the Commission if they become aware of a death by suicide of any person who has gambled with them (for example, through media reports or notification from relatives of the deceased).”

However, the draft wording of the proposed license condition is ambiguous and goes further than the Gambling Commission’s stated intention in the Consultation. It not only refers to actual knowledge but also to a much broader “reasonable cause to suspect”. This risks imposing a disproportionate regulatory burden on licensees. What amounts to reasonable suspicion will almost certainly be interpreted differently and will ultimately be determined by the Gambling Commission subjectively and in hindsight. Further, the breach of a licence condition amounts to a criminal offence under the 2005 Act, and can lead to various regulatory sanctions, including revocation and the imposition of a financial penalty. Licensees are therefore likely to take a precautionary approach when considering whether a notification is required.

Unlike actual knowledge, which is precise and unambiguous, a licensee’s reasonable cause to suspect that a customer who has gambled with it has died by suicide could be considered to arise in various ways, for example: (1) if they are informed by a customer that they are having suicidal thoughts following which all customer contact ceases without any known explanation or reason; (2) if public information about an individual who has died by suicide exists; or (3) if a licensee is informed that a customer who has self-excluded with them has died, but the cause of death is unknown. To avoid criticism in hindsight from the Gambling Commission about what amounted to reasonable cause to suspect, licensees will inevitably carry out an active investigation or verification exercise. The draft provision therefore appears to conflict with the Gambling Commission’s stated position in the Consultation that an active investigation is not required and this imposes a disproportionate burden on licensees.

This complication is most likely caused by ambiguous drafting, rather than by a malicious desire by the Gambling Commission to extend the reach of the draft provision. However, to ensure clarity of understanding, mitigate the risk of inconsistent interpretation by the Gambling Commission, and prevent the unreasonable or disproportionate use of the draft provision in the future, the Gambling Commission should be encouraged to address this ambiguity. Clarity could easily be achieved either by including additional wording in the draft provision that expressly states that active investigation or verification by licensees is not required, or by amending the draft provision entirely. Alternative and more appropriate wording that will retain the Gambling Commission’s desired objective might be:

“The licensee must notify the Commission, as soon as reasonably practicable, if it knows that a person who has gambled with it has died, and knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that the person has died by suicide.”

Please get in touch with us if you would like assistance with any compliance or enforcement matters.

22Mar

Getting it right: how to comply with the “strong appeal” test when using sports personalities to advertise sports betting

22nd March 2023 Gemma Boore 239

Nearly half a year has passed since the introduction of the “strong appeal” test for gambling advertisements in the United Kingdom, and it has been a whirlwind of a six months for sport:

the Rugby League Men’s and Women’s World Cups took place in October and November 2022 after being postponed due to Covid-19 and the Cricket ICC World T20 (Men)’s event was hosted in Australia at the same time;

the FIFA World Cup took the world by storm between November and December 2022; and

2023 has not disappointed yet either – sports fans have been treated to numerous events in Q1 including the Tennis Australian Open, the Rugby Six Nations and the Cricket ICC World T20 (Women)’s event.

For betting operators, the resurgence of live sports presents a rich (and well overdue) opportunity to re-engage with existing and attract new customers. However, regulatory restrictions on advertising gambling products in Great Britain have tightened in recent years and operators must be mindful not to fall foul of current advertising rules including the new “strong appeal” test, which came into force on 1 October 2022.

In this article, we explain the strong appeal test, consider the impact of recent rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) concerning its implementation, and share our top tips for gambling operators, marketing agencies and affiliates that want to ensure they comply with the strong appeal test when advertising sports betting to UK customers.

The strong appeal test – how does it work?

The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (the “CAP Code”) and the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (the “BCAP Code”) (collectively, the “UK Advertising Codes”) set out the rules relating to marketing communications in broadcast and non-broadcast media in the UK.

Parts 16 of the CAP Code and 17 of the BCAP Code set out rules bespoke to gambling advertisements. In particular, since 1 October 2022, each section has contained the following requirement (in rules 16.3.12 and 17.4.5 respectively):

“Advertisements for gambling must not be likely to be of strong appeal to children or young persons, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture.

They must not include a person or character whose example is likely to be followed by those aged under 18 years or who has a strong appeal to those aged under 18.

Where appropriate steps have been taken to limit the potential for an advertisement to appeal strongly to under-18s, this rule does not prevent the advertising of gambling products associated with activities that are themselves of strong appeal to under-18s (for instance, certain sports or playing video games).”

These ‘strong appeal’ tests effectively prohibit content (including imagery, themes etc.) that has a strong level of appeal to under-18s regardless of how it is viewed by adults. It extends to the use of celebrities (including footballers) to promote sports betting or convey responsible gambling messaging.

The new strong appeal tests replace the ‘particular appeal’ test in the previous edition of the UK Advertising Codes, which generally allowed marketing communications regarding gambling to feature celebrities (including footballers) who were well known to under-18s, provided the vast majority of their fans were adults. A typical barometer used was the proportion of the celebrity or footballer’s fans on social media: if 25% or less of their fans and followers were under 18, it was generally accepted that they did not have a particular appeal to children and could therefore feature. The new “strong appeal” tests are much stricter as they focus only on whether there is strong appeal to children – appeal to adults is irrelevant.

The guidance published by CAP and BCAP relating to the strong appeal tests: “Gambling and lotteries guidance: protecting under-18s” Advertising Guidance (non-broadcast and broadcast) (the “Guidance”) notes that “determining the likely appeal of a marketing communication is not always straightforward and is, to an extent, subjective… …Advertising approaches or pieces of creative content of ‘strong’ appeal to under-18s can take a variety of forms”.

The Guidance goes on to give several examples of approaches that are likely to be problematic, two of which are of particular relevance to sports betting advertisements:

Content linked to activities that are very popular or common among younger people (both in terms of their direct participation and viewing)

In its Guidance, the ASA confirms that it considers certain subjects and activities to be of inherently strong appeal to under-18s and gambling advertisements relating to these subjects and activities will be prohibited unless they fall under one of the exemptions. Two examples of sports with strong appeal are cited in the Guidance: football and eSports.

Other national sports such as cricket and rugby are also discussed and it is noted that by comparison, these sports have low-to-moderate levels of participation and interest among under-18s. However, the national teams in these sports attract more media interest and are more likely to be considered of inherent strong appeal. Conversely, sports such as horseracing, greyhound racing, darts, snooker, boxing, motorsports and golf are noted to be more adult-orientated and unlikely to be of inherent strong appeal.

In order to advertise betting opportunities concerning sports that strongly appeal to under-18s, gambling operators must ensure that their product falls within one of the exemptions cited in the Guidance, five of which are of relevance to sports betting:

Exemption A: Products in general terms. This permits betting advertisements to promote licensed products in general terms. The Guidance notes that the rules focus principally on imagery, themes and characters that are of strong appeal to under-18s. They are not intended to restrict simple text or audio references to sports, teams or individuals generally held to be popular with under-18s.

Example: An advertisement stating that bets are available on the outcome of a particular football or eSports match would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption A.

Exemption B: Generic descriptions. This permits generic depictions of or references to the subject of the licensed product. The Guidance notes that the generic depictions must be suitable and not, of themselves, likely to appeal strongly to under-18s.

Example: An advertisement using suitable characters or CGI to depict a sport held to be of strong appeal to under-18s (e.g. football or eSports) or generic items or places associated with the sport (e.g. a ball, goal post, trophy, or stadium) would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption B provided that the depictions are not stylised to appeal strongly to under-18s (e.g. cartoons).

Exemption C: Logos and other identifiers. This permits the use of logos and other identifiers for the subject of a betting activity.

Example: An advertisement showing that bets are available on the outcome of a particular match, tournament or other event that includes the logo for the event or the teams playing in it would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption C.

Exemption D: Branding. This permits material relating specifically to an advertiser’s brand identity. The Guidance notes that this exemption does not extend to brand characters, which will need to be assessed under the strong appeal test for persons and characters (discussed below).

Example: An advertisement including the brand or livery of the operator advertising the bet (e.g. an advertisement featuring the logo of Mr Green in green and white colours) would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption D. However, the use of the character “Mr Green” would need to be assessed separately to see whether it is of strong appeal to under-18s.

Exemption F: Certain persons and characters. This permits the use of persons or characters associated with subjects of strong appeal (e.g. football and eSports) provided marketers are satisfied that they are not, in and of themselves, of strong appeal to under-18s. Again, this will be assessed separately under the strong appeal test for persons and characters.

Example: An advertisement featuring a football player would not be prohibited as this falls under Exemption F provided the football player is not themselves of strong appeal to under-18s. See below for further discussion.

2. Persons and characters who have a strong appeal to under-18s

As set out above, the UK Advertising Codes require that gambling advertisements must not feature any person or character who has a strong appeal to those aged under 18.

Persons and characters generally fall into one of five categories: (a) personalities/celebrities, (b) brand ambassadors, (c) licensed characters (e.g. a movie or video game character), (d) characters played by actors; and (e) brand-generated characters (e.g. characters created by the advertiser).

The ASA makes its assessment of appeal of these persons and characters to under-18s based both on (i) their appearance and behaviour in the advertisement, and (ii) their profile and relevance outside the advertisement for personalities, brand ambassadors and licensed characters (but not characters played by actors and brand-generated characters as these have no external profile).

In determining the extent of a person’s appeal to under-18s, advertisers are encouraged to use as many insights and sources of data as they can. Having determined what a person or character is known for (in terms of activities, roles or associations) marketers can then identify information and data sources that provide insights on the likely level of a person or character’s appeal to under-18s.

For example:

Profiles outside the context of the advertisement. In determining whether a person or character is likely to appeal strongly to under-18s on the basis of their profile, the ASA will consider factors such as: (a) whether they have obvious and direct links to activities for, or highly popular with, under-18s; (b) the general audience for, and popularity of, what the person or character is known for; and (c) the likelihood that their inclusion in an advertisement will strongly attract the attention or interest of under-18s.

Example: Persons and characters with obvious and direct links to under-18s should be avoided (e.g. current or recent children’s TV personalities, popstars associated with youth culture, licensed characters from popular board games and influencers that focus on youth-related themes).

If a person or character does not have an obvious and direct link to under-18s that would render them of ‘strong’ appeal, advertisers must still assess their likely level of appeal. Social and other media audience demographics are an important and quantitative source of data.

Example: Football players in national or other well-known teams such as Manchester United may be viewed in an aspirational or influential way among under-18s and should be avoided. The same principle applies in relation to leading sportspeople in other sports and those involved in World Cups or other high-profile tournaments. Players in lower-level teams and other individuals involved in sports (e.g. managers) are more likely to be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the individuals have a negligible following of under-18s on social media and/or there is a negligible proportion of under-18s in the audience (either for their sport or other programmes in which they feature).

The ASA notes that more weight should be attached to present and recent activities. Personalities whose appeal has shifted away from under-18s over time are less likely to fail the strong appeal test.

Example: An individual that played in a national sports team in 2002, such as David Beckham, is less likely to appeal to under-18s now compared to an individual that played in a national sports team in 2022, such as Raheem Sterling.

Appearance and behaviour within the advertisement. The second part of the ASA’s assessment of ‘strong’ appeal for persons and characters is how they appear and behave in advertisements.

Marketers must avoid featuring behaviour that is likely to strongly appeal to under-18s. This includes youth culture themes (e.g. disregard for authority, rebelliousness, immature adolescent or childish behaviour and participation in practical jokes), speech and language (e.g. sounding like a child or using slang terms or text abbreviations), humour (e.g. slapstick or juvenile jokes) and other behaviour (e.g. dancing, singing or reciting rhymes).

Example: A person that is behaving in a manner associated with under-18s (such as Simon Bird from The Inbetweeners) is more likely to appeal to under-18s.

In addition, persons and characters played by actors must not be presented in a way that renders them likely to be of ‘strong’ appeal to under-18s. They should not wear clothing, accessories, jewellery, body art, piercings or hair styles that are obviously associated with a current trend or style popular with under-18s.

Example: A person that is wearing clothing associated with teenagers (e.g. a crop top, oversized hoodie, baggy jeans or a bucket cap) should typically be avoided.

Finally, characters that are colourful or have exaggerated features are more likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s and this includes ‘cuddly’ or ‘cute’ animals. Licensed characters (for example, from games and movies) will be assessed based on the popularity of the game or movie with under-18s.

Example: Characters with similarities to soft toys and exaggerated features such as enlarged eyes should typically be avoided. Characters related to stories or themes that are popular among children like pirates, princesses, superheroes, robots and fairy tale characters should also be avoided unless they are from traditional fairy tales, not stylised with exaggerated features and are not otherwise associated with childhood (e.g. characters such as Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny are cited in the Guidance as being associated with childhood and should therefore be avoided).

There is a helpful checklist at the beginning of the Guidance that summarises the risk-based scenarios of featuring different types of persons in gambling advertisements:

High risk	o Anyone with direct connections to under-18s through their role like children’s TV presenters or film stars o Anyone with a significant under-18 following on social media o UK footballers who play for top clubs, UK national teams or in high-profile competitions – this would apply also to managers o Non-UK ‘star’ footballers, particularly those at top European clubs – this would apply also to managers o Other prominent sportspeople involved in sports like cricket, tennis and rugby that, at the highest levels, have a significant national profile o Leading eSports players

Moderate risk	o Footballers from teams outside the top-flight will be assessed on the basis of their social and other media profile o Footballers with lower profiles at top Euro/world clubs might be acceptable o Retired footballers who have moved into punditry/commentary will be assessed on the basis of their social and other media profile o Other eSports players dependent on their social media and general profile o Sportspeople involved in clearly adult-oriented sports who are notable ‘stars’ with significant social media and general profiles making them well-known to under-18s o A small but notable following of under-18s on social media will be considered alongside the personality’s general profile and could contribute to an ASA decision to categorise the individual as being of ‘strong’ appeal

Low risk	o Footballers at lower league and non-league clubs o Footballers at lesser Euro/world clubs o A long-retired footballer now known for punditry/commentary o Sportspeople involved in sports like cricket, tennis and rugby that don’t have a significant role in the sport or general profile o Sportspeople involved in clearly adult-oriented sports (e.g. darts, snooker, golf, horseracing, and motorsports)

Exception for narrowly targeted advertising

There is one key exception to the strong appeal rules: they do not apply in media where under-18s can, for all intents and purposes, be entirely excluded from the audience.

Principally, this applies in circumstances where the marketer can robustly age-verify the potential recipients of the advertisement as being 18 or older such as:

direct mail, email and SMS communications sent to recipients who have been verified as being 18 or older;
areas of websites and applications that can only be viewed/accessed those who have been verified as 18 or older on sign-up; and
online platforms (such as social networks or publications) that provide advertisers with functionality enabling them to target users that have been age-verified to a very high degree of accuracy.

In the event of challenge, the ASA expects advertisers to provide evidence to demonstrate that the systems used to identify audiences from which under-18s are, for all intents and purposes, excluded are robust. Gambling Commission licensed websites are cited as a good example of a media environment where under-18s are extremely unlikely to form part of the audience. Other sources of marketing data may also be acceptable where robust means of age verifications have been employed (e.g. payment data or credit checking). More general marketing data, such as that inferred from user behaviour, is unlikely to be sufficient.

Recent ASA rulings – what do they tell us?

To date, there have been three ASA rulings regarding the strong appeal tests, each of which provides helpful context – particularly in relation to footballers who, as noted as above, can be potentially low, medium or high-risk depending on the individual.

Philippe Coutinho, Jesse Lingard and Kalidou Koulibaly – of strong appeal

In December 2022, the ASA upheld a complaint for a promoted Tweet featuring the text “Can these big summer signings make the question marks over their performances go away?” and an embedded video that featured three current Premier League footballers: Philippe Coutinho, Jesse Lingard and Kalidou Koulibaly, set against a background of question marks.

The advertiser argued that although football and topflight footballers could strongly appeal to under-18s, targeting and age-gating tools had been used to remove under-18s from the advertisement’s audience. This included self-verification by the audience and targeting techniques designed to ensure the advertisement would only reach users aged 25 or over.

The ASA did not accept these arguments and upheld the complaint. In its view, both football and the players used (who were Premier League and international footballers at the time) were likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s; and the targeting techniques were not sufficiently robust to exclude under-18s from the audience with the highest level of accuracy, as required.

Peter Crouch and Micah Richards – not of strong appeal

In February 2023, the ASA did not uphold two complaints regarding advertisements featuring retired footballers.

The first complaint concerned two TV advertisements featuring Peter Crouch conducting a choir and celebrating (amongst other activities) with the text “COMPLETELY FREE BET BUILDER ON ALL ENGLAND GAMES”. During the advertisement, a voice-over was heard saying, “You hear that? That’s the sound of Christmas and the world cup colliding. So come on all ye faithful, let’s be having ya. Glory to the king of headbutts. Knit those kits. Cross those sprouts. Stuff those turkeys. And attack those carols. Cause from this day we’ll forever ask where were you in twenty-two.”

The second complaint concerned a promoted Tweet featuring the text “Club football returns following the international break… Get £20 IN FREE BETS when you place a £5 bet!” and an image of Micah Richards.

Both Crouch and Richards had retired in 2019 and the ASA took a pragmatic approach that although this meant “not long retired”, the teams and the games in which the players featured during the later years of their career (e.g. Burnley and Stoke City for Crouch, and Aston Villa for Richards) meant that they were unlikely still to be of strong appeal to under-18s. The players were therefore assessed on the basis of their social and other media profiles:

Peter Crouch
Crouch did not have public accounts on TikTok, Facebook or Twitch at the time the advertisements were broadcast, and his Instagram account had not been updated since 2014. He did have a public account on Twitter that, at the time the advertisements were seen, had almost 1.5 million followers but demographic data from September to December 2022 showed that 0.46% of his followers were aged 13-17 years. Even though Twitter is a media environment where users self-verify, the ASA accepted this as evidence that a very small number of Crouch’s followers on Twitter were aged under 18.

The ASA further noted that the TV programmes in which Crouch appeared (such as BT Sport, the documentary ‘Save Our Beautiful Game’ and Crouch’s own TV shows, ‘Peter Crouch: Save Our Summer’ and ‘Crouchy’s Year Late Euros’) and his podcasts were primarily aimed at adult audiences and not of strong appeal to children. The exception being ‘The Masked Singer’ in which Crouch appeared as a panellist. The ASA noted this to be a family entertainment programme and of appeal to children. However, Crouch appeared as one of four panellists, the programme was of broad demographic appeal and there was no evidence that his role in the programme had led to him being viewed in an aspirational or influential way by under-18s. Accordingly, the ASA concluded that Crouch’s appearance in this programme was unlikely to make him of strong appeal to under-18s.
Micah Richards
Richards did not have active public accounts on YouTube, TikTok or Twitch and audience demographics on Instagram and Twitter showed that: 0.07% of Richards’ Instagram followers were aged 0-16 years and 2.19% were aged 17-19 years; and 0.04% of his Twitter followers were aged 0-16 years and 2.15% were aged 17-19 years. Again, the ASA accepted that this data demonstrated that his social media profile was unlikely to make Richards of strong appeal to under-18s.

In terms of TV programmes, the ASA noted that Richards was a regular and well-known pundit on Match of the Day but BARB data in the lead up to the advertisement confirmed that a significant number of children had not watched live. The regulator also noted that Richards appeared as a pundit on Sky’s live coverage of Premier League matches which would be of strong appeal to under-18s, but that the strong appeal did not extend to the pundit-based discussion that took place around the game. Accordingly, Richards’ appearance in this context would be unlikely to hold strong appeal to under-18s.

Aside from his role as a football pundit, Richards had appeared on ‘A League of their Own’ and ‘Gogglebox’. Both programmes were scheduled post 9pm and primarily aimed at an adult audience.

In addition, Richards appeared on a CBBC programme ‘Football Academy’, which was considered likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s but the episode had not aired at the time the advertisement was seen. The ASA noted that if Richards had appeared regularly and prominently on such a programme, it was likely he would have been considered to have strong appeal to under-18s.

Top Tips

Below are our key takeaways for operators, marketing agencies and affiliates that want to comply with the strong appeal rules when advertising sports betting in the UK.

Be careful of using anybody in the advertisement that has an active presence on YouTube, TikTok or Twitch. These platforms are known to have particular appeal to under-18s. Although recent rulings do not expressly state that an active account on these platforms would denote someone as having strong appeal, it is notable that neither Crouch nor Richards had a presence on these platforms.

Do not assume that retired players will automatically fall outside the strong appeal category.Consideration should be taken of the individual’s complete career history including the time since they played topflight sport, when they stopped playing completely, and whether they played for a national team during their career, as well as recent appearances on television and other media. The sport that was played is also relevant: football and eSports are highest risk, whereas adult-orientated sports such as darts, snooker, golf, horseracing, and motorsports carry a much lower risk and the use of current or more recently retired players in these sports may be acceptable.

Do not automatically exclude football pundits. Even recent appearances as a football pundit covering football matches that are of strong appeal to under-18s, do not automatically mean that the individual will be of strong appeal themselves. Consideration should be taken of their overall appeal to under-18s.

Be cautious of links with children’s or family entertainment programmes, but do not assume this precludes all individuals featuring in them. Although an appearance in the television show that is aimed at children or is otherwise of strong appeal to under-18s is relevant and should carefully be considered, this will not automatically preclude an individual from appearing in a gambling advertisement provided the advertiser can demonstrate this did not alter the individual’s appeal to under-18s as a result.

Make use of available, verifiable data regarding social media and other followings. Be prepared to defend selections by use of robust data including individual’s social media followings and audience demographics for other media appearances. The ASA’s recent rulings on the strong appeal test are lengthy by usual standards and it is clear significant data was considered. Being able to produce relevant data is going to be vital in cases like this going forward.

Keep the position under review. Where advertisements appear on multiple occasions and/or an individual is used to represent a brand on an ongoing basis (e.g. as a brand ambassador), evidence that the individual does not strongly appeal to under-18s should be kept under regular review. An individual that did not appeal strongly to under-18s yesterday may do so today if they have featured in a new children’s or reality TV show, for example. To mitigate this, consider adding restrictive covenants to commercial agreements with brand ambassadors and others used in gambling advertisements, restricting them from participating in other programmes or media that appeals strongly to under-18s before or during the period that an advertisement is broadcast.

Review commercial scripts to ensure advertisements do not feature characters that appear or behave in a way that is likely to strongly appeal to under-18s. Avoid behaviour, speech / language and humour that is associated with youth culture. Ensure the individuals are dressed in an adult manner and do not feature other characters (e.g. cartoons or licensed characters) in the advertisement that may strongly appeal to under-18s.

If you are not satisfied that you can demonstrate that the advertisement is unlikely to appeal strongly to under-18s, exclude under-18s from the audience. It is imperative that reliable age-gating mechanisms are utilised. These may include validation by payment data and credit checking, but do not extend to self-verification or the use of data inferred by user behaviour.

Summary

This article has explained the strong appeal test, considered the impact of recent rulings by the ASA concerning its implementation and outlined key takeaways for gambling operators, marketing agencies and affiliates that want to ensure they comply with the strong appeal test when advertising sports betting to UK customers.

If you would like to discuss any of the matters raised, please do get in touch with us.

21Mar

The Gambling Commission’s consultation on proposed changes to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice

21st March 2023 Adam Russell 238

On 28 February 2023, the Gambling Commission launched a consultation proposing three changes to the LCCP (the “Consultation”), in relation to: (1) the scope of the requirement for gambling operators to participate in GAMSTOP; (2) events explicitly listed by the Gambling Commission as “reportable” in the LCCP; and (3) the technical wording of an LCCP provision in relation to payment method services.

The Consultation is open to all stakeholders, including gambling operators, to share their views on the proposals. The Consultation opened on 28 February 2023 and will last 12 weeks, closing on 23 May 2023. We outline below the three topics on which the Consultation focuses, and the practical considerations for licensees who wish to submit responses as part of the Consultation.

Proposed changes to the LCCP

1. Extending the multi-operator self-exclusion scheme to additional categories of betting licensee

Since 31 March 2020, the Gambling Commission has required all remote gambling operators to participate in GAMSTOP, which is an online multi-operator self-exclusion scheme.

The Commission is “consulting on changes to social responsibility code provision 3.5.5 to “extend the requirement to participate in the GAMSTOP scheme to all licensees that make and accept bets by telephone and email.”

2. Reporting deaths by suicide to the Gambling Commission

Licence condition 15.2.2 outlines a range of events which licensees must report to the Gambling Commission via their eServices account.

The Gambling Commission is “consulting on adding a requirement to Licence Condition 15.2.2 that would require all licensees to inform when they become aware that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide.”

3. Payment services – technical update

Licence condition 5.1.2 prescribes the method by which certain operating licence holders accept payment from customers using their gambling facilities in Great Britain.

The Gambling Commission proposes to amend the text of licence condition 5.1.2 to “ensure that the condition reflects the current legislative provisions”. In particular, the Gambling Commission wishes to ensure that it mirrors any “future legislative amendments to the Payment Services Regulations”.

Responding to the Consultation

There are practical steps and considerations which licensees should consider should they wish to respond to the Consultation. Whilst it is not intended to be exhaustive, a list of key factors is provided below:

The Gambling Commission will consider all responses submitted, whether or not all the questions in a given survey have been answered.

Licensees can respond to the Consultation using the online survey. Alternatively, responses can be submitted by post to: Policy Team, Gambling Commission, 4^th Floor, Victoria Square House, Birmingham, B2 4BP.

When responding to the Consultation, the Gambling Commission will request your consent to publish your name (if responding in a personal capacity), or the name of your company (if responding on behalf of your organisation) on their website. The publication of such details would indicate that you responded to the Consultation exercises.

We encourage licensees to respond to the Consultation, which closes on 23 May 2023, to express their views on the proposed changes.

Please get in touch with us if you would like assistance on any licensing matters.

28Feb

ICE World Regulatory Briefing 2023: Speeches from Gambling Commission senior executives

28th February 2023 Adam Russell 191

This blog will discuss the speeches delivered by senior executives from the Gambling Commission at the ICE World Regulatory Briefing (“WrB”).

Tim Miller, an Executive Director at the Gambling Commission, delivered a speech at WrB on 6 February 2023. Mr Miller considered the challenges facing the international gambling industry, and the Commission’s intention to further collaborate with other regulators to address these issues. Subsequently, on 8 February 2023, Andrew Rhodes, the current Chief Executive Officer at the Gambling Commission, delivered a speech. In particular, Mr Rhodes considered the controversial issue of affordability checks, and reflected on the Gambling Commission’s ambitions to deliver “better research and better outcomes”.

Part One: Tim Miller’s speech at the ICE Briefing

1. Illegal online gambling

Mr Miller highlighted that illegal online gambling is a key issue facing the gambling industry. In particular, the Gambling Commission is concerned about online gambling sites which fail to participate in GamStop, a multi-operator self-exclusion scheme which players can voluntarily subscribe to. Since March 2020, the Gambling Commission has required all online operators to subscribe to GamStop as a method to combat problem gambling. There are also “insidious” websites and affiliates which promote gambling operators that are “not on GamStop” in order to “target people who have sought to self-exclude from gambling”.

Over the last year, the Gambling Commission has “directed more resource” towards combatting non-compliant websites. However, there is a continued prevalence of both illegal gambling operators not subscribed to GamStop, as well as websites which promote this illegal activity.

Mr Miller states “efforts will increasingly be further upstream to disrupt these illegal sites and to work with regulators around the world”. Additionally, he emphasised that gambling operators should refrain from exaggerating the issue of online illegal gambling to justify “lower, less fair or less safe standards” in the regulated gambling sector.

2. Innovative products

Mr Miller also addressed the issue of innovative products in his speech. Innovative products, such as “non-fungible tokens (or NFTs), ‘synthetic shares’ crypto currency” are becoming “increasingly widespread”. Consequently, “the boundaries between products which can be defined and regulated as gambling are becoming increasingly blurred”. The Gambling Commission will be “vigilant” and “likely have questions” for any licensed operator which uses innovative products. However, Mr Miller highlighted that “many of these products are not gambling as defined by law”, and therefore such products would be outside the Gambling Commission’s regulatory scope.

3. Collaboration with other regulators

A central theme of Mr Miller’s speech is the Gambling Commission’s plans to collaborate with regulators in other jurisdictions to address issues facing the international gambling industry (including online illegal gambling and innovative products). He highlighed that international collaboration will help to achieve “better results for consumers and compliant operators”. He highlighted a common “appetite” amongst regulators for improved “sharing of intel” as well as “more feedback on operators”. As such, he noted that the Gambling Commission shall “continue” to share information and experiences with other regulators, as well as identify “areas where can work together to call out concerning practice or products”.

Part Two: Andrew Rhodes’ speech at the ICE Briefing

4. Affordability checks

After reflecting on post Covid-19 statistics and competitiveness in the gambling sector, Mr Rhodes discussed the vexed topic of ‘affordability checks’ in the context of the ongoing review of the Gambling Act 2005. He noted the rationale for such checks – that historically the Gambling Commission “has found too many examples of unacceptable levels of gambling being allowed” by operators.

However, Mr Rhodes clarified that the Gambling Commission does not wish to make “a moral judgment” about customer spend, but rather to “eradicate” extreme/objectively unacceptable instances of excessive gambling. The Gambling Commission currently “expect operators to consider a range of factors” when assessing the risk profile of a customer, taking into account various factors. Mr Rhodes expresses that it is feasible for operators to “balance protecting people from harmful or unfair outcomes with freedom of choice”, but that the Government plays a “big role” in helping operators to understand “where that balance should be sought”.

5. Improving gambling research and data

After reflecting on various research data gathered by the Gambling Commission (namely that problem gambling rates appear to be reducing), Mr Rhodes reflected on the Gambling Commission’s plans to facilitate further and higher quality gambling research/data. He highlighted that doing so will assist them to “understand what motivates and drives consumers”, thus shaping policies which improve “outcomes for consumers”. He proposed that later this year the Gambling Commission will launch “a new Participation and Prevalence methodology” that focuses on gambling harm statistics. Mr Rhodes also highlightd that the Gambling Commission has “invested in consumer research for the next three years”, and noted the role that the Gambling Act Review will play in plans for improved research processes and data.

17Jan

Is in-play betting really an ‘indicator of harm’?

17th January 2023 David Whyte 218

The Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) is currently consulting (the “Consultation”) on the proposed Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators (the “Guidance”). While this exercise has not yet attracted the same attention as its 2020 predecessor consultation and call for evidence on remote customer interaction requirements and affordability checks (on remote customer interaction and affordability checks) it is potentially every bit as significant for licensees and consumers. In this, the fourth in a series of articles, Regulus Partners and Harris Hagan examine one specific detail of the Guidance – its classification of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm” – and consider what insights it holds for the Commission’s approach to evidence-based policy-making.

The decision to single out in-play betting participation, from all the other forms of online gambling, as a behaviour that might be an “indicator of harm” should strike even the most casual reader of the Guidance as odd. The seemingly arbitrary nature of the classification is reinforced by an absence of supporting evidence. Instead, we are offered a rather banal explanation that: “people who bet in-play may place a higher number of bets in a shorter time period than people who bet in other ways, as in-play betting offers more opportunities to bet”. It adds that: “some studies have shown that placing a high number of in-play bets can be an indication that a customer is at an increased risk of harm from gambling”; but the studies themselves are not cited.

In search of enlightenment, Regulus Partners submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain the missing evidence. This turned out to constitute one blog article, one journal paper and a selection of results from the Commission’s 2016 Telephone Survey. An examination of these sources raises various questions about the Commission’s capacity for critical analysis. Most importantly, however, the evidence cited does not support the classification of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm”.

In-play betting

Before we delve into the detail, it is worth explaining what an in-play bet is, because the image of turning sports into a slot machine is somewhat misleading. To bet in-play is to place a wager on an event which has already started, but before the result is known; that sounds simple but here are some practical examples. Placing a bet on the final score of a football match during half-time counts as in-play, but during the 100 minutes or so that a typical football match lasts, there are typically ten domestic horse races, even more international and dogs races, and as many virtual betting opportunities that a customer can hope to find. Equally, a tennis match typically lasts 90 minutes and can go on for hours; in Australia in-play betting is not permitted on the internet, so in tennis it is the game rather than the match which is considered to be the unit of play; therefore most ‘in play’ bets on a standard definition become ‘pre-match’ in Australia by applying a common sense workaround. Basketball can be similarly divided up: a two and a half hour match comprises four twelve-minute periods and a lot of stoppage time. Perhaps the most obvious ‘in play’ definition trap is a three-day test match in cricket, substantially all of the betting is necessarily ’in play’ but hardly ever fast-paced. The frequency at which a gambler bets is clearly an important potential marker for harm, but whether or not a bet is in-play is typically a definitional red-herring based upon the length and game-structure of the sport rather than the customers’ betting frequency on a given sport.

The blog

In April 2013, Professor Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent University published a blog The ‘In’ Crowd: Is there a relationship between ‘in-play’ betting and problem gambling?’. The article contained no analysis of betting data or harm. It was instead a conjectural piece that considered whether an ability to place football bets more frequently (through in-play) heightened risk of disordered gambling. It argued that the ability to place successive wagers on successive matches, combined with an expansion in television coverage of live football, might increase risk of harm for some people compared with the days when most games kicked off at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon and were not televised live. If anything, the blog appears to suggest that the dispersal of matches across the week (and at different times of the day), which reduced the intervals between football betting days, was the bigger issue.

The blog concluded that: “in-play betting is something that many of us in the problem gambling field are keeping an eye on because it’s taken something that has traditionally been a non-problem form of gambling to something that is more akin to betting on horse racing.” This is significant for two reasons. First, the speculative nature of the commentary is emphasised by Professor Griffiths’ intention to “keep an eye on” in-play betting. His concerns stemmed not from any actual data or observations of in-play betting, but from what some people might theoretically do given the chance to place bets throughout the duration of a football match. Moreover, Professor Griffiths noted the relationship between bet frequency and event frequency needs further empirical investigation and conceded that “ntil more research is forthcoming a definitive answer is currently not available.” Second, he compared in-play betting on football with horserace betting – an activity with consistently low rates of “problem gambling” reported via official prevalence surveys. In short, Professor Griffiths did not suggest that in-play betting was especially risky.

The journal

The second piece of Commission evidence is a study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies in 2015, Demographic, Behavioural and Normative Risk Factors for Gambling Problems Amongst Sports Bettors (Hing et al.). The study features results from an online survey of sports bettors in Australia in 2012. It concluded that: “risk of problem gambling was also found to increase with greater frequency and expenditure on sports betting, greater diversity of gambling involvement, and with more impulsive responses to betting opportunities, including in-play live action betting.”

It would be wrong, however, to read this conclusion as vindication of the Commission’s targeting of in-play betting. First, the study was based on data from Australia, where in-play betting is only permitted by telephone or in person and where on-line in-play bets may therefore only be placed with unlicensed operators. Second, it is based on a relatively small sample of sports bettors (n=639) and the use of an online survey vehicle that “deliberately oversampled to optimise recruitment of adequate numbers of problem and at-risk gamblers”. Third, the data was gathered via a self-report survey rather than actual observation of betting behaviour. It relied on respondent recollections, from the previous 12 months, of the proportion of bets that they placed by different channels, at different times (i.e. the day before the event, the day of the event, during the event) and on different outcome classifications (i.e. final outcome of event, key events such as ‘first goal’ and micro-bets such as ‘next point’ in tennis). The classification by respondents of betting activity in this way for an entire 12-month period would have involved fairly heroic feats of recall.

Most importantly however, the journal paper’s findings do not support the Commission’s categorisation of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm“. The researchers did find an association between the percentage of an individual’s bets placed “during the match” and their Problem Gambling Severity Index (“PGSI”) score – but they also identified a similar association for traditional bets placed within the hour prior to kick-off. Perhaps more significantly, they found that betting in-play on the final outcome of the match was associated with lower PGSI scores than final outcome bets placed before kick-off. Associations between the percentage of bets on “key events” and PGSI score was similar whether the bets were placed before or during the match. It did indicate that regular betting on “micro events” (which can only be made in-play) are associated with higher PGSI scores: but to suggest that this proves the inherent riskiness (or harmfulness) of all forms of in-play betting is at best a profound misreading of the research.

The survey

The final item of evidence is a set of results from the Commission’s Quarterly Telephone Survey in 2016 (the “2016 Survey”). The Commission reported that “27.4% of online gamblers who bet in-play were classified as problem gamblers, compared to 10.9% of all online gamblers and 5.4% of online gamblers who do not bet in-play. 44.1% of online gamblers who bet in-play were classified as at risk of problem gambling compared to 40.4% of all online gamblers and 26.4% of online gamblers who do not bet in-play.”

On the face of it, these findings appear to support the classification of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm”. This however overlooks important considerations of survey methodology and interpretation.

The 2016 Survey typically samples around 4,000 people a year. While this is a reasonable sample size for estimating overall participation in gambling, findings are likely to be less robust when considering specific activities. For example, we calculate that the number of online football bettors in the sample in 2016 was around 160; the number of tennis bettors just 14. The ‘problem gambling’ rates for online gambling cited by the Commission (using the short-form PGSI rather than the full nine-item instrument) were three times higher than those found in the ‘gold-standard’ NHS Health Survey for the same year, something that raises obvious questions about sample bias. Upon original publication of the results in 2016, the Commission noted with suitable circumspection that “due to small base sizes the data presented here should be considered as indicative, and be treated with caution.“

Issues of survey reliability aside, there are a number of issues of interpretation. The Commission appears not to have considered that people who typically bet in-play may, for other reasons, be considered higher risk. For example, young men (a higher risk demographic group) are likely to be over-represented amongst in-play bettors. It seems plausible that a majority of in-play bettors will also bet traditionally; in which case they may be assumed to have broader wagering repertoires than people who only place bets before the start of the event (because they do both). Finally, the analysis is limited to a comparison of “problem gambling” rates between two different types of online sports betting. It provides no comparison between in-play betting and other forms of gambling, which would be necessary to classify it as a uniquely risky product.

Conclusion

The Commission’s decision to classify in-play betting as an “indicator of harm” is, according to its Freedom of Information Act disclosure, based entirely on an assessment carried out in 2016, which stated: “on the balance of the evidence we have reviewed and considered, we have concluded that the current regulatory regime in place for in-play betting is sufficient and further controls are not needed at this time.” It is unclear therefore why a review of precisely the same evidence base in 2022 should arrive at such a different view.

The Commission is correct to point out that short gaps between bets or high-staking after a big win may be risk indicators for some people, but if so, this is true of many other activities and not just in-play betting. Indeed, in-play betting does not appear to be particularly high-risk viewed solely through a lens of bet frequency or rapidity.

Official prevalence surveys have consistently shown that participation in online sports betting is associated with low rates of PGSI and DSM-IV “problem gambling”. As we pointed out in our third article, this is particularly the case where bettors have not participated in other forms of online gambling. We know from Commission data that around one-quarter of online gamblers, and therefore a much higher proportion of online sports bettors, participate in in-play betting. It is not a difficult jump to realise that it is implausible that problem gambling rates could be so low for remote sports betting in total if in-play betting on its own was a significant “indicator of harm”.

There is no inherent logic to consider in-play betting as especially risky. After all, ‘in-play’ simply denotes the fact that the wager is placed after the event has commenced. A final outcome result bet placed five minutes into a match is really no different to the same bet placed five minutes before kick-off. If anything, the bettor has more information on which to make his or her decision. Some bet types, in particular ‘micro-bets’, may indicate elevated risk; but specific bet-choices may be indicative of risk in all forms of gambling: this is not unique to in-play.

Our analysis indicates that the Gambling Commission’s decision to categorise in-play betting as an “indicator of harm” is based on a mis-reading of a very thin and selectively assessed evidence base. Indeed, we would go further, the Commission’s claims are in fact contradicted by the only peer-reviewed study presented as evidence. The Griffiths blog is a cogent article, however it proves nothing and in any case does not support the Commission’s classification, whilst results from the 2016 Survey appear to be at odds with the ‘gold-standard’ Health Survey for that year (and all other years) and are presented without context and in a way that does not allow further checking or analysis. In this article, we have examined, and found wanting, the evidence presented by the Commission in support of just one of the vast number of “indicators of harm” or “vulnerability” that feature in the Guidance. This may in itself be an indicator of a particular vulnerability within the Commission: a susceptibility to believe the worst about the market it is required by law to oversee. It is certainly an indicator that evaluation is difficult and may be subjective, something that would benefit from introspection in any final version of the Guidance.

With thanks to Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners for his invaluable co-authorship.

10Jan

Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Committee Call for Evidence on Gambling Regulation

10th January 2023 Ting Fung 229

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport Committee (“DCMS”) Committee is examining the Government’s approach to gambling regulation, including investigating the progress made by the Government in addressing the issues raised by Parliament, how to ensure that regulation keeps pace with innovations in online gambling and the links between gambling and broadcasting and sport.

As part of its inquiry, the DCMS Committee is inviting written evidence on the following questions by 5pm on Friday 10 February:

What is the scale of gambling-related harm in the UK?
What should the key priorities be in the gambling White Paper?
How broadly should the term, ‘gambling’, be drawn?
Is it possible for a regulator to stay abreast of innovation in the online sphere?
What additional problems arise when online gambling companies are based outside of UK jurisdiction?

DCMS Committee member, Julie Elliott MP, has stated:

“Gambling acts as an enjoyable pastime for large numbers of players, but regulation is struggling to keep pace with the rapidly changing way in which it happens today. This puts people at risk of the devastating harm it can sometimes cause to lives. The DCMS Committee’s inquiry will look at the scale of gambling-related harm in the UK, what the Government should do about it and how a regulatory regime can best adapt to new forms of online gambling, based both in and outside the UK.”

Figures from the Ernst & Young report (the “EY Report”) commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council (“BGC”) and published last November, in The economic contribution of the betting and gaming sector: 2021-2022, also reflect gambling as a popular pastime through which the gambling sector contributed £7.1bn to the UK economy between 2021 and 2022. The EY report’s statistics also serve to highlight the wider context of gambling regulation reform, on which BGC CEO, Michael Dugher, commented last month:

“Our members pump billions into the economy, support the treasury with more billions and support over a hundred thousand jobs. But this contribution is never guaranteed. This industry needs to thrive if it is to maintain its status as a global leader.

“We urge the government to find an evidence-led, balanced white paper that protects the vulnerable, allows the vast majority who bet safely to continue to do so and, crucially, allows businesses to thrive.”

Certainly, the Government’s approach to regulation needs to be balanced and proportionate, however, as delays to the publication of the White Paper continue, a factor that remains to be addressed, is the timeliness of action. Question 2 of the Call for Evidence suggests the possibility of further delay of the White Paper, which was promised “in the coming weeks” for much of last year. The latest word on the street is that the White Paper will be published in February. However, we have learned to be somewhat sceptical about any gossip on this topic; certainly, the questions being asked by the DCMS Committee, and especially question 2, might suggest a longer timeline.

23Dec

Where is the harm? Implications of regulatory revisionism for customer interactions

23rd December 2022 David Whyte 217

In this – the second in a series of articles on the Gambling Commission’s (the “Commission”) consultation (the “Consultation”) on the proposed Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators (the “Guidance”) – Harris Hagan and Regulus Partners consider the concept of ‘vulnerability to harm’ that underpins the Guidance. The Commission proposes that licensees be required to identify “harm”, “potential harm” and “vulnerable states” by monitoring customer behaviour, scrutinising private information and making assessments based on a range of demographic characteristics. While licensees should always be sensitive to customer wellbeing, the Commission’s attempt to translate common sense into a bureaucratic checklist appears to be at odds with the intent of the Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”), regulatory coherence and the best interests of consumers.

Vulnerability and harm

The Guidance requires licensees to identify customers exhibiting “indicators of harm” as well as those who – for a wide variety of reasons – may be “vulnerable” to gambling harms. For these terms to be meaningful, it is important first to understand what the regulator wishes to convey by the term “harm”. While the Guidance itself is silent on this matter, the Commission has defined gambling harms in its Update: Pilot of survey questions to understand gambling-related harm as “the adverse impacts from gambling on the health and wellbeing of individuals, families, communities and society.” Emphasising the breadth of the concept, it adds that “these harms are diverse, affecting resources, relationships and health, and may reflect an interplay between individual, family and community processes. The harmful effects from gambling may be short-lived but can persist, having longer-term and enduring consequences that can exacerbate existing inequalities.”

To hammer home the scale of the problem, the Commission enumerates 27 “harms” experienced by gambling consumers and a further 13 “harms” to “affected others”. Some of these adverse impacts are incontrovertible – financial consequences such as problematic debt being the least ambiguous – but others are less clear-cut. The Commission, for example, defines having less money to go to the cinema or “other forms of entertainment” as a harm from gambling. Spending money on one pastime in preference to another – as the Australian academic, Professor Paul Delfabbro has pointed out – is “more akin to opportunity costs than true harm”. Its inclusion in the ‘Index’ suggests a moral judgement on those people who prefer to spend their own money on betting in preference to the movies or a meal out. Among the Commission’s other “harms”, we also encounter “feeling like a failure” which in its weakest form is a potential corollary of all unsuccessful wagers and “spending less time with people you care about”, a test that many activities, including going to work or attending a school or college, would fall foul of.

Are these the “harms” or “potential harms” that the Commission expects its licensees to identify? If so, how does it expect them to do so? Will licensees, for example, be required to scrutinise bank statements in order to understand whether or not customers are movie-goers? With what degree of regularity must customers be going to the flicks in order to satisfy the regulator? This may be a case of reductio ad absurdum – but it illustrates the fact that the Commission has in fact set some fairly absurd tests for what should be considered harmful. In the absence of clearer direction, operators are expected to make their own judgements about which of the “harms” listed by the Commission they should be attempting to identify.

A list of 21 prescribed “indicators of harm” are provided in the Guidance as a minimum – but not exhaustive – set of standards. The basis for the selection of these indicators is not made clear, supporting evidence is often not cited, and generally they lack all but the most conceptual definitions. For licensees, this presents a significant challenge in terms of operationalising the indicators. How, for example, should a licensee create a rule for “amount of money spent on gambling compared with other customers”? Is this intended to suggest that anyone spending above the mean (or median) is displaying an indicator of harm? As written, it could be used to describe anyone wagering more than the lowest-spending decile, which would be more than “other customers”. Another example is the “use of multiple products”, without any definition of what constitutes a “product”. Are football betting and tennis betting different “products” or a single product (i.e. sports betting)? Is a ‘Rainbow Riches’ slot game a different product to ‘Cleopatra’, as manufacturers would certainly contend? Where certain activities are concerned, any participation at all is considered potentially problematic. In-play betting is classified as an automatic indicator of harm. Although, as we will explain in a further blog, this appears to be based on the Commission’s misreading of its own evidence.

So much for harm; but what about “vulnerability”? Here, the Guidance does at least provide some kind of definition of what a “vulnerable person” is: “somebody who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care”.

Harris Hagan has raised previously its concerns about the transformation of what the Commission considers to be “vulnerability” and its inclusion of a definition of the term in guidance. It is for Parliament, not the Commission to define a statutory term that is included in the 2005 Act and which Parliament did not find it necessary to define, having clearly considered the interpretation of vulnerability a straightforward matter. Reference in the third licensing objective firstly to children, and then to other vulnerable persons adequately sets out Parliament’s intention that the licensing objectives apply to those people not able to make properly informed or ‘adult’ decisions.

The operative phrase in the definition in the Guidance – “especially susceptible to harm” – implies that vulnerability is a rare or exceptional condition rather than a state shared by the majority. This conceptualisation is however, undermined by the Commission’s use of illustrative examples. “Young adults” are categorised as vulnerable (around 12% of the population are between the ages of 18 and 24 years); but so are “older adults” (23% of the population are 65 or older). Poor physical health denotes vulnerability (43% of adults have a long-standing medical condition); as does poor mental health; (17% have a common mental health disorder; 16% have an eating disorder). One is vulnerable if one is bereaved (15% of us each year), has caring responsibilities (13%) or has dyslexia (10%). Most perplexing of all, a “higher than standard level of trust or appetite for risk” – a quality that might be said to be a defining characteristic of any gambler – is also sufficient to qualify an individual as vulnerable.

The Guidance refers to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (“FCA”) observation that 46% of adults “display one or more characteristics of vulnerability” and indeed, the Commission’s definition of vulnerability is identical to that used by the FCA in its Guidance for firms on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers – February 2021 (the “FCA Guidance”). The FCA Guidance is, however, prepared to serve an entirely different purpose. It is issued under s139A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (legislation which, unlike the 2005 Act, makes no reference to vulnerability) and provides guidance on the FCA’s Principles for Business, which state that, “a firm must pay regards to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”. Principle-based regulation of this nature almost certainly requires guidance and the FCA is justified in defining vulnerability in that context; that the Commission seeks to take an identical approach to the FCA, in an entirely different context, is not.

There is a difference between the FCA’s intention that regulated firms identify “characteristics of vulnerability” to ensure they treat their customers fairly and in accordance with their needs, and the Commission’s duty under the 2005 Act to permit gambling in so far as it thinks it reasonably consistent with, the licensing objective of “protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling”. The Commission’s reinterpretation of “vulnerability” as a universal rather than exceptional state risks distorting and undermining the legislation that it is required to enforce – replacing parliamentary sovereignty with regulatory fiat. Furthermore, the Commission prescribes a requirement in SRCP 3.4.3. It therefore had the opportunity, following consultation, to set out precisely its definition of vulnerability when introducing that requirement. That it now seeks to widen the parameters of that requirement in the Guidance, is plainly wrong.

The concept of vulnerability

The suggestion that we are all vulnerable may be true at a certain banal level – but it is inconsistent with the intent of the legislation and also the Commission’s own conception of ‘especial susceptibility to harm’. A system of customer monitoring predicated on the idea of universal vulnerability risks failing those in genuine need of protection. There are a number of other practical considerations which the Guidance fails to address. For instance, it suggests, by way of reference to past enforcement cases, that operators must routinely scrutinise customer bank statements in order to harvest medical information, or risk facing sanctions for failing to do so. This raises complex ethical issues of discrimination and data protection. Should operators, for example, treat customers differently on the basis of a perceived medical condition (which they are expected to glean from banking data)? How might customers feel about betting companies holding information (however obtained and however accurate) about their health?

To illustrate the scale of the challenge presented by the Guidance, consider the following fictitious scenario. A 24-year-old with dyslexia who bets in-play on football and cricket and spends slightly above the average for his age group could plausibly be said to raise three ‘vulnerability’ flags and three ‘indicators of harm’. As we observe in the next in this series of articles, a licensee would be required to determine for itself whether or not the presence of six ‘indicators’ would necessitate an interaction, and if so of what variety. It is inevitable that operators will adopt widely divergent interpretations in such instances, with implications for market distortion. Perhaps more significantly, the Guidance creates ample scope for disagreement between licensees and the Commission about whether a customer is vulnerable or displaying genuine indicators of harm.

That “vulnerability” is to be determined by whether a “firm”, which we understand to mean a licensed operator (again the use of “firm” a reflection of the Commission’s use of the FCA’s definition), is “acting with appropriate levels of care”. The decision as to whether a licensee has acted with appropriate levels of care must ultimately rest with the Commission and therefore it seems that vulnerability will be determined subjectively by the Commission, almost certainly in hindsight. Further, by suggesting, incorrectly, that licensees have a duty of care at law to prevent customers from gambling if they are or might meet the Commission’s definition of vulnerability, the Commission risks improperly introducing such a duty in law, or at least exposing licensees to such a challenge. This is dangerous territory for any regulator, and for licensees.

Autonomy – a wider debate

Finally, there are some genuine ‘slippery slope’ consequences for the wider economy, privacy and personal freedom. One of the Commission’s key items of evidence for the proposed interactions regime is a survey carried out in 2020 by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute (‘MMHPI’) included in the report A Safer Bet. The Commission states that 24% of people with mental health problems experienced financial problems in consequence of online gambling and 32% said that they had bet more than they could afford to lose. This representation of the findings is misleading (the survey was of people with mental health problems who had gambled online and not all people with mental health problems – an important distinction); as is the Commission’s repeated misuse of the Problem Gambling Severity Index item “bet more than afford to lose”, which is a risky behaviour rather than a harm.

Quite aside from matters of precision, there is an important omission of context. In the same year, the MMHPI also published the results of a survey on online shopping by people with mental health problems – with very similar, and in some cases more alarming, results. The MMHPI report, Convenience at a cost found that 29% of respondents had spent more than they could afford when shopping online while 63% “had cut back on essentials” and 56% “had fallen seriously behind on payments for bills or debt repayments as a result of not being able to control their spending.” In short, the basis for regulatory intervention on remote gambling could just as easily be applied to shopping with Amazon or Tesco. Context is important because it helps us understand whether state action in one domain is consistent with broader societal ‘rules’ – and so deters unfair discrimination against particular groups (in this case, people who enjoy gambling). The Commission’s deliberate exclusion of this information, which was brought to its attention as part of the original consultation, is unhelpful and reinforces the idea that the regulator is not in earnest in its use of public consultations.

The Commission’s obsession with vulnerability suggests a rather hopeless outlook on life. To the extent that we are all, to some extent vulnerable, we are all resilient too and possessed of broad powers of self-regulation. An exclusive focus on what makes us weak with no recognition of what makes us strong is distortive and may lead to negative consequences – most obviously through undermining individual agency, which is an essential ingredient for wellbeing.

The identification of harm and vulnerability set out in the Guidance is the basis for ramping up operator interactions with customers, which may in some cases be warranted. The practical implications of the requirements to interact, and to evaluate the effect of those interactions, is the subject of our next article.

With thanks to Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners for his invaluable co-authorship.