02Feb

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

2nd February 2021 Julian Harris 326

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

Where’s the evidence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the end justify the means?

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

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

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

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

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

Where’s the balance?

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

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

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

20Jul

Gambling Commission Consultation on High Value Customers

20th July 2020 Julian Harris 334

Introduction

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

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

The proposals made were to:

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

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

New Licence Condition

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

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

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

New Guidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

09Jul

Gambling Commission Creates Interim Experts by Experience Group

9th July 2020 Bahar Alaeddini 340

On 19 June 2020, the Gambling Commission announced the creation of an interim Experts by Experience Group. The interim group “will provide advice, evidence and recommendations to the Commission to help inform decision making and raise standards, along with co-creating a permanent Experts by Experience Advisory Group to advise the regulator on a more established basis.”

An unidentified spokesperson for the interim group said:

“ comprises a group of people who have suffered a wide range of gambling harms, including recovering gambling addicts, family and partners of addicts, and those who have lost children to gambling suicides…the establishment of the group is long overdue. We are determined…to play a continuing and much more active role in the deliberations and decision making across the whole remit of the Commission as part of the National Strategy to reduce gambling harms. We bring a new and vital perspective on key issues of regulation and even how the Commission itself works.”

The interim group will be in place for at least six months, at which point the Gambling Commission plans to move to a permanent Experts by Experience Advisory Group, similar to the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling and the Digital Advisory Panel.

No terms of reference are published for the interim Experts by Experience Group and its members are not known. Names may be sensitive or confidential; however, at a minimum, the number of members, members’ backgrounds, the reason for their appointment and a register of interests should be published. Otherwise, the interim group runs the risk of being labelled a quasi-lobby group, financed and supported by the Gambling Commission.

Although it is only an interim group, plainly, it has a strong level of influence over the Gambling Commission’s work. It should, therefore, be treated no differently from the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling and the Digital Advisory Panel.

The objective bystander might wonder why the interim group’s members only comprise those who have experienced gambling harms when there are 400,000 people classified as problem gamblers and 32 million gamblers in Great Britain.

Unfortunately, the Gambling Commission’s lack of transparency detracts from the real and genuine value of the Experts by Experience Group and devalues contributions made by its members. To build a sustainable gambling industry, we could all learn and develop significantly from the work of the interim group and the experiences of its members. This requires us to work in partnership and adopt a balanced approach.

It seems the Gambling Commission has failed, again, to be transparent, balanced and independent.

07May

Remain Vigilant to Ensure AML Compliance

7th May 2020 David Whyte 372

The Gambling Commission published the fifth edition of The prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism – Guidance for remote and non-remote casinos (the “Guidance”) in January 2020. The Guidance incorporates the amendments made by the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2019 to the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.

In its 2018/2019 Enforcement Report, the Gambling Commission said:

“Compliance activity and enforcement cases revealed again and again that operators’ AML policies, procedures and controls are not fit for purpose. There has been the incorrect perception that all gambling regulators’ expectations are identical in addition to a failure to digest our guidance and implement the legislative requirements applicable to Great Britain. This must change, for these are not just regulatory matters but breaches of UK law. Those failing to learn these lessons will face further draconian action.”

Despite repeated messages and enforcement cases of a similar nature, due to ongoing failings by the industry, the Gambling Commission has “continued to imposed increasingly tough financial penalties (or payments in lieu of financial penalties) in cases where there have been major AML failings in order to send a clear message to the industry.”

Operators must take heed because the Gambling Commission will continue to hold you to account for failing to adhere to the Guidance.

As we noted in our blog on 31 March 2020, the current COVID-19 crisis presents some operators with an opportunity to ease regulatory and commercial burdens.

Operators should ensure that they have implemented all changes required following the update to the Guidance and take note of the Gambling Commission’s statement that:

“…the publication of this updated guidance must result in casino businesses reviewing, and accordingly amending, their money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments as well as the associated policies, procedures and controls…”

Customer due diligence

Paragraphs 6.16 and 6.17 of the Guidance specify that, for the purposes of CDD (as required by Regulation 28), verify means verifying on the basis of documents or information which, in either case, have been obtained from a reliable source which is independent of the person whose identity is being verified. In addition to documents issued or made available by an official body made available by a customer themselves, information may be regarded as meeting this requirement if:

it is obtained by means of an electronic identification process (by using electronic identification means or by using a trust service); and
that process is secure from fraud and misuse and capable of providing an appropriate level of assurance that the person claiming a particular identity is, in fact, the person with that identity.

Enhanced customer due diligence and enhanced ongoing monitoring

There are now further requirements for EDD measures and/or an assessment of whether there is a high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing (which, if identified, would require EDD measures) where:

in relation to any transaction where there is a requirement apply CDD measures, either of the parties to the transaction are established in a high-risk third country;
a transaction is complex or unusually large, there are unusual patterns of transactions, or the transactions have no apparent economic or legal purpose;
the customer is the beneficiary of a life insurance policy; or
the customer is a third country national who is applying for residence rights in or citizenship of an EEA state in exchange for transfers of capital, purchase of a property, government bonds or investment in corporate entities in that EEA state.

Other changes

Other changes to the Guidance include changes to the risk-based approach, risk assessments, risk-based CDD and new flow diagrams showing the Architecture for the risk-based process (figure 2) and The risk framework and risk-based customer due diligence (figure 3). These highlight the requirement that licensed casino operators:

take appropriate measures in preparation for, and during, the adoption of new products or business practices, and assess and mitigate any money laundering risks arising from such adoption, in addition to the existing and similar requirement for new technology, including cryptocurrencies (Regulation 19(4));
have specific policies, procedures and controls for the measures described above (Regulation 19(1) and (2)); and
take appropriate measures to ensure that any agents used by operators, for the purposes of their business, are given appropriate training in AML and CTF (Regulation 24).

Factors to consider

The new requirements can be addressed by:

reviewing money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessments now, and each time a new product or business practice is introduced;
reviewing AML/CTF policies, procedures and controls to ensure that the Guidance has been considered;
ensuring that all employees are appropriately trained and understand the changes; and
amending contractual clauses and training procedures to ensure that agents are appropriately trained.

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

14Apr

Gambling Commission Business Plan 2020-2021

14th April 2020 Francesca Burnett-Hall 345

In the midst of the Coronavirus crisis and national lockdown, the Gambling Commission pushed ahead and published its annual business plan for 2020-2021 on 1 April 2020. Clearly, the business plan was prepared before recent events, but Neil McArthur’s foreword heavily referenced current circumstances, including observing an immediate increase in participation in online gambling.

The Gambling Commission did not shy away from reaffirming its commitment to tackling gambling-related harm and holding operators to account by, “if necessary, using powers to suspend and revoke operating and personal licences”.

The business plan outlined five key priority areas, whilst making it clear that “verything do is centred around making gambling safer, balancing the enjoyment people get from gambling and identifying the risks that gambling can present to consumers and the wider public.” These five priorities are:

1. Protecting the interests of customers

Focusing on new regulatory requirements to make gambling safer, specifically in relation to VIP/high value customers, responsible game and product design and advertising technology. This follows the recent work of the industry working groups, which we wrote about in our blog on 2 April 2020.

The Gambling Commission will also advise the Secretary of State on the Government’s review of the Gambling Act 2005.

2. Preventing gambling harm to consumers and the public

Topping the Gambling Commission’s list is the intention to establish, by Q2, an ‘Experts by Experience’ Advisory Board, which will “ensure that the voice of consumers, particularly those who have experienced harm, fully informs decisions right at the heart of the Commission.” Industry reception to this initiative has been mixed, with Peter Hannibal of GBG describing it as “scary” amid concerns over the potential for a lack of representation from experts whose experience of gambling is positive. John White of BACTA is more welcoming of the initiative, but only if a wide range of players are the experts, not just those who have experienced problems. No details have been published regarding the Board’s constitution.

The Gambling Commission will also publish an evaluation of its actions to reduce the risk of harm to children and young people, and will review the way that it measures participation in, and prevalence of, gambling.

Finally, Neil McArthur mentioned in his foreword the single customer view initiative, which, with the use of technology, will aim to tackle the challenge “where operators currently only have a partial view of a customer’s behaviour.” This follows a two-day event on this subject on 11 and 12 February 2020. Further details are available here.

3. Raising standards in the gambling market

Raising standards by protecting against threats to betting integrity, developing an improved test-house assurance framework, implementing the Fifth Money Laundering Regulations, and delivering industry events and initiatives to raise standards.

It also intends to make online gambling safer by undertaking targeted action to improve standards in the remote gambling sector, which hints at the Gambling Commission shifting its focus in relation to its regulatory investigations and enforcement action.

4. Optimising returns to good causes from lotteries

The current National Lottery licence, held by Camelot UK Lotteries Limited, ends in 2023. A key priority for the Gambling Commission is the fourth National Lottery licence competition and “finding the right operator, who will innovate to engage players and protect them, run the National Lottery with integrity and continue maximising returns to good causes to benefit society.”

5. Improving the way it regulates

We very much welcome the Gambling Commission’s intention to improve accessibility to its:

digital services, such as eServices; and
often painfully slow and inefficient online application system.

How the Gambling Commission expects to achieve this when it is also considering reducing its staff headcount (as reported by the Guardian) is yet to be seen, but we remain hopeful.

It also plans to establish the case for changes to its fees and advise DCMS accordingly (this will no doubt mean increased fees!) and publish clearer documentation on its corporate governance process.

Given the global uncertainty caused by the pandemic, target dates may be subject to change. The Gambling Commission intends to review the position at the end of Q1, and revise the business plan, where necessary.

Nevertheless, the industry has been warned: “Those who fail to meet expectations will find approach to enforcement getting even tougher than it has been to date.” Given that we have seen the Gambling Commission’s enforcement work (and financial penalties) increase steadily over the last few years, operators would be wise not to view this as an empty threat.

03Apr

No Love in the Time of Coronavirus

3rd April 2020 Julian Harris 389

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gambling Regulation

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

Gambling Commission Consultation on High Value Customers

Gambling Commission Creates Interim Experts by Experience Group

Remain Vigilant to Ensure AML Compliance

Gambling Commission Business Plan 2020-2021

No Love in the Time of Coronavirus