12Feb

White Paper Series: Gambling Commission publishes online slots stake limit guidance

12th February 2025 Harris Hagan 114

On 30 January 2025, the Gambling Commission published its Online slots stake limit guidance following the Statutory Instrument (“SI”) (The Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024) which was laid on 10 December 2024. The SI follows the Government’s response to its consultation to introduce a maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain. Subject to the final Parliamentary procedures, the SI will have the effect of adding a new condition to all remote casino operating licences.

What does the SI say?

The SI states:

1. The condition specified in this regulation is attached to each remote casino operating licence, including remote casino operating licences issued before this regulation comes into force.

2. The condition is that, for an online slots game, the total amount which an individual may stake in relation to any game cycle may not exceed—

(a) £2, where the individual is less than 25 years old, and

(b) £5, where the individual is 25 years old or over.

3. Where this condition is attached to a remote casino operating licence which was issued before this regulation comes into force, the condition has effect from the date on which this regulation comes into force.

4. This regulation is subject to the transitional provision in regulation 6.

5. In this regulation:

“game cycle” means, for an online slots game, the period beginning with the initiation of the game by the individual and ending at the point at which all money staked during the game has been lost or all money won during the game has been or delivered to or made available for collection by the individual, as the case may be;

“online slots game” means a casino game that is—

(a) a reel-based game, and

(b) is played online.

“reel-based game” means a game in which—

(a) moving or changing images or text are displayed by the use of visual representations of reels or other means, and

(b) an individual may win a prize or some other opportunity or advantage, as represented by the resulting arrangement of those images or text;

“stake” means to pay or risk an amount in connection with an online slots game.

Gambling Commission’s Guidance

As the SI sets out, all games which meet the definition of an online slots game will be subject to a maximum stake per game cycle. A game cycle begins when the customer presses spin and the stake is deducted from their account balance and ends when any winnings are paid to the player’s balance, or when the stake has been lost.

For customers who are aged 25 and older, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £5.

For customers who are aged 18 to 24, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £2.

Separately, the Gambling Commission confirmed in a consultation response for online games design that for remote slots, it must be a minimum of 2.5 seconds from the time a game is started until the next game cycle can be commenced.

Examples

The Gambling Commission also set out some examples:

Scenario A: A customer aged 27 stakes £5 on an online slot game. No other opportunities to stake can be offered until the game cycle has concluded as £5 is the maximum stake permitted for customers aged 25 and over.

Scenario B: A customer aged 27 stakes £2 on an online slot game. Further staking opportunities could be offered within the same game cycle up to the value of £3 for a total staked per game cycle of £5.

Scenario C: A customer aged 19 stakes £2 on an online slot game. No other opportunities to stake can be offered until the game cycle has concluded as £2 is the maximum stake permitted for 18 to 24 year olds.

Scenario D: A customer aged 27 stakes £5 on an online slot game and wins a prize offer which they can accept (and end the game cycle) or reject (and gamble their stake again for a chance to win a larger prize). Importantly, the customer is not being asked to stake any additional funds. The customer chooses to accept the additional gamble but is unsuccessful and therefore receives £0. The customer’s balance is reduced by £5 when they initiate the spin, and as they receive no prize their balance remains unchanged following the conclusion of the game cycle.

Who does the SI apply to?

As explained in the SI, the condition will apply to operators who hold remote casino operating licences, including those licences that were issued before the regulation comes into force. The SI states that for licences issued before the regulation is in effect, the condition will have effect from the date the regulation comes into force.

Timeline

The SI for this measure was laid in Parliament on 10 December 2024.
This legislation needs to be debated (usually scheduled for 6 to 8 weeks after the legislation is laid, although not guaranteed) and approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
After the legislation is debated and approved it will be made (signed by the Minister) and come into force.
From the day the legislation is made, operators will have an implementation period of 6 weeks to implement the £5 limit per spin for adults aged 25 and over (which will temporarily apply to all adults), and a further 6 weeks to implement the £2 limit per spin for 18 to 24 year olds.

Please get i n touch with us if you have any questions about the SI or Gambling Commission guidance.

13Jan

Reminder: Changes to remote games design requirements come into force on 17 January 2025

13th January 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 94

The Gambling Commission has reminded licensees that on 17 January 2025, the revised remote gambling and software technical standards (“RTS”) will take effect, introducing new requirements to extend the rules that already apply to slots, to other online products. Licensees should ensure their online games are compliant with the new requirements of the RTS before 17 January 2025.

Background

In May 2024, the Gambling Commission published its response to its Summer 2023 consultation in which it confirmed that it would proceed with the Game Design proposals as set out in the consultation. The changes to the RTS include the introduction of a minimum speed of play, features which reduce thinking time or contribute to dissociation from the act of gambling, and display of the amount of time and spend.

Summary of the proposals and the new requirements

Proposal 1: Player-led ‘spin stop’ features

RTS requirement 14E: The gambling system must not permit a customer to reduce the time until the result is presented.

RTS implementation guidance 14E:

Features such as turbo, quick spin and slam stop are not permitted. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list but to illustrate the types of features the requirement is referring to.
This applies to all remote games, regardless of game cycle speed.
This requirement does not apply to bonus and/or feature games where an additional stake is not wagered.

Applies to: all casino.

Proposal 2: Minimum speed of play

RTS requirement 14G: It must be a minimum of 5 seconds from the time a game is started until the next game cycle can be commenced. It must always be necessary to release and then depress the ‘start button’ or take equivalent action to commence a game cycle.

RTS implementation guidance 14G:

A game cycle starts when a player depresses the ‘start button’ or takes equivalent action to initiate the game and ends when all money or money’s worth staked or won during the game has been either lost or delivered to, or made available for collection by the player and the start button or equivalent becomes available to initiate the next game.
A player should commit to each game cycle individually, continued contact with a button, key or screen should not initiate a new game cycle.

Applies to: all casino games (excluding peer-to-peer poker and slots).

Proposal 3: Prohibition on autoplay

RTS requirement 8A: The gambling system must require a customer to commit to each game cycle individually.

RTS implementation guidance 8A:

This requirement does not prohibit offering functionality to automatically post blinds in peer-to-peer poker.

Applies to: all gaming (including bingo).

Proposal 4: Prohibition of features which may give the illusion of “false wins”

RTS requirement 14F: The gambling system must not celebrate a return which is less than or equal to the total stake gambled.

RTS implementation guidance 14F:

By ‘celebrate’, the Gambling Commission means the use of auditory or visual effects that are associated with a win are not permitted for returns which are less than or equal to last total amount staked.
The following items provide guidelines for reasonable steps to inform the customer of the result of their game cycle:

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

Applies to: all casino.

Proposal 5: Operator-led simultaneous products

RTS requirement 14C: The gambling system must not offer functionality which facilitates playing multiple games at the same time.

RTS implementation guidance 14C:

Operators are not permitted to offer functionality designed to allow players to play multiple games at the same time. This includes, but is not limited to, split screen or multi-screen functionality.
Combining multiple games in a way which facilitates simultaneous play is not permitted.

Applies to: all casino (excluding peer-to-peer poker).

Proposal 6: Display of net position and time spent

RTS requirement 2E: All gaming sessions must clearly display a customer’s net position, in the currency of their account or product (for example, pounds sterling, dollar, euro) since the session started.

RTS implementation guidance 2E: Net position is defined as the total of all winnings minus the sum of all losses since the start of the session.

Applies to: all casino (excluding peer to peer poker).

RTS requirement 13C: The elapsed time should be displayed for the duration of the gaming session.

RTS implementation guidance 13C:

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

Applies to: all casino (excluding peer to peer poker).

Proposal 7: Update to security audit requirements

We take the opportunity to remind licensees that the new security audit requirements under section 4 of the RTS came into force on 31 October 2024. Annual security audits conducted after 1 November 2024 must be to the updated to comply with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)27001:2022.

Next Steps

The new RTS requirements come into force on 17 January 2025, meaning licensees must adhere to these requirements before this date.

Please get in touch if you have any questions about the new game design requirements.

03Apr

Reminder: Changes to LCCP now in force

3rd April 2024 Chris Biggs 169

In accordance with the Gambling Commission’s Changes to multi-operator self-exclusion, notification of deaths by suicide and payment services: Consultation Response (“Consultation Response”) published on 17 October 2023, two changes to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”) came into force on 1 April 2024:

A. Social responsibility code provision 3.5.5 – Remote multi operator self-exclusion

The Gambling Commission has extended the requirement to participate in the GAMSTOP multi-operator scheme to include all gambling licensees that make and accept bets by telephone and emails, which includes betting services conducted via SMS text and instant messaging services such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger and Instagram Direct. The amended wording to social responsibility code provision 3.5.5 now reads as follows:

“Applies to: All remote licences except: any remote lottery licence the holder of which does not provide facilities for participation in instant win lotteries, ancillary remote betting when relied upon to provide facilities for betting via a machine (commonly known as self-service betting terminals) on premises where a betting or track premises licence has effect, remote general betting (remote platform), remote betting intermediary (trading room only), gaming machine technical, gambling software, host, ancillary remote bingo, and ancillary remote casino licences.

1. Licensees must participate in the national multi-operator self-exclusion scheme.”

B. Licence condition 15.2.2 – Other reportable events

The Gambling Commission has added a requirement to this licence condition that requires all gambling licensees to inform the Gambling Commission when they become aware, or have reasonable cause to suspect, that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide. This additional requirement at licence condition 15.2.2 reads as follows:

“Applies to: All operating licences.

2. The licensee must notify the Commission, as soon as reasonably practicable, 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.”

In its Consultation Response, the Gambling Commission provides some guidance on its expectations of a licensee’s ‘reasonable cause to suspect’, indicating that the word ‘reasonable’ was an “important qualification” and further stating:

“We do not expect gambling businesses to actively investigate various sources of information but to be cognisant of developments it might become aware of and respond accordingly.”

Whilst it remains somewhat ambiguous as to what may be considered ‘reasonable’ in these circumstances, the Gambling Commission explains that it introduced this wording to ensure licensees do not fail to report complex cases where they do not have ‘actual knowledge’ of a death by suicide. All licensees must therefore now ensure they notify the Gambling Commission as soon as reasonably practicable upon becoming aware, or having reasonable cause to suspect, that a customer has died by suicide and (where applicable) ensure they participate in GAMSTOP.

Many licensees will have already implemented these requirements into their policies, procedures and systems. However, for those that have yet to do so, you may find the following helpful:

GAMSTOP

The Gambling Commission published a blog on 18 December 2023, which provides information on how to integrate with the GAMSTOP application programming interface.

Helpfully, the blog links to a webinar delivered by the Gambling Commission and GAMSTOP, which provides:

a summary of GAMSTOP’s work completed to date – starts at 1 minute 40 seconds;
an overview of the GAMSTOP scheme – starts at 6 minutes 17 seconds;
guidance about the integration process – starts at 17 minutes 29 seconds; and
a question and answer session – starts at 32 minutes 06 seconds.

Reporting suicides

If licensees become aware, or have reasonable cause to suspect, that a customer has died by suicide, they should provide the following information to the Gambling Commission:

the date the licensee became aware of the death;
the person’s name;
date of birth; and
a summary of their gambling activity, if this information is available.

This information should be submitted to the Gambling Commission via eServices as soon as reasonably practicable. It is critical to remember that the Gambling Commission requires any deaths by suicide to be reported – it does not matter whether the suicide is known or suspected to be associated with gambling. As noted by the Gambling Commission in its Consultation Response:

“…we are not expecting gambling businesses to determine whether the person’s death was caused by or connected to their gambling activity. Responsibility for establishing whether a death is by suicide is a matter for a coroner or the police to determine.”

Additional details about information the Gambling Commission expects licensees to include in these notifications can be found in the Gambling Commission’s LCCP Information requirements guidance.

In terms of the timing of the notification, the Gambling Commission does not provide guidance on what is meant by “as soon as reasonably practicable”. However, licensees should note the relative urgency and would be well-advised to put in place robust systems and processes to ensure that any relevant facts/matters are reported to appropriate personnel within the business as soon as possible – ideally to those in the compliance department, including the personal management licence (“PML”) holder responsible for the licensee’s regulatory compliance function.

In addition, all employees (and particularly those that are customer-facing and/or who supervise this cohort) should be trained on the new reporting obligation as soon as possible, to mitigate the risk that relevant facts or matters are known within the wider business but not reported “up” through the appropriate channels.

We also recommend that licensees review their terms and conditions and privacy policies to make it clear that they are required to disclose information to the Gambling Commission in these circumstances.

Please get in touch with us if you: (i) would like us to review your policies and procedures to ensure they comply with the Gambling Commission’s requirements; (ii) require training for the PML holders in your business; and/or (iii) would like any other assistance in relation to licensing and compliance matters.

23Feb

White Paper Series: DCMS announces online slots stake limits

23rd February 2024 Chris Biggs 160

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) has today announced that the government will introduce statutory maximum stake limits for online slots games later this year, as follows:

£5 maximum stake limit per spin for adults aged 25 and above; and

£2 maximum stake limit per spin for young adults aged 18 to 24.

In reaching this decision, DCMS states:

“We believe these limits will achieve the government’s stated objectives of reducing the risk of gambling-related harm, with a lower risk of unintended consequences and less disruption to the majority of gamblers who do not suffer harm.”

DCMS’ announcement is accompanied by the publication of its response (the “Consultation Response”) to its consultation A maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain, which we have previously discussed.

Implementation

DCMS’ announcement sets out that the online stake limits will come into force in September this year, subject to the passing of secondary legislation through Parliament. It is of note, however, that there is no reference to an implementation date in the Consultation Response itself. If the stake limits are approved by Parliament, the secondary legislation will impose new licence conditions on remote gambling operators, which the Gambling Commission will be responsible for enforcing.

Notably, there will be a phased approach to the implementation of these new requirements:

DCMS expects there to be a minimum six-week transition period for Gambling Commission licensees to introduce the £5 stake limit for all customers.

Following this, the government will allow a further six weeks for licensees to develop any necessary technical solutions before it expects the lower £2 stake limit for young adults aged 18 to 24 to be in place.

The phased approach acknowledges that development of technical solutions by licensees may be required for age-based limits. However, following the transition period, if licensees are unable to develop solutions adequately to distinguish between customers who are 25 and over and those who are under 25, DCMS expects licensees will not be able to offer any customers online slots stakes exceeding £2 per spin. Licensees would therefore be wise to start taking steps now to develop the technical solutions required.

Key points of note in the Consultation Response

DCMS received and considered 98 stakeholder responses and identified the following clear themes from those responses:

Online slots are a high-risk gambling product and statutory stake limits are necessary to reduce the risk of gambling-related harm.
Many respondents indicated that online slots stake limits should align with stake limits on gaming machines in land-based operators.
It is important to retain consumer choice in light of the risk of consumers moving to the illegal online market if they are no longer able to stake at their preferred levels.

£5 stake limit

Notably, 44% of respondents indicated they were in favour of the lower £2 stake limit for all adults. DCMS explains that 26% of respondents (some of whom selected the £2 limit option) indicated in the free text box of the consultation question that the stake limit should be lower than £2. Many respondents in favour of these lower stake limits indicated that this option was “most likely to reduce average losses or help minimise the risk of runaway losses”, therefore significantly reducing gambling-related harm.

DCMS states around 20% of customers currently choose to stake over £5 per spin on online slots at least once a year and will therefore be impacted by the stake limit, however only 0.6% of all spins are over £5. DCMS believes that a £5 stake limit will: (a) achieve the government’s stated objectives in a proportionate way, with a lower risk of unintended consequences such as displacement to the illegal online market; (b) help to reduce harm because of the constraint on a player’s ability to place very large stakes quickly; and (c) align with the stake limit for category B1 machines in casinos.

£2 stake limit

DCMS states that the majority (60%) of respondents favoured a stake limit of £2 or under for young adults aged 18 to 24, many of whom cited evidence showing that young adults may be particularly vulnerable to gambling-related harm and “felt that this justified greater protections either in the form of a separate stake limit or otherwise.”

DCMS agrees that the evidence justifies increased protections for this cohort of consumer:

“Young adults have the highest average problem gambling score of any age group, generally lower disposable income, ongoing neurological development impacting risk perception, and common life stage factors like managing money for the first time or moving away from support networks.”

“A separate limit for young adults aligns with the wider government approach to gambling of targeted and evidence-based interventions for those at risk, while not unduly restricting others.”

Scope of limits

The government received general support for the descriptions of ‘online slots’, ‘maximum stake’ and ‘game cycle’ proposed in its consultation. The definition of online slots appears to have drawn the most scrutiny: 65% of respondents agreed with the government’s description and 22% did not agree, with some respondents considering the description to be too vague and therefore susceptible to loopholes. DCMS states that some respondents expressed concerns that gambling operators could be incentivised to develop products which are functionally similar to online slots, but might be argued to be technically exempt to circumvent stake limits.

DCMS confirms that the government does not intend to introduce a maximum stake limit for online games other than online slots. However, its intention is for boundary-pushing products (such as those which combine fundamentally slots-type gameplay elements with other games like bingo – for instance the popular ‘slingo’ game) to be captured under the definition of slots and subject to the stake limits.

Summary

Whilst not unexpected, the introduction of the stake limits at these levels is a significant shift in the UK’s remote gambling sector and one which will come at a cost to licensees. DCMS acknowledges the likely reduction in annual gross gambling yield across the industry, as well as the costs associated with implementing the stake limits. However, DCMS is clear on the government’s position: the £5 and £2 stake limits “will limit the potential for harmful losses from those gambling at elevated levels of risk or experiencing problem gambling compared to the status quo of theoretically unlimited stakes.”

Whilst it is unclear when the government will table its secondary legislation for Parliament to consider, we encourage licensees to begin considering how they will implement the stake limits well in advance of the September commencement date (whenever that may be).

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the stake limits or if you would like assistance with any compliance or enforcement matters.

29Nov

Understanding the impact of increased cost of living on gambling behaviour: Gambling Commission’s interim findings

29th November 2023 Chris Biggs 172

Last month, the Gambling Commission published its interim findings on the impact of increased cost of living on gambling behaviour. The Gambling Commission’s research aims to improve its understanding of the impact of increased cost of living by examining the behaviours and motivations of gamblers during the period of high cost of living in Great Britain (“COL Research”).

The Gambling Commission commenced the COL Research in December 2022 in partnership with Yonder Consulting, and undertook a “mixed-methodology research approach” with a longitudinal survey taking place over three waves between December 2022 and June 2023. This was followed by qualitative depth interviews to further understand the impact of the rise in cost of living on lifestyle and gambling behaviours.

In this blog, we summarise the COL Research, set out the Gambling Commission’s interim findings and identify key points for licensees in Great Britain to note.

What is the COL Research?

The Gambling Commission sets out its definition of ‘cost of living’, as:

“the amount of money that is needed to cover basic expenses such as housing, food, taxes, healthcare, and a certain standard of living.”

The COL Research specifically aims to test three core hypotheses:

The rise in cost of living is likely to impact consumers’ gambling behaviour in different ways, depending on their personal circumstances and the way in which gambling fits into their lives.
Some gamblers will report that the rise in cost of living has had a mediating effect on their gambling behaviour.
The rise in cost of living may negatively impact vulnerabilities for some consumers, putting them at an increased risk of gambling-related harm.

The project commenced with three waves of quantitative research, which sought to: (1) initially establish a baseline of key gambling behaviours; (2) explore the impact of external triggers for gambling; and (3) subsequently track any changes to the core gambling behaviours.

Wave 1

Between 21 and 22 December 2022 the Gambling Commission commenced the nationally representative survey of 2,065 adults aged 18 or over. 973 participants (47%) had engaged in gambling activity in the last four weeks.

Wave 2

Between 27 February and 3 March 2023, 1,694 of the same sample group were recontacted to capture changes in the core gambling behaviours surveyed. 820 participants (48%) had engaged in gambling activity in the last four weeks.

Wave 3

Between 26 May and 2 June 2023, 1,391 of the same sample group (who all took part in Wave 2) were recontacted to capture further changes in the core gambling behaviours. 666 participants (48%) had engaged in gambling activity in the last four weeks.

Qualitative wave

The qualitative phase took place in August 2023, with the aim to build a “more rounded impression and picture of each individual”. This phase engaged with 16 individuals who each completed a three-day “digital diary pre-task” to reflect on spending habits. 16 one-hour online interviews were then conducted with gamblers who engage in a variety of different gambling types and with different gambling behaviours (whilst it is not clear, we assume these were the same 16 individuals who participated in the digital diary pre-task).

The Gambling Commission’s interim report does not discuss findings from the qualitative phase; these will accompany further quantitative and longitudinal analyses in the final report expected in “early 2024”.

Key findings

The quantitative phase of the COL Research (i.e. the three waves) surveyed the participants across three broad topics. We set out the Gambling Commission’s key findings for each topic below.

Topic 1: Financial comfort and concerns, and wellbeing

Just under half of the respondents indicated they were “just about managing but felt confident that they would be okay” with the cost of living, whereas between 40% and 43% of individuals indicated they were “financially comfortable”.

The subgroups most likely to have broader concerns about their personal finances are those who gamble online and those who score 8 or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (“PGSI”), however most individuals signalled the need to take steps to make their income go further during the tracked period.

In terms of wellbeing, between 45% and 49% of respondents reported “not being able to enjoy the things that they used to due to the rising cost of living” throughout the tracked period.

Topic 2: Changes in gambling behaviours

Despite the rise in cost of living, a clear majority of gamblers reported that their gambling behaviours (amount of time and money spent, number of gambling occasions and typical stake placed) had remained stable, the majority ranging from 62% to 75% depending on the type of gambling behaviour.

If a change in gambling behaviour was reported, it was much more likely to be a decrease in gambling. For example, between 22% and 26% of individuals reported a decrease in the amount of time spent gambling, compared to 6% to 7% that reported an increase in time spent gambling.

69% of individuals who did report changes indicated that these changes were “at least partially a direct consequence” of increases in the cost of living.

Individuals who scored 8 or more on the PGSI were more likely to report an increase in the gambling behaviours surveyed, despite the rise in cost of living.

Topic 3: Motivations for gambling

Respondents who previously indicated they had changed their gambling behaviours were asked questions about four specific motivations in Waves 1 and 3, displayed in the Gambling Commission’s Table 4.1:

Between 10% and 20% of online gamblers indicated that bolstering their finances was their motivation for gambling, and this motivation applied to “significantly more” individuals who scored 8 or more on the PGSI.

Interim conclusions

The concluding remarks in the Gambling Commission’s report considered the interim findings in the context of the following two hypotheses:

Has the rise in cost of living had a mediating effect on gambling behaviour?

Initial quantitative evidence does not suggest that the rise in cost of living has had a mediating effect on gambling behaviours. However, the “small proportion” of those who did make changes to their gambling during this period were more likely to have deceased their gambling; the exception being individuals who scored 8 or higher on the PGSI, who were more likely to have increased their gambling compared to other groups of participants.

Has the rise in cost of living negatively impacted vulnerabilities for some consumers?

A small minority of gamblers who said that they have changed at least one of the surveyed gambling behaviours reported using gambling to support their finances in some way, with a greater proportion of those doing so being online gamblers and/or those who scored 8 or more on the PGSI. The individuals who did change their gambling behaviours indicated that the rise of cost of living has at least partially contributed to their change in behaviour.

Takeaway points

It can be inferred from the interim findings that online gamblers and individuals scoring 8 or higher on the PGSI may be more vulnerable to gambling-related harms when faced with a rise in cost of living.

Given that the interim findings come at a time when the spotlight is on affordability and customer interaction, it will be interesting to see whether the COL Research findings feature prominently in the Gambling Commission’s response to its summer consultation that closed on 18 October 2023 and included consideration of new obligations on licensees to conduct financial vulnerability checks and financial risk assessments.

For the meantime, online operators in particular, should bear these interim findings in mind while they are updating their safer gambling policies and procedures to reflect the Gambling Commission’s revised customer interaction guidance for remote gambling licensees; and evaluate whether they ought to take increased cost of living into account in their assessment of financial risk – pending formal direction from the Gambling Commission.

The Gambling Commission’s final report in “early 2024” will combine its interim findings with further quantitative analysis of the longitudinal impact of the increased cost of living across different demographic groups, and key findings from its qualitative phase of the COL Research.

Please get in contact with us if you have any questions about the Gambling Commission’s interim findings and/or your business’ approach to customer interaction and financial vulnerability.

31Oct

Revised remote customer interaction guidance comes into effect

31st October 2023 David Whyte 194

The Gambling Commission’s revised remote customer interaction guidance (“CI Guidance”) has today (31 October 2023) come into effect, along with the requirement set out in Social Responsibility Code Provision (“SRCP”) 3.4.3 that remote licensees must take the CI Guidance into account.

As readers of our blog will no doubt be aware, we have provided several updates (for example, in December 2022 and January 2023) on, and been critical of, the evolution of the CI Guidance, since the first announcement by the Gambling Commission on 14 April 2022 of the new SRCP 3.4.3 and the associated CI Guidance.

The Gambling Commission has now set out its requirements. Irrespective of their views about the CI Guidance, it is vitally important that those remote licensees to which the CI Guidance applies are compliant with SRCP 3.4.3 and can demonstrate that they have taken the CI Guidance into account. We do not propose to further analyse the CI Guidance in detail in this blog. Rather, we set out below some key considerations for those licensees who must comply with these requirements.

Key considerations

Consideration 1: Be wary of the language used in the CI Guidance

We have previously raised concerns about the Gambling Commission introducing formal requirements through guidance, and about the risk that the language used in the CI Guidance might: (a) inaccurately reflect the requirements set out in SRCP 3.4.3; (b) cause confusion; and/or (c) expose licensees to the risk of broad interpretation by the Gambling Commission.

We note that the Gambling Commission has retained its use of “must” and “should” in the CI Guidance, having confirmed in its response to its consultation on the CI Guidance, published on 24 August 2023 (the “CI Consultation Response”) that it has “ensured that consistently appl ‘must’ language when quoting or referring to the requirements, and use ‘should’ language when referring to guidance which must be taken into account”. Licensees should take note of this distinction, but at the same time be aware that the requirement imposed by SRCP 3.4.3 to “take into account” the CI Guidance might effectively make such distinction irrelevant.

Consideration 2: Document your decision-making processes

As the Gambling Commission explains in the CI Guidance, SRCP 3.4.3 “sets out the requirements relevant licensees must comply with in relation to remote customer interaction. For compliance and enforcement purposes, will expect licensees to demonstrate how their policies, procedures and practices meet the required outcomes. This can be through implementing relevant parts of the guidance or demonstrating how and why implementing alternative solutions equally meet the outcomes”.

Licensees will likely be aware that the Gambling Commission has taken a very literal approach to the interpretation of its guidance in the past (e.g. its guidance for remote and non-remote casinos on the prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism). It is therefore likely that the Gambling Commission will take the same literal approach in relation to the CI Guidance. Licensees should ensure that they carefully document their decision-making process in relation to the CI Guidance, in particular in cases where their approach is inconsistent with, or diverges from, the CI Guidance. This documented decision-making process will enable licensees to demonstrate to the Gambling Commission that they have met their regulatory obligations in the event of future oversights and/or regulatory scrutiny.

Consideration 3: Licensees are not expected to screen all customers for every indicator of vulnerability

The Gambling Commission makes it clear in the CI Guidance that its “aim” for SRCP 3.4.3(3), which requires licensees to “consider the factors that might make a customer more vulnerable to experiencing gambling harms”, is to ensure that “where licensees know that customers are in a vulnerable situation, these customers are supported”. Licensees should note that the Gambling Commission also confirms that it does not expect licensees to screen all customers for each of the factors of vulnerability set out in the CI Guidance.. Rather, it expects that licensees “consider and act on information that they have available to them” (our emphasis added).

Consideration 4: Not all information included in the CI Guidance is required to be taken into account

The Gambling Commission clarified in the CI Consultation Response that certain information included in the CI Guidance is not required to be taken into account by licensees. Rather, that information has helpfully been included in an attempt to provide licensees with clarification or additional explanation to assist their understanding. Licensees should ensure that they are aware of this distinction, particularly when they are revising their policies and procedures and/or documenting their decision-making process.

A helpful example of this is the additional information – which is not required to be taken into account – set out below paragraph 5.3 of the CI Guidance. This lists further sub-categories of potential indicators of harm which, whilst not required indicators, may be of particular use to licensees when considering the formal indicators that they are required to incorporate into their approach to customer interaction by SRCP 3.4.3(5).

Consideration 5: No change to affordability requirements (yet!)

At present, the Gambling Commission’s position on customer affordability has not changed. Whilst the Government set out its proposed financial risk check model in the White Paper, upon which the Gambling Commission is consulting, the CI Guidance does not address those issues. Rather, it restates the current position at paragraph 4.6, reminding licensees that: (a) open source data that can assist them in assessing affordability exists; (b) thresholds should be realistic and based on average available income; and (c) they should be aware of the distinction between ‘disposable income’ and ‘discretionary income’.

Consideration 6: Manual reviews of automated decisions are only required if customers contest that decision

SRCP 3.4.3(11) requires that “icensees must ensure that strong indicators of harm, as defined within the licensee’s processes, are acted on in a timely manner by implementing automated processes”. It also requires that, where such automated processes are applied, “the licensee must manually review their operation in each individual customer’s case and allow the customer the opportunity to contest any automated decision which affects them”.

The Gambling Commission clarified its position in relation to this manual review in the CI Consultation Response and does so again in the CI Guidance, stating that its expectation is that “where a decision is made solely by automated means and which has legal effects or similarly significantly affects a customer the licensee contacts the relevant customer to inform them of the decision and their right to contest it”. It is only where the customer exercises their right to contest the decision that a substantive manual review must be undertaken.

Licensees should take steps to review their data protection processes and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with both data protection legislation and the Gambling Commission’s expectations as set out in the CI Guidance.

Consideration 7: Do not overlook evaluation

Licensees are likely to have gone to significant lengths to ensure their adherence to the burdensome requirements set out in the CI Guidance, with particular focus on indicators of vulnerability and harm. In doing so, there is a risk that they may have overlooked the importance of evaluation as required by SRCP 3.4.3 (12)-(14). Licensees should therefore ensure that their approach to customer interaction incorporates the mandatory evaluation processes both at the individual customer level and of the whole system, and that those evaluation processes are documented and audited.

Next steps

Please get in touch with us if you would like to discuss the CI Guidance, or if you would like assistance with drafting and/or updating your policies and procedures in light of the CI Guidance.

22Sep

DCMS publishes correction to online slots consultation

22nd September 2023 Adam Russell 190

On 20 September 2023, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) published a correction note in respect of its open consultation on the imposition of a maximum stake limit for online slots games.

Correction note

DCMS have made a correction to Chapter 5 of the original consultation document, within which it was incorrectly reported that, according to the Public Health England Gambling-related harms evidence review, problem gambling rates are highest in the 16 to 24 age group (at 1.5%). However, 1.5% is in fact the problem gambling rate for men in that age group, rather than all respondents. In actuality, the rate for all respondents in the 16 to 24 age group is 0.8%. According to the Health Survey for England 2018, the problem gambling rate in the 16 to 24 age category is 1.0% – which was the highest of any age group.

The timing of this correction is interesting, particularly given the open letter published by the Gambling Commission’s CEO, Andrew Rhodes, in August 2023, in which Mr Rhodes raised concerns about the misuse of gambling statistics. The accurate use of data, it seems, is becoming increasingly important for all stakeholders.

Extension to deadline for submission of responses

The original deadline for submission was 20 September 2023 at 11:55pm. In view of the correction made to Chapter 5, DCMS have extended the original deadline by two weeks, to 4 October 2023 at 11:55am. This is to “give respondents time to consider the correction and respond on this basis”.

Next steps

DCMS have advised that any respondents who wish to resubmit should email [email protected] to do so.

Please get in touch with us if you would like to discuss this matter further or require our assistance preparing a response.

24Aug

Gambling Commission publishes new remote customer interaction guidance

24th August 2023 Adam Russell 189

On 23 August 2023, the Gambling Commission announced that they have published new remote customer interaction guidance in relation to Social Responsibility Code Provision 3.4.3 (“SRCP 3.4.3”) of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice.

Context

In April 2022, the Gambling Commission introduced new “stronger and more prescriptive” remote customer interaction requirements for remote gambling operators under SRCP 3.4.3, which tightened the rules on identifying at-risk customers and taking “proportionate timely action to reduce harm”.

At the time, the new remote customer interaction requirements were due to take effect on 12 September 2022 and in June 2022, the Gambling Commission published associated guidance, designed to support compliance with the new requirements under SRCP 3.4.3.

However, to widespread surprise, in September 2022, the Gambling Commission announced their decision to delay the implementation of:

paragraph 3 of SRCP 3.4.3 (“Licensees must consider the factors that might make a customer more vulnerable to experiencing gambling harms and implement systems and processes to take appropriate and timely action where indicators of vulnerability are identified. Licensees must take account of the Commission’s approach to vulnerability as set out in the Commission’s Guidance”);

paragraph 10 of SRCP 3.4.3 (“Licensees must prevent marketing and the take up of new bonus offers where strong indicators of harm, as defined within the licensee’s processes, have been identified”); and

other references in SRCP 3.4.3 to the guidance,

until at least 12 February 2023.

In the intervening time, the regulator decided that it would “be beneficial to use the time now available” to conduct a consultation on the guidance itself.

The consultation on the remote customer interaction guidance closed in January 2023.

The Gambling Commission also announced that, irrespective of the consultation on the guidance, requirement 10 of SRCP 3.4.3 would come into force on 12 February 2023 in any event.

New customer interaction guidance now published

Seven months after the consultation closed, the Gambling Commission have finally published the new remote customer interaction guidance, together with the associated consultation response.

The new remote customer interaction guidance contains various updates to the guidance originally published in June 2022, which we will explore in an upcoming blog.

Remote operators will be required to take into account the new remote customer interaction guidance from 31 October 2023.

In addition, SRCP 3.4.3 requirements:

to take into account the guidance; and

to “consider the factors that might make a customer more vulnerable to experiencing gambling harms and implement systems and processes to take appropriate and timely action where indicators of vulnerability are identified”,

will come into force on the same date.

Next steps

We are closely reviewing the new guidance and consultation response, and will be sharing our analysis and insights in due course.

Please get in touch with us if you would like to discuss this development, or if you would like assistance on drafting/updating your policies and procedures in light of the new guidance.

05Jul

White Paper Series: Gambling sponsorship of sport – a modern endemic or just the weapon du jour in political warfare?

5th July 2023 Chris Biggs 198

Twenty years after the first partnership between a Premier League football team and a gambling company, the Premier League clubs released a statement on 13 April 2023 confirming that they had “collectively agreed to withdraw gambling sponsorship from the front of clubs’ matchday shirts…” with the aim to reduce the prominence of gambling sponsorship in the Premier League from the end of the 2025/26 season (the “Voluntary Ban”).

Two weeks later, the UK Government released its White Paper High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age, in which the Government commended the Voluntary Ban and also endorsed the creation of a new cross-sport gambling sponsorship code (the “Sponsorship Code of Conduct”) to ensure sponsorship deals are socially responsible.

Critically, however, the White Paper did not – despite calls to the contrary from anti-gambling campaigners – ban gambling sponsorship of sports. For many, this raised eyebrows and prompted the question: did the Premier League and the Government go far enough?

Some say not. Indeed, in the most recent survey by the Football Supporters Association (the “FSA”), 73.1% (nearly three quarters) of respondents agreed with the statement:

“I am concerned about the amount of gambling advertising and sponsorship in football.”

In this White Paper Series blog, we delve deeper into the Voluntary Ban and the Sponsorship Code of Conduct and consider the effectiveness of these methods of self-regulation.

1. Background

The liberalisation of gambling advertising was one of the major changes introduced by the Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”). Before the 2005 Act, only bingo and lotteries were permitted to advertise on television. Since then the landscape has shifted significantly and gambling marketing, including by means of sponsorship, has become both highly visible and lucrative. Gambling brands provided 12% of sports sponsorship revenue according to a 2019 estimate.

Aside from horse racing and greyhound racing, which have integral links to betting, gambling sponsors are most strongly present in top-tier football, where 8 out of 20 Premier League teams in the 2022/23 season had a front-of-shirt gambling sponsor and all teams had an ‘official betting partner’. In smaller sports such as darts and snooker, a substantial amount of sponsorship revenue also comes from gambling operators.

Potentially as a result of its visibility and the associated revenue, the questions on sponsorship in the call for evidence published by the Government in preparation for its production of the White Paper attracted a high number of responses, with strongly polarised views. Industry stakeholders (as well as representatives of sectors that benefit from gambling advertising, such as broadcasters and sports governing bodies) broadly took the view that the current regulatory regime was fit for purpose. These respondents also emphasised the contributions that gambling revenue makes to other sectors.

In contrast, many other respondents (particularly across the health, charity and academic sectors) argued that gambling advertising was in need of significant reform, with several stakeholders in this group advocating a complete sponsorship ban. Many of these responses expressed concern regarding the link between sports and gambling and a common theme was the need for a ‘precautionary’ approach to the regulation of advertising, arguing that the absence of evidence of harm must not be treated as evidence of an absence of harm.

In the end, the Government concluded that although the limited high‑quality evidence they received on sport sponsorship indicated that it does have a level of impact on gambling behaviour, this was not as marked as for other forms of marketing (such as seeing gambling advertising online or receiving direct marketing) and it was these latter advertising mediums that should be subject to reform following consultation – and we will discuss the proposed reforms in these areas in a later blog.

Returning to sports sponsorship, the White Paper commended the steps taken voluntarily by the industry and other regulators to date, including the Voluntary Ban, sports governing bodies’ agreement to adopt the Sponsorship Code of Conduct and the introduction of the strong appeal test by the Advertising Standards Authority (the “ASA”); as well as the ASA’s recent high profile enforcement action in relation to the strong appeal test (which we have previously discussed) – but did not recommend the introduction of any more draconian measures to curb the prevalence of gambling sponsorship of sports.

The Voluntary Ban and the Sponsorship Code of Conduct appear therefore to have been well-timed pre-emptive strikes for self-regulation, but will they go far enough?

2. Voluntary Ban – the toothless tiger?

It is without doubt that the Voluntary Ban is a positive step in the right direction by the Premier League. The reduction of children’s exposure to gambling by way of sponsorship, advertising or otherwise is, as the Secretary of State Lucy Frazer noted in her speech to Parliament unveiling the White Paper, a key motivation of both sides of Parliament and the industry as a whole:

“We must do more, which is why we are taking steps to make gambling illegal, in many forms, for under-18s. I welcome the Premier League’s announcement on banning gambling advertising from the front of shirts. Footballers are role models for our children, and we do not want young people to advertise gambling on the front of their shirts…”

The Government’s decision not to recommend further measures to reduce gambling sponsorship of sports (and specifically, football) has not, however, come without scepticism. During the unveiling of the White Paper, several members of Parliament questioned the effectiveness of the Voluntary Ban and criticised the Government’s decision not to take further action. Below we consider some of these arguments and ask whether the Voluntary Ban has actually gone far enough.

First and foremost, it is undeniable that the Voluntary Ban will, once it is implemented, be an important step in reducing the prevalence of gambling advertising to children, for example in football sticker albums that are directly marketed to children. However, the ban does not come into force until the end of the 2025/26 season (theoretically permitting three more football seasons and associated sticker collections with front of shirt sponsorship, at the time of writing) and even when it does come into force, the Voluntary Ban does not extend to the backs of matchday shirts nor other parts of the playing kit. Indeed, the sceptics amongst us will probably expect to see a sea of sleeves adorned with gambling logos in 2026/27.

The second point to note is that shirts (front or otherwise) really are the tip of the iceberg of gambling sponsorship. In the absence of significant reform (for example, in the Sponsorship Code of Conduct, discussed below), we can expect to continue to see gambling sponsorship on pitchside hoardings and structures within football stadiums that are visible to the crowd and/or those watching the match broadcast on television or online.

Thirdly, the Voluntary Ban applies to the Premier League only – lower divisions in the English Football League will be free to continue to accept sponsorship, including on the fronts of shirts – from gambling operators if they choose.

The final argument raised during the Parliamentary debate was that, without a firm stance from the Government, the Premier League could change its tune and reduce the extent of the Voluntary Ban or reverse it entirely. This is of course, an inherent risk of advocating reform by means of self-regulation by an industry – the industry retains control but this risk is countered by the fact that self-regulation is invariably the quickest method to achieve change. During the debate, the Government countered the possibility that the Premier League would subsequently change its position with the reassurance that it “made position very clear to the Premier League” regarding the action it ought to be taking, and it will take any further steps as necessary in the event of further research into the issue.

3. Make the code, not war

In comparison, the Sponsorship Code of Conduct remained largely outside the focus of the Parliamentary debate surrounding the White Paper’s publication.

This may be because the White Paper is rather vague on the scope of the Sponsorship Code of Conduct. Although it recommends that the new code will be common to “all sports” apart from greyhound and horseracing, we do not yet know what this will mean in practice. Will motorsports or esports be included, for example? Instead, the White Paper simply states that:

“Sports bodies need to ensure a responsible approach is taken to gambling sponsorship through the adoption of a Code of Conduct which will be common to all sports. For individual sports we believe that sports governing bodies are best placed to drive up standards in gambling sponsorship, recognising their specific context and responsibility to their fans. We welcome the work that is underway through sports governing bodies to develop a gambling sponsorship Code of Conduct, and will continue to support its development and implementation across the whole sporting sector…
…The measures included in a sponsorship Code need to be robust enough to provide meaningful improvements in the social responsibility of gambling sponsorships, while giving flexibility to accommodate the material differences between sports.”

The Government goes on to set out some possible principles to be included in the Sponsorship Code of Conduct:

Until we see the draft Sponsorship Code of Conduct, we will not know what impact, if any, it will have on current sponsorship arrangements. Certainly, a couple of the principles suggested in the White Paper appear to go no further than current requirements. By way of example:

(a) it is an offence under the 2005 Act to advertise unlawful gambling, including by means of sponsorship arrangements, and this offence carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks and a maximum fine of £5,000 (at the time of writing). If the possibility of committing a criminal offence is not a deterrent against accepting sponsorship from a gambling operator that is not appropriately authorised by a Gambling Commission licence, a commitment to a sports governing body under a voluntary Code of Conduct is unlikely to carry much additional weight; and

(b) operators are already required to follow relevant industry codes on advertising, notably the Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising, which provides that:

“advertising of adult-only gambling product suppliers should never be targeted at children….and this Industry Code continues to require that gambling operators do not allow their logos or other promotional material to appear on any commercial merchandising which is designed for use by children. A clear example of this would be the use of logos on children’s sports’ shirts.”

Lastly, it is currently unclear when the Sponsorship Code of Conduct will (1) be published; and (2) come into force. In terms of a timeline, the White Paper simply states that the Government will:

“work with sports bodies to refine the code over the coming months.”

Given the Government’s repeated promises that the White Paper (which took nearly 30 months to be published following the call for evidence) would be published in “the coming weeks”, many will be wary regarding this statement and likely, rightly so. Not only has the Government committed itself to maintain involvement in the process of agreeing the Sponsorship Code of Conduct (which may slow it down) but the new code must also be reviewed, approved and adopted by governing bodies across “all sports”. We for one, do not envy the person responsible for overseeing such a mammoth task.

4. Our final thoughts…for now

Ultimately, we have again been delivered the message to “hurry up and wait” by the White Paper. Until the Voluntary Ban comes into force and the Sponsorship of Code of Conduct is adopted across all sports (whenever that might be), it is likely that gambling sponsorship will continue to be the subject of keen debate in the press, politics and beyond. Indeed, in recent weeks, several Premier League Clubs have been caught in the crossfire and criticised for continuing to accept front of shirt sponsorship from gambling operators, even though the Voluntary Ban does not come into force until 2025/26.

When it does come in, there are also concerns that the Voluntary Ban may not significantly reduce the visibility of gambling brands in major sports – but is this really the issue that the press and politicians are making of it? Some may argue that gambling sponsorship is simply the weapon du jour in the ongoing political warfare surrounding gambling. The White Paper, which sought to be evidence-based, concluded that the limited evidence on gambling sponsorship considered by the Government revealed that sponsorship has a limited effect on gambling behaviour. So, does it really need to be curbed and if it does, what will be the real financial impact of this on sports clubs, some of which currently derive a significant proportion of revenue from gambling sponsorship?

In our view, the key question will be whether the Sponsorship Code of Conduct can find the balance that the White Paper, and most of the industry, seeks. If it is well-considered and efficiently implemented, the Sponsorship Code of Conduct may yet prove itself to be an example of effective self-regulation. But to achieve this, sports governing bodies must strike a balance between (a) reducing the commercial practices that unduly increase the risk of exposure of gambling to children on the one hand, and (b) on the other, permitting gambling sponsorship – along with the financial injection that it brings – safely for the benefit of all levels of sport.

With credit and sincere thanks to Gemma Boore for her invaluable co-authorship.

A recent study by Djohari et al. (2021) on the visibility of gambling sponsorship in football related products marketed directly to children revealed that gambling logos were visible, largely on the front of the shirts, in 42% of the stickers 2020 Panini Premier League sticker album.

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.

Gambling Related Harm