18Jul

Customer interaction guidance for remote gambling licensees (formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3)

18th July 2022 David Whyte 226

Following its announcement, in April 2022, of the introduction of a new Social Responsibility Code Provision (“SRCP”) 3.4.3 that comes into effect on 12 September 2022, the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) published its customer interaction guidance – for remote gambling businesses (formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3) (the “2022 Guidance”) on 20 June 2022, which comes into effect at the same time as SRCP 3.4.3. To date the Commission has made no reference to the revision of its guidance for premises-based businesses and therefore those licensees remain in the dark about any changes that may be introduced in the future.

However, the Commission’s reference to “ew consumer protection guidance” in the press release for the 2022 Guidance demonstrates further its self-driven evolution into a consumer protection body and, given that the requirements set out in SRCP 3.4.3 require action across licensees’ entire customer base, the Commission’s reference to “new rules on action for at risk customers” in the release for the new SRCP is a further indication that the Commission considers all gamblers to be “at risk”. It is therefore likely that revisions to the requirements for premises-based licensees will follow. As we know from the affordability issue, whether formal inclusion of these licensees occurs or not, the Commission is not averse to applying guidance to the entire industry. As we have explained before, the Commission’s approach is difficult to reconcile with the licensing objectives set out in section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) and in the Commission’s statutory obligations under section 22 of the Act:

“(a) to pursue, and wherever appropriate to have regard to, the licensing objectives, and

(b) to permit gambling, in so far as thinks it reasonably consistent with pursuit of the licensing objectives”

The Commission is not charged with protecting all consumers, however admirable that may be; it could be the purpose of an ombudsman if appointed as part of the changes to gambling legislation. It was certainly not the intention of Parliament when passing the 2005 Act that the third licensing objective – “protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling” apply to all customers who, at some point in time, may be “at risk”.

The 2022 Guidance, which we recommend licensees review in detail, reveals an apparent ignorance on the Commission’s part of various concerns that have been raised in the past about its approach, thereby exposing it to the risk of challenge. This article does not attempt a detailed critique of the entire 2022 Guidance; rather we have sought to identify the most salient points which we believe may have the greatest impact on licensees, or where we believe the Commission’s approach is misconceived.

Section A – General requirements

Paragraphs 1 and 2 – Formal guidance?

The Commission maintains its previous approach in paragraphs 1 and 2 of SRCP 3.4.3, requiring licensees to “embed the three elements of customer interaction – identify, act and evaluate”. Its replacement of the previous requirement to “interact” with a requirement to “act to minimise harm” illustrates its expectation that licensees do more than simply engage with customers and that tailored, proactive steps are taken to minimise the risk of harm.

The 2022 Guidance is more prescriptive than the existing guidance documents that the Commission has issued in relation to customer interaction, and it is certainly less outcome focussed. It requires licensees to undertake specific measures, for example that “licenses must understand that there are many reasons a person may be in a vulnerable situation” or that “licensees must identify customers that may be at risk of harm using all of the information available about the customer.” The use of words such as “must” and “required” have no place in guidance: they are the language of statute, conditions and codes of practice. We will leave for now the bigger issue that this prescription undermines the entire premise of the 2005 Act, which introduced a principles and risk-based system, as opposed to the prescriptive regime of the Gaming Act 1968 which it replaced.

It is of note that paragraph 2 requires that licensees “take into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction … as published and revised from time to time…” and that the Commission makes similar reference in the 2022 Guidance, stating that “for the purposes of raising standards, protecting customer interests, and preventing harm to customers, will update and re-issue guidance.” It is intriguing how the Commission considers that future updates to guidance “intended to support compliance with LCCP SR code 3.4.3” can raise standards or prevent harm. Unless, that is, the Commission intends to use the “formal” 2022 Guidance to implement “formal” requirements.

For a number of reasons, the Commission’s attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear is evident from the questionable foundations upon which the evolved 2022 Guidance is based. Firstly, and somewhat unsurprisingly, the Commission continues to ignore previous concerns raised, not least by us, about its use of guidance: guidance that enables the Commission to outline its expectations to licensees to assist their understanding of licence conditions or codes of practice is sensible. However, the Commission continues to introduce formal requirements through its use of guidance and without consultation, which is wrong. The Commission’s powers are controlled by statute and are therefore the preserve of Parliament. The 2005 Act requires that the Commission must consult before specifying a licence condition (section 76) and before issuing or revising a code of practice (section 24). Guidance must therefore be easily distinguished from a licence condition or code of practice (including those that carry the weight of a licence conditions such as SRCP 3.4.3) and should not prescribe additional requirements.

The distinction is not more apparent than real. Aside from the fact that it exceeds the Commission’s powers to introduce a licence condition or code of practice without consultation, by using guidance which should only be explanatory rather than mandatory, the distinction has very different consequences. Breach of a licence condition or code of practice carrying the weight of a licence condition is a criminal offence and allows the Commission to prosecute or resort to its full armoury of penalties through licence review. By contrast, licensees must “take into account” guidance and therefore not following it should not be an automatic breach. It is therefore wrong, and confusing, for the Commission to include specific requirements in the 2022 Guidance, particularly when it has very recently consulted on the introduction of SRCP 3.4.3 and has thus had the opportunity formally to introduce whatever further formal requirements it wished at that time. Reference to “formal” guidance in the title of the 2022 Guidance is indicative that it knew what it was doing.

Secondly, if the Commission is willing and able to circumvent statutory controls now, and not for the first time (it introduced its Covid-19 guidance very quickly and not alongside a change to the SRCP or consultation), it is likely to do so again. This leaves licensees and other stakeholders exposed to the risk of further change without fair notice or the ability to challenge.

Thirdly, whilst it may seem somewhat hypocritical to challenge now this prescription when licensees have been desperate for clarity for many years, a more thorough analysis of the 2022 Guidance reveals that, despite it being more prescriptive, it is unlikely to provide licensees with the clarity that they desire and will certainly lead to a continuance of the ‘flexible interpretation’ experienced by licensees during compliance assessments and subsequent regulatory investigations. One might argue that, like licensees, the Commission has also struggled to identify what specific controls and thresholds will adequately identify who might be at risk of harm and balance those controls against the freedom of choice.

It seems that in recent times, guidance, formal guidance and licence conditions have become one and the same thing in the belief of the Commission, the only difference being that the former two contain requirements that the Commission have found inconvenient.

Section B: Identify

Paragraph 3 – Transforming vulnerability

Paragraph 3 requires that “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.” Prior to the publication of the 2022 Guidance, the wording of paragraph 3 indicated that the Commission may have taken a step back from its intention, set out in its consultation, to require that licensees “take account of its definition of vulnerability”. However, it is clear in the 2022 Guidance that this is not the case: the requirement remains but it is drafted more subtly. The Commission sets out in “Aim 3” (which reads as more of an obligation than an aim – a theme that runs throughout the 2022 Guidance) that “ require operators to take action when they are aware that a customer is in a vulnerable situation”, and sets out its own definition of a vulnerable person as

“somebody who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care”.

The Commission requires (amongst other things) that “licensees must understand that there are many reasons a person may be in a vulnerable situation…” explaining that a vulnerable situation “can be permanent, temporary or intermittent, and may be related to health, capability, resilience, or the impact of a life event such as a bereavement or loss of income”.

In recent years the transformation of what the Commission considers to be “vulnerability” is bewildering. Parliament clearly considered the interpretation of vulnerability a straightforward matter: it did not find it necessary to include a statutory definition in the 2005 Act. This is understandable: as we have discussed previously, the reference in the third licensing objective firstly to children, and then to other vulnerable persons, adequately set out Parliament’s intention that the licensing objective apply to those people who are not able to make properly informed or ‘adult’ decisions.

Most worrying, however, is that vulnerability as now defined, is to be determined by whether a “firm”, which we understand to mean a licensed operator, is “acting with appropriate levels of care”. Given that the decision about whether a licensee has acted with “appropriate levels of care” rests with the Commission, it seems that vulnerability will be determined subjectively by the Commission, in hindsight, most likely during compliance assessments, and based primarily on a licensee’s actions and controls in relation to each individual customer. In referring to those “appropriate levels of care” the Commission also suggests incorrectly that licensees have a duty of care at law to prevent customers from gambling if they are or might be vulnerable and risks improperly seeking to introduce such a duty in law, or at least exposing licensees to such a challenge based on its definition.

Matters are likely to become further complicated when the Commission launches its further consultation on the ways to tackle what it considers to be three key financial risks for consumers: binge gambling, significant unaffordable losses over time, and risks for those who are financially vulnerable (the “Financial Risks Consultation”). Licensees who are hoping that this consultation will provide clarity about affordability expectations may be disappointed and faced with a further definition to consider, this time of “financial vulnerability”. Based on its current approach, the Commission is likely to permit itself a similar level of hindsight, the focus of its decisions being on action taken and controls implemented.

The Commission apparently considers itself lawmaker on a par with Parliament: it will determine who is and who is not vulnerable, and will further amend its definition without consultation, whenever it sees fit.

Paragraphs 4 and 5 – Affordability?

Paragraphs 4 and 5 require licensees to “have in place effective systems and processes for monitoring customer activity” and set out a range of indicators which must be operated by licensees. The 2022 Guidance expands on these requirements, making it clear that the Commission expects a mix of automated and manual processes and that systems should “draw on all available sources of data”.

The 2022 Guidance does nothing to clarify the uncertainty about affordability, with the Commission’s position largely replicating the previous guidance. In setting out examples of indicators which should be used by licensees (some of which have now been made requirements) the Commission refers to “mounts spent compared with other customers, taking account of financial vulnerability”. It is of note that in its reference to the Financial Risks Consultation, the Commission indicates that further “guidance” will follow. Again, given that the Commission has considered it necessary to define “vulnerability”, this is an indication that a further definition for “financial vulnerability” seems likely.

Section C – Act

Paragraphs 8, 9, and 11 – An absence of prescription or guidance?

These paragraphs require that licensees take “appropriate action in a timely manner when they have identified a risk of harm” and that this action is tailored “based on the number and level of indicators of harm exhibited.” The 2022 Guidance obliges licensees to have a suite of actions in place ranging from “early generic action” to “very strong” action (this essentially amounting to ending the business relationship). The Commission does not, however, specify which indicators of harm it considers lower level and which it considers strong. Rather, strong indicators must be “defined within the licensees’ processes”. Prescription, when most likely to be helpful, is absent. The resulting inevitability of inconsistent standards and expectations being applied during compliance assessments will further frustrate licensees.

The requirement not only to “implement automated processes”, but also when those automated processes are applied to “manually review their operation in each individual customer’s case” is burdensome, impracticable, counterproductive and undermines the benefits of automation. The limited guidance – in its true sense – in relation to this requirement and the lack of clarity about when any manual review must take place, is indicative that the Commission has not considered fully how it is “consistent with data protection requirements”.

Section D – Evaluate

Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 – Impact?

Evaluating the impact of each customer interaction is no easy task. As licensees have already experienced, it doubles the operational impact, with additional and equivalent resource required to follow up on the original interaction. The Commission fairly points out in the 2022 Guidance that “not every customer who receives an interaction will require a follow up” however it overlooks the fact that not every interaction will require evaluation. The Commission states that “by impact we mean a change in the customer’s gambling activity which could be attributed to the interaction”. The implication here is that if the customer’s gambling activity does not change for the better (i.e stop or reduce), they are suffering, or continue to be at risk of suffering harm. This cannot be correct. Some customers will, for various reasons, simply continue to gamble at previous levels, or may even increase their spend, particularly if they are winning (as is commonplace when most people gamble). This is certainly not always an indicator of harm. This lack of clarity will mean that licensees will continue to feel obligated to ensure that on every occasion they interact with a customer they see a change in behaviour, and where this is not the case will feel bound to take further action whether or not any such action is wanted by a customer or thought necessary to prevent harm.

The requirement that licensees evaluate the effectiveness of their overall approach maintains the current requirements, however the Commission sets out in more detail its expectations. The new obligation to “take account of problem gambling rates for the relevant activity published by the Commission in order to check whether the number of customer interactions is, at a minimum, in line with this level” is something of a step away from the tailored approach of other requirements in SRCP 3.4.3 and the 2022 Guidance. To avoid criticism, licensees will need to be acutely aware of any updated publication of problem gambling rates by the Commission, however questionable that data may be, and ensure that this is reflected in their approach.

Conclusion

Whatever the Commission’s intention, and however strongly it feels that licensees are not going far enough to protect consumers, it is vitally important that it acts within its statutory remit. Not for the first time, the 2022 Guidance reveals a willingness on the Commission’s part to act beyond its powers, this time under the guise of the new SRCP and its intention to introduce “stronger and more prescriptive” rules. The Commission’s willingness to continually use guidance as a means of introducing formal requirements through the back door is concerning and it may only be a matter of time before it faces challenge. In the meantime, licensees should ensure that they take steps to ensure that they are able to adhere to both the SRCP and the 2022 Guidance to mitigate the risk of regulatory action.

With thanks to Julian Harris for his invaluable co-authorship.

07Jul

The Affordability Debate (4): The Commission Unmasked

7th July 2022 Julian Harris 256

Readers may recall the three articles we have previously written analysing the Gambling Commission’s (the “Commission”) covert operation to introduce a requirement on operators to conduct evidenced affordability checks. Whilst we cannot claim that it is as a result of those publications, it is encouraging that the Commission has finally and “officially” been taken to task on this controversial issue by no less a body than the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (the “DCMS”) Committee of the House of Commons (the “Committee”). On the penultimate day of the Committee’s Inquiry on What next for the National Lottery? (30 June 2022), the Committee heard evidence from Commission CEO, Andrew Rhodes and its Executive Director, John Tanner. Whilst much of the questioning by the Committee related to the subject matter suggested by the title of the Inquiry, the Committee then turned to the subject of affordability checks and then customer interaction.

We can all sympathise with being taken off guard by unanticipated questioning, but less so with Mr Rhodes’ apparent denial of responsibility for, or even knowledge of, matters that occurred before his appointment, especially in relation to such a critical issue for consumers and the industry.

Even less worthy of sympathy was his apparent inability to explain the relationship between the newly published Customer interaction guidance – for remote gambling licensees, the November 2020 Consultation and call for evidence – Remote customer interaction (the “Consultation”) on which the Committee interrogated Mr Rhodes, and the issue of affordability which was the basis for the questioning. This is particularly the case given that the core and most contentious of the Commission’s ever evolving proposals in relation to affordability, the introduction of mandatory financial thresholds for affordability checks, was introduced in the Consultation.

Secrecy v transparency

To quote Jeremy Bentham, “secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government.” summarises neatly the Committee’s displeasure – to put it mildly – at the Commission’s failure to publish the results of its Consultation. As the Chair, Julian Knight MP, put it:

“This is important work. Affordability and affordability checks are of great public interest. It seems to be very strange that this has not been made publicly available. I do not know what is so secret about it that it needs to be handed over covertly to DCMS and then inform the White Paper. We have a right to see it as well and so does the general public, because we pay for you.”

Mr Rhodes denied knowledge of the reasons, on the basis that it pre-dated his appointment. Now that he has been the CEO for a year, one would expect that he knew, or ought to have known, about the Commission’s handling of an important document relating to a key Commission policy that has been disclosed to DCMS, which has been the subject of numerous licence reviews conducted by the Commission, is of critical importance to those whom the Commission regulates and to consumers, and which has been the subject of very substantial commentary. As the Chair commented:

“It does seem to be very strange that you should announce a consultation in November 2020 on such an important area, which frankly does need scrutiny more widely than just DCMS and the Department, and that was not released publicly. I thought that would be of interest to parliamentarians, rather than for it just to be handed covertly to officials at DCMS. That seems a very strange approach and lacking in transparency, frankly.”

Strange indeed. A lack of transparency on the part of the Commission has unfortunately permeated this issue; coupled with the Commission’s sleight of hand in introducing affordability requirements outside due process, this has left operators confused by the relationship between their regulatory obligations in law and the Commission’s expectations, as explained in more depth in our second article (The Affordability Debate (2): Ambiguous Regulatory requirements). Mr Rhodes again pleaded ignorance:

“I was not at the Commission at the time, so I am very happy to look at what the reasoning was for it not being published. My understanding since I have joined the Commission is that we have fed into the White Paper that affordability checks will be considered as part of the White Paper’s recommendations, rather than have essentially two bites at that.”

More disappointing is that he did not explain what the Commission is doing now in relation to affordability. Given that the Committee referred to this as being “such an important issue”, we consider this to be somewhat disingenuous: it does not reflect the degree of transparency which the Committee felt entitled to expect, nor to the level which the Commission expects of its licensees.

Realpolitik

As operators are painfully aware, the Commission has for some three years done rather more than, in the word of Mr Rhodes, “…fed into the White Paper…”. The Consultation was followed just three days later by the Compliance and Enforcement Report 2019 to 2020 (6 November 2020) (the “2020 Enforcement Report”). In fact, even earlier – in its Compliance and Enforcement Report 2018 to 2019 (27 June 2019) (the “2019 Enforcement Report”) – the Commission outlined various open-source data that may help licensees to “assess affordability for its GB customer base and improve its risk assessment and customer interventions.” In referring to the recommendations it made in the 2019 Enforcement Report, and considering customers who have “demonstrated gambling related harm indicators and been able to continue to gamble without effective engagement”, the Commission opined that: “Furthermore, these individuals have funded their gambling without satisfactory affordability checks and appropriate evidence being obtained.” . The 2020 Enforcement Report proceeded to outline various open-source data that can help licensees to “assess affordability for GB customers and improve risk assessment and customer inventions”. Similar to the 2019 Enforcement Report, this data primarily focuses on average annual salary as outlined in the ONS survey of Hours and Earnings.

The core, critical “requirement” is that:

“Operators must interact with customers early on to set adequate, informed affordability triggers to protect customers from gambling related harm. Failure to do so could render the operator non-compliant.”

“Customers wishing to spend more than the national average should be asked to provide information to support a higher affordability trigger such as three months’ payslips, P60s, tax returns or bank statements which will both inform the affordability level the customer may believe appropriate with objective evidence whilst enabling the licensee to have better insight into the source of those funds and whether they are legitimate or not.”

The Commission takes the view that its Enforcement Reports serve as indicators to licensees of its expectations, for which licensees can be held to account; these reports therefore arguably contain policy positions that, if enforced, are more akin to licence conditions or code provisions. We have discussed previously our concerns that the Commission may be making indirect changes to licence conditions and/or code provisions through its introduction of requirements to adhere to guidance and this is perhaps another, somewhat broader, example of that. Aside from the fact that the Commission is not adopting a risk based and proportionate approach, the evidential basis for the Consultation included research in which customers admit to having sometimes lost more than they can afford, rather than their gambling being unaffordable. The Commission cite the Enforcement Reports as evidence in support of their proposed measures, when in fact the Enforcement Reports deal 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; a point not missed by the Committee, when the Chair referred to “consumers potentially having to submit bank statements or tax returns to bet as little as £100 a month.”

We do not agree that the Enforcement Reports carry the weight of formal guidance. It is clear from the content of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (the “LCCP”) that in cases where the Commission expects licensees to adhere to formal guidance, it says so. Social Responsibility Code Provisions 2.1 (anti-money laundering – casino) and 3.4 (customer interaction) are examples of the Commission explicitly requiring licensees to adhere to, or take account of, specific formal guidance. Nowhere in the LCCP is there any reference to the Enforcement Reports carrying such weight, as we have previously explained (The Affordability Debate (2): Ambiguous Regulatory requirements).

So, in the case of affordability, the Commission expects licensees to abide by a series of “requirements” none of which are clearly set out in licence conditions, codes of practice, or formal guidance issued by the Commission under its statutory remit, but in their Enforcement Reports and the existing Customer Interaction Guidance and more broadly the Consultation. Breach of a Code under section 24 of the Gambling Act, 2005 may properly be taken into account by the Commission in the exercise of its statutory function but acting contrary to whatever opinions it expresses in its Enforcement Reports, or in speeches, may not. There can therefore be no basis for the Commission, when raising safer gambling concerns, to refer to those Enforcement Reports in its compliance assessment findings, licence review threats or regulatory actions, as it is increasingly doing.

A Bridge Too Far

As licensees know from sometimes bitter experience, and as we explained in our second article on this subject, whilst the Commission has not formally imposed the proposals in the Consultation, it has sought to require operators to abide by them, or variants of them, referred to in its Enforcement Reports, by exerting pressure and threatening regulatory action for failing to implement affordability checks. This is clearly inconsistent, unfair and possibly exceeds its powers. Operators subjected to regulatory action have been pressured by the Commission to adopt affordability checks as if they were a legal requirement. The consequence, aside from placing them at a disadvantage to competitors, has been to create a climate of fear.

This has been exacerbated by confusion as to what the Commission actually requires. Moreover, despite the fact that the Consultation contains proposals for such checks to be applied solely to the online industry, the Commission is requiring such checks also from the land-based industry. The Commission has not merely pre-empted the Government’s decision, it has taken upon itself the role of Government and Parliament, i.e. that of lawmaker.

The whole truth

Mr Rhodes was unambiguous in saying that the issues relating to affordability checks “are something for the White Paper.”

Against the background explained above, it is reasonable to ask how he found himself able to make this statement. He was certainly correct in his pithy summary of how the Commission should have addressed affordability. However, he failed to explain that the Commission has been acting on many of the proposals on which it purported to consult for some three years, without reference to any higher authority. We find this strange indeed, not least given the Committee’s obvious interest and concern about the subject and the Chair’s statement that “affordability and affordability checks are of great public interest.” Given this “public interest” in the issue and the Committee’s concern as to lack of transparency on the part of the Commission, the Committee should have been informed of the Commission’s existing enforcement on the whole industry of affordability checks.

There is little point in speculating as to the reason for this absence, but it is reasonable to question whether (1) Mr Rhodes did not consider it relevant; (2) he was unaware of it and of the numerous licence reviews in which affordability has been an important feature; or (3) he chose not to mention it. If (1) obviously his view was misconceived; if (2) this would be a cause to question his grasp of the Commission’s work; and if (3) one wonders why not.

In the first article on affordability (The Affordability Debate: Protection, Responsibility and the Right to Choose), we commented that in disregarding the Consultation and pre-empting the results, the Commission had become the emperor that had no clothes. He has now been defrocked.

A question of trust

In conclusion, the Committee Chair asked Mr Rhodes if the Commission “have any measures or metrics in place to decide exactly how you are trusted by your licensees, for instance? Is there an overarching survey of that?” His answer was: “Not presently, no. There isn’t.” The answer from Mr Rhodes was correct: an answer that the Committee probably found disappointing.The fact of the question being asked hints at the possibility that the Committee considered there could be a negative response to such a survey.

There are stronger remarks that leave little doubt as to the Committee’s opinion; in questioning on metrics to determine whether the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling harms works, the Chair described the approach set out by Mr Rhodes as “very slipshod”. Having then heard Mr Rhodes admit there were no metrics to determine whether the £40 million spent does any good, the Chair concluded the hearing by saying:

“What do you do? There seems to be money going out the door and no accountability for that money, apart from when you make the award. This money just splashes out there and you have no idea in terms of what this impacts with the licensees. I am struggling to think precisely as an organisation how you are doing your job, because these seem to be key measures and indicators of whether you are successful.”

It is not for us to speculate on the views of licensees, who are quite able to make their views known themselves, but this withering criticism from the Committee reflects what was said by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming: there is reason to suppose it may well be shared by others.

As we know from experience, the degree of engagement between the Commission, those whom it regulates and even independent advisers, is negligible. The Commission seems interested in canvassing the views of those whom it knows to be anti-gambling or have reason to dislike the industry. This has been demonstrated by its formation of a group of people with “lived experience”, which meant only those who had suffered a problem with gambling. The Commission has never, to the best of our knowledge sought views from the vast majority who enjoy gambling as an adult leisure activity. For most licensees, the only real engagement with the regulator is through regulatory reviews or other confrontational issues.

In short, this issue demonstrates the need for the Commission to go on an “improvement journey”, be put into “special measures”, or even the equivalent of a “licence review” to establish whether it is fit, able and prepared to carry out the function with which it is charged under the Gambling Act, 2005 and not to make law according to its own whims.

22Jun

Consultation response: Gambling Commission fees to increase from 1 October 2021

22nd June 2021 Jemma Newton 285

On 14 June 2021 the UK Government issued its response to a consultation by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) in relation to proposals to increase the fees which are payable by gambling operators in Great Britain to the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”).

The Government’s response set out that the consultation had proposed an increase in fees in order to enable the Commission to continue to “recover its costs and address regulatory challenges”.

The Government confirmed it intends to proceed with implementing the proposals outlined in the consultation, which were to:

increase annual fees for remote operating licences by 55% from 1 October 2021;
increase all application fees by 60% from 1 October 2021;
make other changes to simplify the fees system, including removing annual fee discounts for combined and multiple licences, from 1 October 2021; and
increase annual fees for non-remote operating licences by 15%, with implementation of these increases delayed until 1 April 2022.

The Government also confirmed that two minor amendments will be made to fees regulations:

to “ensure fees regulations are consistent with the provisions of UK GDPR and the Information Commissioner’s Office’s guidance”, no variation fee will be charged where individuals exercise their right to have inaccurate personal data rectified; and
the fee for an application for a Single Machine Permit will be increased, from £25 to £40, “to ensure that the Commission recovers its costs in processing these applications”.

The Government’s full response can be viewed here.

The Commission released a response to the Government’s confirmation of an increase in fees, stating that it “welcomes publication of consultation response on the funding of gambling regulation”, and clarifying that the much needed changes to its fees income “will enable to continue to regulate effectively”. The Commission’s response can be viewed here.

What does this mean for licensees?

As set out above, in addition to a significant increase to licence application fees, remote licensees will be required to pay considerably higher annual fees to the Commission from 1 October 2021. Notably, the increase in annual fees for non-remote licensees will be delayed until 1 April 2022, to account for the Government’s recognition of the impact COVID-19 restrictions have had on the non-remote sector. The Government’s response sets out that:

The majority of non-remote operators are required to pay their annual fees in August or September each year, meaning that the new annual fee levels for much of the non-remote industry will not be due until August 2022.

16Jun

Update on the Remote Customer Interaction Consultation

16th June 2021 Jemma Newton 305

Background

On 25 May 2021, the Gambling Commission of Great Britain (“the Commission”) provided an update regarding its Remote Customer Interaction Consultation.

The update referenced the Commission’s consultation, which took place earlier this year, which is concerned with identifying and protecting customers at risk of harm. The update also referred to the Commission’s current requirements, which place a duty on remote operators to monitor gambling, and to take action where there is a risk of harm, and the Commission’s finding that operators were not always acting swiftly enough. The Commission confirmed that it has been analysing the approximately 13,000 responses it received.

Confirming that it had considered what the respondents said, the Commission states that:

Many people think there should be protections in place for the most vulnerable and that appropriate checks should be in place to identify and prevent cases of clearly unaffordable gambling. Many respondents emphasised that measures should be proportionate and targeted at those at risk of harm. At the same time, customers were also concerned about privacy and freedom of choice. We take that seriously.

What are the Commission’s priorities and intentions?

The Commission confirms that it is aiming to achieve the correct balance, and that it has listened to concerns about what could be seen as an unnecessary assessment of time and money spent gambling. However, it goes on to state that it has seen serious failings by operators towards customers, and (somewhat surprisingly given the extensive responses it has to review) it has concluded that it needs to take action now to address the most significant risks, including excessive spending in short periods of time and harm to vulnerable customers.

The Commission states that it has concluded that stronger requirements are needed for operators to identify a range of indicators of harm, and to take action earlier and more often.

The Commission states that it has identified three key risks that it is prioritising for action:

Significant losses in a very short time

Cases where customers have been able to spend many thousands of pounds in short periods, including minutes, without any checks. These cases are relatively rare but have very significant impacts on the consumers affected. For example, in a recent case a customer lost four thousand pounds in six minutes following sign-up.

Significant losses over time

Where customers have significant losses over a period of time without sufficient assessment of whether they are being harmed. Significant losses over time are experienced by a relatively small proportion of customers and it is appropriate to require checks for these customers. An example of this in our casework was where a customer lost thirty-five thousand pounds over two months, without sufficient checks being carried out.

Financial vulnerability

Where information is available that shows when customers are particularly financially vulnerable and likely to be harmed by their level of gambling.

The Commission then sets out its next steps, which will be to:

- Publish its full response this summer, which will set out the detailed actions on the areas on which it has previously put forward proposals for consultation. Such areas include the requirement to take action where customers are known to be in a vulnerable situation, to take action in a timely manner, and, where appropriate, for that action to be automated. The Commission clarified that it will also proceed as planned with a consultation on thresholds for operators to take action and guidance as to what those actions should be.
- Continue to work closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) by providing advice and evidence for the Government’s Gambling Act Review (the “Review”) and recognising broader public policy questions about how to protect people from harm which will be considered as part of the Review.
- Continue to engage with consumers, the financial sector and the gambling industry about information on customers that should be available to gambling businesses.
- Continue its work to support the prevention of harm, including working to ensure that existing tools for setting deposit limits are used more widely and effectively.

Points of note for licensees and what should they do in the meantime?

1. The Commission’s update clarified that remote licensees should continue to meet the Commission’s current customer interaction requirements. The Commission’s requirements and current expectations are set out in the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice, customer interaction guidance issued under SR Code 3.4.1 and in the Commission’s Compliance and Enforcement Report 2019-20. We discuss these requirements further in our blog.

1. Operators should note the three ‘key risks’ flagged by the Commission that are being prioritised for action. Monitoring “significant losses in a very short time” and “significant losses over time” should not be an overly burdensome task for licensees and they should consider taking steps now to introduce monitoring of these risks if they do not already do so. The third key risk, “financial vulnerability” is somewhat more nuanced; until such time as the Commission makes its position clear, licensees should note the increasing focus by the Commission on the risks presented by customers who are financially vulnerable.

1. Despite the apparent step backwards, which the Commission’s update indicates it has taken in relation to its future plans for affordability, licensees should note that in practice, the Commission continues to expect them to consider affordability in both their approach to safer gambling and in their approach to anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism.

13May

The Personal Management Licence regime: An impossible tightrope?

13th May 2021 David Whyte 331

This article was co-authored by Tom Orpin-Massey from QEB Hollis Whiteman Chambers.

Introduction

Personal management licences (“PMLs”) issued by the Gambling Commission of Great Britain (“GBGC”) are held by those occupying specified management roles at licensed gambling operators. They are the key individuals at operators responsible for overall strategy, finance, marketing, information technology, oversight of day-to-day management of certain premises, regulatory compliance, and anti-money laundering.

The PML licensing regime for these senior managers creates a personal responsibility for regulatory compliance, both in the way that they conduct themselves in their role, and the way in which they have management responsibility for the behaviour of the operator for whom they work.

Their jobs are rarely easy. On top of the stresses and pressures of working for licensed gambling operators in a fiendishly competitive market, they must also navigate an ever-evolving regulatory landscape. In addition, the GBGC has been signalling for the past few years that it will increasingly focus on the role played by PML holders when undertaking compliance and enforcement investigations into operators.

The statistics reflect this; in the period April 2019 – March 2020, 49 separate licence reviews were undertaken into PMLs, primarily due to safer gambling or anti-money laundering (“AML”) failures identified at the operator at which they were employed. We expect that figure to increase by the time of the publication of the GBGC’s next annual Enforcement Report for 2020-21 later this year. Recently published GBGC action taken includes:

The CEO of an operator receiving a warning and an additional licence condition due to safer gambling and AML failures identified at the operator.
12 PML holders at an operator receiving warnings, advice to conduct letters, or surrendering their licence following notification that their licence was under review, due to safer gambling and AML failures identified at the operator.
A further 19 PML holders at that same operator surrendering their licence or receiving advice to conduct letters outside of the licence review process due to safer gambling and AML failures identified at the operator.

Prefacing the GBGC’s last Enforcement Report, then CEO Neil McArthur wrote that “holding an operating or a personal licence is a privilege, not a right”. He went on to say that the GBGC had indicated in the summer of 2017 that its focus was shifting towards PML holders and that “those in boardrooms and senior positions need to live up to their responsibilities and we will continue to hold people to account for failings they knew, or ought to have known about”.

Is personal regulatory liability within a management framework straightforward?

The GBGC’s position seems, on the face of it, a reasonable one. Who else, other than their senior management and PML holders, are responsible for the behaviour of operators? It therefore follows that where PML holders have failed to meet the GBGC’s standards and/or to adhere to their responsibilities, they should be held to account.

However, as is frequently the case when seeking to apportion blame for a mistake, matters are often more complicated than they may seem. Factors of note include:

The GBGC’s regulatory framework evolves constantly.

The GBGC’s regulatory framework and guidance is often said to be difficult to follow and poorly communicated.

Employees who are not PMLs may be responsible for mistakes and oversights. Whilst these mistakes may expose the operator and its PMLs to criticism, it does not always follow that they are due to a PML’s ignorance or incompetence, and thus holding them responsible for shortcomings on a strict liability basis may not be fair or reasonable.

PML holders are subject to a licence condition that they take “all reasonable steps to ensure the way in which they carry out their responsibilities in relation to licensed activities does not place the holder of the operating licence … in breach of their licence conditions.” It does not always follow that, because an operator is in breach of licence conditions, a PML holder will also be in breach personally. In many cases, a PML holder may have taken “all reasonable steps”.

Inevitably, operators and PML holders’ views will not always be aligned. PML holders, who in our experience are generally trying to do the right thing, often find themselves facing complex challenges and caught between the GBGC’s requirements and the operator’s commercial interests, with their personal livelihood and reputation at risk. This should be borne in mind by the GBGC, particularly in the current economic climate.

PML licence reviews are not always carried out by the GBGC in a consistent manner. In some cases they are commenced at the same time as, or during, an operating licence review, but more often than not they are commenced once an operating licence review has concluded. Licence reviews can take years rather than months to reach a conclusion. PML holders are therefore left in the unenviable position of having to recall events that have taken place years ago when trying to defend themselves. This is if they are lucky enough to have access to the information required in order to aid their recall. If, for any reason, they have left the business, this may not be possible.

The GBGC does not set out clearly its approach to PML reviews when they are linked to operating licence reviews. PML holders are often expected by the GBGC to disclose information or answer questions about matters relating to an operating licence review that may have an impact on their PML, without having been clearly informed of the risks or consequences of doing so. The fact that in some cases a PML holder may be accused of breaching a licence condition, which is a criminal offence under the Gambling Act 2005, increases further the exposure to personal risk. This is despite the GBGC’s policy position that, as a general rule, it will not pursue a criminal investigation into a licensee, as in most cases the matter is likely to be capable of being dealt with by exercise of its regulatory powers.

In an age where mental health is at the forefront, all would benefit from giving thought to the impact regulatory action may have on the mental health of PMLs, the vast majority of whom are well-intentioned and want to do right by both their operator and their regulator. Competing interests, reputational harm, the unintentional consequences of their actions and future employability are all factors that will weigh heavily on the shoulders of a PML holder subjected to regulatory action. Expedited investigations should be prioritised, processes and procedures clearly outlined, and legal rights clearly communicated.

PML reviews that take years to resolve, often following prolonged operating licence reviews, are of no benefit to the GBGC, nor to the individual concerned. Swift reviews and clear processes will not only serve to limit the impact on the individual concerned but may also improve the efficacy of regulation.

A PML under review: some things to think about

GBGC investigations and licence reviews of operators often expose PML holders to the risk of similar action in a personal capacity. This puts PML holders in the invidious position of not only responding for and on behalf of the operator, but also having to consider their own professional interests and reputation.

We suggest five things a PML should consider in this situation.

First and foremost, when a PML holder learns that the GBGC is investigating a matter relating to either their own or their operator’s licence, they should seek appropriate legal advice and support immediately.

Before commencing a licence review the GBGC is obliged to put an operator or PML on notice, but a PML may become aware of GBGC interest from an early stage, for example through enforcement enquiries. If so, advice should be obtained at this point. This is important because often the interests of the PML do not necessarily align with those of the operator, even if they act very much as part of the “controlling mind” of the operator, and interests seem at the time to be indivisible.

Secondly, PML holders should be mindful of their own position when saying anything on the record to the GBGC. This is not to say that they should be anything other than honest, open and transparent: it is merely about ensuring that the process is fair to them too.

A typical step in the review of an operator’s licence will be a preliminary meeting with senior management. In some cases, this may be followed or replaced by a regulatory interview (sometimes under caution). These meetings and interviews are usually recorded and transcribed by the GBGC. Anything that is said in them may be used in both the investigation into the operator, and also in any subsequent review of the PML holder.

In practice, PMLs themselves should be warned, or in some cases cautioned, in an individual capacity if they themselves might be investigated. Appropriate advice can help PMLs navigate the difficult situation in which they have to respond on the record on behalf of an operator, whilst ensuring their own position is also protected.

Thirdly, if unsure of timescales and/or the review process, PMLs should ask the GBGC to clarify its position. Whilst the GBGC may not always be able to provide a definitive answer, the fact that the request has been made is an important point of record.

Fourthly, if, after an operating licence review has concluded, perhaps with a number of failings identified and regulatory action taken, the PML is unfortunate enough to be notified that their PML is being reviewed as a consequence of their role in the identified concerns, it is vitally important that they are given fair and proper disclosure. Without it they will find it very difficult to understand the case against them, and properly defend themselves. This can become more complicated if the PML no longer works at the operator concerned.

We recommend that the PML do all they can to seek disclosure from the GBGC and the operator in relation to the matter concerned. What material is the GBGC relying upon? What representations did the operator make? Should the GBGC or the operator be reluctant to hand over material relevant to them, there are options open to them to challenge this.

And finally, a PML should always be open and honest with the GBGC, and remember that they also have a personal duty to uphold the licensing objectives and act with integrity in the review process. Any obfuscation will do them no favours in the long term.

Conclusion

PML holders who make genuine mistakes when trying to do the right thing, particularly those in compliance roles, should in appropriate cases be supported by the GBGC and viewed as people who can assist in raising standards. Prioritising support and guidance over targeted regulatory action when such mistakes occur may be more productive and is less likely to deter highly competent individuals from holding PMLs because of the risks associated with doing so.

Whilst competing commercial and regulatory interests mean that being a PML is becoming tougher, there are things that PML holders can do to help themselves, and to protect their interests when the GBGC become involved. Legal advice should be sought at an early stage.

Tom Orpin-Massey is a barrister at QEB Hollis Whiteman specialising in crime and regulatory law. He was seconded to the GBGC in 2016 for seven months and continues to be instructed in a broad range of gambling work, both for the Commission and for operators and PMLs.

22Oct

Betting and Gaming Council Announces Game Design Code of Conduct

22nd October 2020 Jessica Wilson 339

On 25 September 2020, the Betting and Gaming Council (“BGC”) announced the new Game Design Code of Conduct (the “Code”). The Code is a product of the industry’s Safer Products Working Group which was formed in January 2020 and tasked with pursuing the opportunity to reduce gambling harm through game and product design.

Compliance with the Code is to be undertaken by BGC members, including where operators use non-BGC game suppliers.

The Code applies to online slot products and is intended to be a “living document, evolving as the research base and understanding around game design continues to develop”. The Code sets out 14 principles to show a commitment to “transparency, player education, innovation and research with the overarching aim of enhancing player safety” which can be categorised into the following areas:

Game Characteristics:	Working with academics, regulators, consumers, individuals with lived experience of gambling related harm and other technical experts to identify and agree on features that are correlated to greater player risk.
Informed Player Choice:	Empowering customers to play more safely through the provision of clearer information on product and game rules, including mathematical properties such as risk, the chances of winning and optimal strategies.
Enhancing Control Innovation:	Improvements in safer gambling tools that help players both monitor and control their gambling, including spend, loss, win and time-based measures.
Governance and Continuous Improvements:	Process for reviewing and updating any Code of Conduct, in addition to transparency, disclosure and independent evaluation.

The Code is divided into two phases:

Phase 1

This phase introduces four standards of game design. The requirements are in line with the Gambling Commission’s recent consultation on online slots game design which aims to make these standards applicable to the whole industry. The Code of Conduct requires BGC members to have the measures in place by 30 September 2020, making BGC members “amongst the first to commit to these standards”.

The four standards are as follows:

1. Minimum game cycle speed of 2.5 seconds

A game cycle starts when a player has paid for an initial wager and depresses the ‘start’ or ‘spin’ 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. Where auto play or auto start is permitted then a game cycle is measured from the point at which the game is initiated by the system (equivalent to the player depressing the start button) to the point at which it is able to automatically start the next game.

2. Removal of turbo play

Turbo play or equivalent features will be not be allowed. Such features enable the player to speed-up the base game cycle speed of the game.

3. Removal of base game slam stops

Slam stops or equivalent features will not be allowed within the base game. This is the ability for the customer to interact with the base game to end it before it has naturally concluded e.g., by hitting or pressing a button whether online or on a physical machine. This includes promotional free wagers paid for by the operator.

4. Removal of multi-slot play within a single gaming client

Functionality that allow players to place multiple, separate stakes on multiple slots games within a single gaming client will not be allowed.

Phase 2

Phase 2 requires BGC members to implement additional measures for new games by 31 January 2021 to “enhance transparency and add friction for players”.

1. Wins below the stake size

Total wins below the stake will be informative and will be differentiated from wins that are equal to or greater than the stake. Specifically:

The win amount will be displayed
- The win line is displayed long enough for player to understand the impact of the bet (in line with existing RTS 7E)
- A brief sound can be used to make the player aware of the result (the return of funds to wallet)

In contrast, total wins equal to or greater than the stake may be celebratory and allow the following elements:

The win amount can be displayed in a differentiating manner e.g., the win display could be in a text size that is greater and could utilise dynamic win animations, for example coin showers
- The win line can be displayed with additional animation permitted
- Celebratory sound effects can be used.

2. Bonus game notifications

Bonus games outside the base game will not be automatically triggered without a customer intervention, e.g., clicking a button to acknowledge that a bonus game has been won and can now be entered. In addition, after the end of a bonus game, the player will receive a notification informing them the bonus game has finished before re-entering the base game. If Auto-play is used during the bonus game, it will automatically stop before re-entering the base game. In the exceptional case that a bonus game is not triggered before the platform would normally time out, the operator has the right to clear down the game with any winnings being added to the player’s balance.

The implementation timeframe of the following two measures will be agreed in the coming months:

1. Access to safer gambling information

While a player is playing a game, the display will include a link to safer gambling information that will be available to view within a prominent place on the gaming client. This will display a safer gambling icon and messaging and contain links to the customer account pages of the operator, with quick links to all limit setting functionality (e.g., deposit, loss, time, timeouts, and self-exclusion).

2. Mandatory player interaction

A mandatory player interaction will be initiated every 60 minutes or at the conclusion of the subsequent game cycle. This will require the customer to acknowledge the message.

The BGC has stated that it may recommend to the Gambling Commission that the Phase 2 measures are adopted as part of the Gambling Commission Remote Technical Standards.

Innovation and Testing Lab

The BGC have created a work programme for the BGC Innovation and Testing Lab to use an evidence-based approach to development of the Code and to inform future changes. The BGC intends to be “transparent in the reporting of findings, methodology and data”.

The Innovation and Testing lab will be focussing on the following projects:

Game labelling – work on creating a consistent safer gambling icon and a common game labelling scheme for key features such as volatility and persistence
Increased staking – work to assess the prevalence of increased staking in slots sessions, whether this behaviours correlates to a risk of harm and how safer gambling messaging can be incorporated to enhance player safety
Auto-play – work on the relationship between auto-play and staking behaviour and whether any risk mitigation is required
Display of net position and elapsed time – work on providing players with quick access to information on their net spend and time elapsed

BGC’s Game Design Code of Conduct has introduced significant changes to the design and functionality of online slots games. The industry should expect to see more changes due to ongoing work in the industry and the awaited Gambling Commission response to its consultation on online slots which closed on 3 September 2020. See our blog on 10 July 2020 for further details. BGC members, and those supplying BGC members, are reminded of the Phase 1 measures were implemented on 30 September 2020.

09Oct

Gamcare releases first of its kind financial harms toolkit

9th October 2020 Lucy Paterson 311

This week, Gamcare released its Gambling Related Harm: Core Messages and Financial Harm Toolkit, which is aimed at organisations helping customers affected by gambling harm, including gambling operators, financial institutions and debt advice agencies. The toolkit sets out Gamcare’s core messages and draws together information on the various tools customers can be signposted to for assistance controlling their gambling, including safety tips that can be provided to customers who do not wish to stop gambling completely.

The toolkit, which is the result of a cross-sector collaboration initiative by Gamcare and the first of its kind in the UK, is intended to be a comprehensive guide for organisations across the UK to help them recognise, support and refer customers experiencing gambling-related financial harms and provide consistent communications across all points of the customer journey.

The materials draw together best practice and are informed by the experiences both of those who have been harmed by gambling and experts from each sector, in order to tangibly improve customer interactions in future. The toolkit contains referral pathway guidelines tailored to each sector and guidance on training staff to provide them with the confidence to support customers who are impacted by gambling harms.

Gambling related financial harm is an important area of focus for Gamcare, which reports that 70% of callers to the National Gambling Helpline mention some level of gambling debt and/or financial hardship. Gamcare’s progress in this area has now seen eight banks offer customers the option to place blocks and ‘cooling off’ periods on gambling transactions to assist in controlling their gambling.

Gamcare hopes that the toolkit will help frontline staff in key industries provide effective, sensitive support to customers in order to ensure they receive the help they need.

Anna Hemmings, CEO at GamCare, said:

“People struggling with gambling present in different ways and often opportunities are missed to provide the support they need. Ensuring that frontline staff are equipped to help and refer to appropriate support is a huge step in improving the outcomes these customers experience. This toolkit, with the support of businesses, charities and gambling operators themselves, is vital to putting those pathways in place.”

20Jul

Gambling Commission Consultation on High Value Customers

20th July 2020 Julian Harris 316

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.

Responsible Gambling

Phase 1

Phase 2

Innovation and Testing Lab