29Nov

Chambers Gaming Law 2023 Global Practice Guide

29th November 2023 Harris Hagan 169

We are pleased to announce that Bahar Alaeddini has reprised her role as Contributing Editor to the Chambers Global Practice Guide for Gaming Law 2023, and Jessica Wilson has again contributed as a co-author. The latest edition of the Gaming Law 2023 guide is now live and describes the licensing and regulatory regimes in 35 jurisdictions, including many of the major global jurisdictions.

In a year that saw a number of significant developments and regulatory updates in the UK and abroad, Gaming Law 2023 is a helpful guide to lawyers, gambling businesses and others in the industry. It provides the latest legal information on a range of topics, including: land-based and online gambling; B2C and B2B licences; application requirements; affiliates; white labels; responsible gambling; AML legislation; restrictions on advertising; acquisitions and changes of control; trends in social gaming, esports, fantasy sports and blockchain; and taxation.

Harris Hagan contributed to the following parts of the publication:

Key trends are covered by jurisdiction under the Trends and Developments section, and the practice guide also provides users with the opportunity to perform jurisdiction comparisons using the Compare locations tool.

Please use the above links to review our contributions and use the practice guide.

27Nov

The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guide 2023 – Gambling Law

27th November 2023 Francesca Burnett-Hall 156

In its second year of publication, Partner Bahar Alaeddini and Associate Francesca-Burnett Hall have jointly contributed to the UK chapter of The Legal 500: Gambling Law Comparative Guide 2^nd Edition (the “Guide”), with Bahar once again acting as contributing editor.

UK-Chapter Download

The publication – which this year spans 19 jurisdictions – gives readers an overview of gambling law, regulatory and licensing requirements in various jurisdictions and the UK, on matters including:

key gambling legislation and the legal definition of gambling;
types of gambling licences available, with a headline of the application procedures;
prohibited gambling products;
information on gambling advertising and marketing affiliates;
penalties for unlawful gambling;
anti-money laundering and safer gambling requirements;
shareholder reporting and approval thresholds; and
the regulator’s enforcement and sanction powers.

Of particular interest in this year’s edition of the Guide are the key regulatory developments and proposals for reform expected over the next 12-24 months, including those set out in the White Paper, which we outline in the UK chapter.

You can read the Guide and compare jurisdictions here.

09Nov

Unlicensed gambling – Part 1: Growing threat or exaggerated myth?

9th November 2023 Gemma Boore 195

Earlier this month, Andrew Rhodes, the Chief Executive Officer and Commissioner of the Gambling Commission, took part in a two-part podcast discussion with The Gambling Files to reflect on and discuss topical issues affecting the gambling industry. Amongst the subject matter covered, Rhodes touched in Part 2: HE REVEALS MORE! on black market activity and the steps the Gambling Commission is taking to disrupt illegal gambling in Great Britain – which Rhodes claims to have resulted in significant drops in traffic to illegal operators.

This reflected themes in Rhodes’ keynote speech at the International Association of Gambling Regulators (“IAGR”) conference in Botswana on 16 October 2023, in which he noted whilst illegal online gambling market exists in Great Britain, as it does elsewhere:

“it is not a significant concern and this position hasn’t fundamentally changed. However, that does not mean there is no illegal market or no risk”.

In other news, Lucy Frazer, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport recently digested the contents of a letter from eight UK horseracing industry leaders. In the letter, the signatories reportedly warned that affordability checks, which the Government recommended be introduced in the Gambling White Paper, will cost racing £250 million in funding over the next five years and that this would be a disaster for British horseracing as punters either walk away from the sport or turn to the black market to gamble.

Potentially to back up this claim, the Racing Post then published the results of its “The Right to Bet” survey, which found that (1) one in four of the respondents would be prepared to switch to the black market if faced with stringent affordability checks; and (2) nearly one in ten have already used black market betting sites.

A petition was then posted on the UK Government and Parliament website, calling for the Government to abandon the planned implementation of affordability checks because “more intrusive checks triggered at a higher threshold risks bettors moving to the black market where there are no consumer protection or safer gambling tools”. This petition has – as at the time of writing – accumulated 76,204 signatures, three quarters of the number needed to trigger a debate in Parliament.

So, is the black market really a growing threat, or an exaggerated distraction? What are the Gambling Commission and the Government doing to curb illegal gambling? And what can businesses do if their proprietary content (intellectual property (“IP”)) turns up on unlicensed sites?

Read on for our discussion along with a helpful checklist for licensees that receive communications from the Gambling Commission regarding black market activity.

What is black market gambling?

The term ‘black market’ gained popularity during World War II (when common household products were rationed to avoid hoarding) and generally refers to an illegitimate market in which commodities are being traded, exchanged or performed in an illegal manner.

With regard to modern gambling in Britain, section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 (as amended) (the “2005 Act”) makes it clear that it is an offence to provide facilities for gambling to customers in Great Britain from anywhere in the world, without holding a licence from the Gambling Commission unless a relevant exemption applies. Accordingly, it is common within the industry to refer to unlicensed online operators that illegally provide facilities for gambling to customers in Great Britain, without the appropriate licence or falling under a relevant exemption, as the “black market”.

Why is unlicensed gambling bad?

As Rhodes notes in his keynote speech at the IAGR conference, every gambling jurisdiction in the world has illegal online gambling:

“Whether online gambling is prohibited or not, if you can access the internet, then you will be able to find a way to gamble. We all know this. It’s also worth pointing out at this point that what is an illegal, unlicenced operator for me in Great Britain may be a legitimate, licensed business for you and vice versa.”

From a consumer perspective, one of the fundamental problems is that black market websites are not always distinguishable from those that are locally licensed – at least to the untrained eye. This means a consumer may be gambling on an illegal gambling site without even knowing it and, in this “Wild West” of the remote sector, unlicensed operators are not constrained by regulation. It is common to see consumer reports of problems, such as the inability to withdraw funds and difficulties contacting support in the event of a complaint. Indeed, Rhodes acknowledged in The Gambling Files podcast, that recent research has shown that illegal websites actively seek to advertise to people that have self-excluded from gambling on GAMSTOP and others allow unlawful activity in itself by, for example, allowing children to gamble.

So, what is the Gambling Commission doing?

One of the Gambling Commission’s key functions is to investigate and prosecute illegal gambling and other offences committed under the 2005 Act. As Rhodes noted in his IAGR keynote speech, the Gambling Commission typically deploys an “intelligence-led approach” to combat black market operators.

This means that ordinarily, they will initially issue a cease-and-desist letter to require the unlicensed operator to suspend their operations. Failing this, the Gambling Commission will implement “disruption techniques, using its partnerships or relationships with other companies”, which can include:

asking web hosting companies to suspend or ‘block’ British consumers from accessing the websites;
contacting payment providers to remove payment services;
liaising with internet search and service providers to prevent websites appearing on search engines;
working with social media firms to take down posts which promote illegal gambling; and
engaging with international regulators, including by sharing information and raising the prominence of the issue – and Rhodes used the keynote as an opportunity to call for collaboration in this regard.

In addition, Rhodes described in his speech more novel steps that the Gambling Commission is taking to disrupt unlicensed, illegal online operators through collaboration with others:

“…this means we’ve been going further upstream, further away from where our formal powers begin and have been looking to work with others to get between those illegal operators and British consumers and generally frustrate their business and force them out of our market.”

And this has included:

working with software licensees to prevent access to popular products when their games appear to be available on illegal sites; and

engaging with licensees if we discover their affiliates have placed adverts on illegal sites – ensuring licensees remove advertising and encouraging an assessment of business relationships with these affiliates.

By taking these steps, Rhodes claimed that the Gambling Commission has “increased… enforcement actions by over 500 percent between 2021-22 and 2022-23” and “more than doubled the number of successful positive disruption outcomes” leading to a “a 46 percent reduction in traffic to the largest illegal sites coming into market”.

Notwithstanding the bountiful fruit of its recent efforts, the Gambling Commission has always acknowledged that stronger measures are required. In its Advice to Government relating to its review of the 2005 Act, the Gambling Commission explains that:

“Under our current framework, we cannot compel third party providers to take action such as to block British access to the website, remove payment services or prevent websites from appearing in search engines. Moving to criminal prosecution has had limited effect, largely because websites can immediately disappear and reappear with a different identity (a phenomenon known as ‘phoenixing’), and their ultimate owners and lines of responsibility are very difficult to fully trace. This also makes it very difficult to accurately scope the size of the black market”.

How does this play into the White Paper?

Before it was even published, the black market was the backbone of many highly politicised debates concerning the White Paper and the proposals to be made therein. Affordability (and more specifically, mandatory deposit and/or loss limits) in particular, led to outcry from the sector and various interested parties commissioned research to try to truly gauge the extent of illegal, unlicensed gambling in Great Britain.

In particular, a 2021 PwC report entitled “Review of unlicensed online gambling in the UK” commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council, claimed that the proportion of UK online gamblers using unlicensed operators in November 2020 had increased to 4.5 per cent – or around 460,000 people – from 2.2 per cent over the previous one to two years. In addition, the study found that stakes with unlicensed operators had doubled to £2.8 billion.

Neil McArthur, the then Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, poured cold water on the PwC report in a letter to cross-party MPs investigating the harmful effects of gambling, reportedly stating it was “not consistent with the intelligence picture” and that the impact of the black market “may be being exaggerated“.

When the White Paper was finally published in April 2023 – some 30 months after the call for evidence – it was broadly accepted to be balanced and evidence-led. Chapter 3, which considered the potential for reform in the Gambling Commission’s powers and resources, outlined the Government’s views on black market gambling and whether it presented a tangible risk. Specifically, the Government acknowledged that although estimating the size of the black market is difficult, it was clear that “excessive commercial caution risks driving customers to the black market where they can be exposed to a variety of risks”. The Government further noted that there has been a rise of illegal operators in other jurisdictions with:

“either extremely permissive regulatory regimes or no regulatory oversight, and/or are being run by individuals with suspected links to serious and organised crime.”

It then went on to acknowledge the Gambling Commission’s disruptive approach was working well to an extent (a statement with which we agree), but recommended that the Gambling Commission’s powers to action be strengthened to create a safety net, giving the Gambling Commission the versatility to “apply to court as a last resort” if required:

“When Parliamentary time allows, we will introduce legislation that will give the Gambling Commission the power to apply to the court for an order that requires ISPs , payment providers and other providers of “ancillary services” to implement measures aimed at disrupting the business of an illegal gambling operator”.

While a laudable aim, changes to legislation take time and given other legislative pressures and the impending General Election, it is not clear when these changes will take effect – there certainly was no mention of such a bill in The King’s Speech on 7 November 2023. This contrasts with affordability checks (which the White Paper recommends become mandatory for operators to carry out when consumers reach specific loss thresholds), which have already been subject to a public consultation by the Gambling Commission and may take effect much sooner.

Lessons for licensed operators

For the meantime, Rhodes emphasised in his keynote that the Gambling Commission will continue to use its existing powers (and authority) to tackle illegally, unlicensed gambling. As noted earlier, this may include the Gambling Commission contacting its own licensees to try to persuade them to take steps to disrupt illegal gambling.

If you hold a British licence and are contacted by the Gambling Commission about a black market website, we recommend that you take professional advice. You may also want to consider taking one or more of the following steps:

verify that your content is being used / your adverts are being placed on an illegal website. Involve your tech teams as they should be able to confirm whether the content is legitimate or an infringing copy of your IP;

check that games / links are accessible in Great Britain and if they are, whether you receive any British traffic from the site in question;

identify the operator of the website and/or the affiliate that is placing advertisements on the illegal site;

consider whether you have a contractual relationship with the operator / affiliate or any member of its group. If you do not have a direct contract with the operator/ affiliate or one of its group companies, consider whether there may be an indirect relationship (for example, via a content distributor or affiliate program);

if a contractual relationship exists, investigate how this arose and review all due diligence you conducted on the third party/ies during the contractual relationship;

send a cease-and-desist letter (takedown notice) to all entities that you can identify as being involved; cite restrictions in your contract (if relevant);

if the third party does not cease the activity or justify their actions:

terminate any contracts with them promptly. Note that inclusion of such a termination right is a requirement under Social Responsibility Code Provision 1.1.2 of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice;

consider contacting third parties such as hosting providers, domain registrars and third-party search engine such as Google who may otherwise be able to stop the website being accessible by customers in Great Britain;

engage professionals to review:

your systems and processes for identifying use of your content / placement of your ads on illegal websites; and

your standard contracts,

to mitigate the risk that your IP rights are exploited illegally in the future; and

update the Gambling Commission within the deadline they have set on the outcome of your investigation and the steps you have taken to:

address the present infringement of your IP rights; and

mitigate the risk of a similar situation occurring again.

Please get in touch with us if you would like assistance responding to a Gambling Commission request, or if would like to discuss the themes in this blog more generally.

19Oct

White Paper Series: DCMS statutory levy consultation – polluters pay is the fairest way…

19th October 2023 Ting Fung 170

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (“DCMS”) consultation on the statutory levy (the “Consultation”) was published on 17 October 2023.

The White Paper stated that the Consultation would consider:

the proposed total amount to be raised by the statutory levy;
how to construct the statutory levy in a fair and proportionate manner; and
consideration of the differing harm associations between sectors and/or associated fixed costs, for example, whether a “polluters pay” principle should be adopted.

We set out below the DCMS’ response to these and other key points of the Consultation.

Proposed total amount?

The Consultation indicates that the new gambling levy, which is expected to be in full force by 2026/2027, will raise an estimated £90 to £100 million per year for research prevention and treatment by 2027.

Construction of the levy

The levy will be calculated based on a percentage of gross gambling yield (“GGY”) and be applicable to both B2Cs and B2Bs. Where GGY is not applicable, percentages should be applied to gross profits instead.

Licensees with more than £500,000 GGY or gross profits will be expected to pay the levy.

Summary of proposed levy rates

Levy rates (% gross gambling yield) when fully in force (2026/27):
• 1% from all online operators (excluding society lotteries with remote licences)
• 1% from remote software licences
• 1% from remote machine technical licences
• 1% from remote pool betting licences
• 0.4% from land-based casino/betting
• 0.4% from non-remote software licences
• 0.4% from non-remote machine technical licences
• 0.4% from non-remote pool betting licences
• 0.1% from land-based arcades and bingo
• 0.1% from society lotteries (including External Lottery Managers and local authority lotteries licensed by the Gambling Commission)

Government emphasises that it is “committed to a proportionate, evidence-led approach” and states that the proposed rates may change depending on evidence received from the Consultation.

Subject to the Consultation response, payment of the levy will be either with the annual fee or on a fixed date, with Government priority being a streamlined process for levy payment and collection.

Government recognises in the Consultation that online providers of higher-risk gambling products “are associated with greater levels of ‘problem gambling’ and gambling-related harm” and therefore “can also reasonably be expected to contribute more to cover the costs of tackling and preventing gambling-related harms”. Nevertheless, Government acknowledges that a polluter pays principle would currently be difficult to implement by product, as the evidence base is not yet sufficient to confirm the particular share of harm by product. In addition, Government’s view of B2Bs as “a crucial part of the broader supply chain fundamental to the industry as a whole” has resulted in the same levy being applied between B2Cs and B2Bs.

Levy distribution

Oversight by:

A central Government levy board comprising the Department for Health and Social Care and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology;
Additional oversight by HM Treasury;
An expert advisory group comprising public bodies with relevant expertise and the third sector will also be established to help prioritise how funds should be used.

Administered by: the Gambling Commission, as directed by Government.

The proposed percentage allocations across the areas of research, prevention and treatment (“RPT”) respectively are:

10-20% to UK Research and Innovation for a Gambling Research Programme.
15-30% for a co-ordinated approach to prevention, early intervention, and education across Great Britain.
40-60% to the NHS, who will be the main commissioner of treatment in England, Scotland and Wales.

What about regulatory settlements and RET payments?

Subject to the final levy system, the Gambling Commission has indicated that it will review its process for approving the destination of settlements, should there be any, and consider how to avoid, as far as possible, a dual system or duplication of work alongside the levy.

Until the levy is implemented, licensees are expected to continue making RET payments as required by the Licence conditions and codes of practice.

Conclusion

Speaking on fairness, Gambling Minister Stuart Andrew has said that:

“Gambling firms should always pay their fair share and this new statutory levy will ensure that they are legally required to do just that.”

The Consultation lasts for 8 weeks, with a deadline of 14 December 2023. Responses should be provided via the Government’s online survey. If you cannot access the link, responses can be sent in PDF or Microsoft Word format to [email protected].

We encourage all to respond and let us know if you wish to discuss or require any assistance.

13Oct

Gambling Commission speech at G2E 2023: Growing importance of international collaboration

13th October 2023 Chris Biggs 185

Tim Miller, the Gambling Commission’s Executive Director for Policy and Research and Senior Responsible Owner for the White Paper, delivered a speech at the Global Gaming Expo (“G2E”) in Las Vegas on 10 October 2023. In his speech, Mr Miller discussed (1) the “growing importance” of international collaboration with other gambling regulators, (2) how this is assisting in tackling illegal online gambling and (3) the progress of the White Paper and changes to the law and regulations in Great Britain, which remains the largest licensed online gambling market in the world.

This blog, whilst not intended to be a comprehensive overview, will summarise those three key themes from Mr Miller’s speech.

Growing importance of international collaboration

Mr Miller stated that gambling is a global industry and that leading operators and suppliers are now (mostly) multi-national businesses. The Gambling Commission’s motivation to collaborate with international regulators has been piqued, as it witnesses more large British or European operators seek to establish themselves in North American jurisdictions. Indeed, Mr Miller declared:

“Increasingly we regulate the same companies; we address the same risks; we face the same challenges.”

In an effort to provide clarity about what the Gambling Commission means by strengthening its relationships with other regulators abroad, Mr Miller explained that the Gambling Commission continues to look to support new regulators in burgeoning jurisdictions and learn from their experiences, suggesting:

“The more gambling regulators know of each other’s rules, standards and markets, the more we are sharing information and best practice, the more we support each other then the more effective we will be.”

Consistent with the Gambling Commission’s tough stance on compliance and enforcement (indeed, Mr Miller mentioned the Gambling Commission broke its own record for “the largest ever settlement” twice in the last financial year), Mr Miller also gave a clear warning for licensees who are non-compliant in one jurisdiction not to be surprised if they are “the subject of regulatory conversation in other jurisdictions.”

Further collaborative efforts mentioned by Mr Miller include:

He, alongside the Gambling Commission’s Chair, Marcus Boyle, hosted a roundtable discussion at G2E with North American regulators on the practical steps the Gambling Commission will take to enhance regulatory collaboration;
the Gambling Commission is close to concluding a number of Memoranda of Understanding with US regulators, which look to establish clear working relationships with those regulators; and
the Gambling Commission continues to build stronger links between the North American Gaming Regulators Association and the Gambling Regulators European Forum.

Collaboration improving the combat against illegal online gambling

Mr Miller used illegal online gambling as an example of why international collaboration is important: what is illegal in one jurisdiction may not be in another, and some jurisdictions do not regulate online gambling at all. The key point made here is, as Mr Miller states, “legitimate, licensed operators from one jurisdiction can actually be the illegal or black market in another.” Tackling illegal online gambling is therefore a particular focus of the Gambling Commission and one which it relies on international collaboration to deliver greater results in making gambling safer, fairer and crime-free.

In terms of results, Mr Miller announced that by engaging and collaborating with payment providers, internet search providers and product and game developers, the Gambling Commission has delivered a 46% reduction in traffic to the “largest illegal sites coming into market.” Notably, Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission’s Chief Executive, Andrew Rhodes, will be providing further information on this topic in a speech at next week’s International Association of Gambling Regulators conference.

Lastly, Mr Miller explained that the Gambling Commission continues to hold discussions with regulators in Europe and as far away as Australia to improve its response to illegal online gambling and influence on those outside of the gambling industry, declaring:

“The collective voice of gambling regulators across the globe pressuring big tech companies, banks and even some other jurisdictions to address the role they play in facilitating illegal gambling, will be much harder to ignore.”

Update on Great Britain’s changing regulations

Referring to the Gambling Commission’s first consultation following the White Paper released on 26 July 2023, Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission has already received “thousands” of responses to these consultations. We strongly encourage stakeholders within the industry to respond to this consultation before it closes shortly on 18 October 2023.

Additionally, Mr Miller indicated there has been progress with the GamProtect project, which grew out of the Gambling Commission’s challenge to the gambling industry to produce a holistic view of risk of harm, known as the Single Customer View. Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission has been working with the Betting and Gaming Council and the Information Commissioner to set up a pilot for this project and ensure the data gathered will only be used to protect people from harm.

Lastly, Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission is finalising its new methodology for the collection of Participation and Prevalence data as part of the Gambling Survey of Great Britain. The Gambling Commission expects this survey (1) to have 20,000 respondents per year, (2) will be the “largest of its kind in the world when up and running”, and (3) will become the “new gold standard” of gambling data in Great Britain. Mr Miller stated the Gambling Commission is clear that “better data will lead to better regulation and better outcomes for both consumers and operators as a result.” As we have discussed previously, this is something we strongly support; better evidence and data should lead to better regulation, but time will tell.

Summary

Gambling is a global industry with global gambling businesses. The Gambling Commission’s desire to increase collaboration, especially against the backdrop of the Gambling Act Review and its previous speeches, is unsurprising. As Mr Miller acknowledged, “o regulator – regardless of their experience or scale can be the world police” for the gambling industry. Watch this space to see what increased collaboration amongst international regulators means!

22Sep

DCMS Committee inquiry on gambling regulation

22nd September 2023 Harris Hagan 202

In case you missed it earlier in the month, on 5 September 2023, the Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Gambling Minster), Ben Dean (Director, Sport and Gambling at DCMS), Andrew Rhodes (Chief Executive, Gambling Commission), Sarah Gardner (Deputy Chief Executive, Gambling Commission) and Tim Miller (Executive Director for Research and Policy, Gambling Commission) appeared before the DCMS Committee examining the Government’s approach to the regulation of gambling. The Gambling Commission gave evidence in the first session at 10am, and the Gambling Minister and DCMS gave their evidence in the second session at 11.30am.

Watch the recording of the DCMS committee oral evidence sessions:

22Sep

Julian Harris wins VIXIO’s 2023 Compliance Lifetime Achievement Award

22nd September 2023 Harris Hagan 192

We are very delighted to announce that Consultant and Founder Julian Harris has been awarded the Global Regulatory Award for Compliance Lifetime Achievement by VIXIO Regulatory Intelligence.

This special award recognises Julian’s unprecedented work in trailblazing a “culture of compliance and regulatory standards within the industry” for more than 40 years. During that time, Julian has advised many of the world’s largest online and land-based gambling companies, regulators, governments, financial institutions, and private equity firms on gambling law and regulation. Julian has also been at the forefront of thought leadership in the gambling sector, sharing his extensive experience and insight on various gambling regulatory issues by authoring many articles on the topic, including acting as editor of global publications on gambling law, and in his speeches at conferences across the world. He also served as President of the International Association of Gaming Advisors, the first person to do so from outside North America, testament to the esteem in which he is held amongst gaming advisers worldwide.

Julian first came to specialise in gambling law in 1981 representing the Gaming Board for Great Britain (the then British regulator). He co-founded Harris Hagan with John Hagan in 2004, in anticipation of the Gambling Act 2005 and the expected growth of the gambling industry in Great Britain. It was a bold and inspired decision at a time when niche law firms were rare in the City of London.

Upon receiving this distinguished award, Julian commented:

“I am greatly honoured and humbled by this award. I have felt privileged to have enjoyed being a part of this exciting industry for some 40 years, working with industry, fellow advisers and regulators internationally.
To receive this award from such a distinguished panel of judges and from the most respected global regulatory awards is particularly gratifying.”

The 2023 Global Regulatory Awards will take place on 29 November 2023.

22Sep

White Paper Series: Regulatory Panel changes – Fair or unfair?

22nd September 2023 Bahar Alaeddini 181

In this blog, we consider the Gambling Commission’s most recent proposals to the Regulatory Panel.

It will not come as a surprise to readers that, as gambling lawyers, we have serious concerns about the proposals to:

use Adjudicators with only a minimum of five years’ post qualification experience (“PQE”); and
change the default from oral hearings to paper-based decisions subject to a fairness test.

Regulatory Panel and its importance

The Regulatory Panel provides an important opportunity for applicants and licensees to attend an oral hearing to challenge decisions made by Gambling Commission staff. It is the only avenue of recourse, outside the expensive options of the First-tier Tribunal and judicial review, when the Gambling Commission is going against you. Whilst we accept it is still, in fact, the Gambling Commission, it is an important accountability mechanism for Gambling Commission employees making decisions under delegated powers. This narrow and non-independent avenue of recourse should not be further eroded.

2020 consultation

On 18 May 2020, the Gambling Commission announced planned changes to its Regulatory Panel, which included: (1) the recruitment and appointment of legally-qualified Adjudicators, solely for the purpose of sitting on the Regulatory Panel with the “presumption” they will also provide legal advice; and (2) reconstituting the quorum as follows: (a) for operating licences: one Commissioner and one Adjudicator; and (b) for personal licences: one Adjudicator.

At the time, we were so concerned by the proposals and that the duty to act fairly was being compromised that we submitted a response to the 2020 consultation and shared it on our blog to assist others in preparing responses.

More than 14 months later, on 21 July 2021, the Gambling Commission published its consultation response which summarised the 22 written responses received from gambling operators, trade associations and others, including Harris Hagan. As explained in our August 2021 blog, The overwhelming majority of respondents disagreed with each of the Gambling Commission’s proposals, with a key concern being that “the independence and impartiality of the Panel would be adversely affected by the proposal to use adjudicators” as outlined in my May 2020 blog.

2023 consultation

The two main proposed changes are:

Quorum and composition

The Regulatory Panel will no longer comprise up to two to three Commissioners, advised by an independent legal adviser. Instead, it will be chaired by a legally qualified Adjudicator sitting alongside one Commissioner and one senior Gambling Commission employee. The Adjudicator would sit alone on case management matters and personal licensing cases.

The main reasons for the proposed change are to improve availability, improve governance and accountability and provide an enhanced skillset for decision making.

Our main concerns are:

Adjudicators will, as proposed in 2020, be employed by the Gambling Commission. In a small feat of victory, we note from the draft Governance Framework (published this time as part of the consultation) the Gambling Commission has acknowledged some of our previous concerns by indicating that Adjudicators’ will be home-based and appraisals will be run by a Commissioner.

Adjudicators will only need a minimum of five years’ PQE. The idea that someone with potentially as little as five years’ PQE would be adjudicating on a £20m fine, suspension or revocation of a licence is frightening. Where is the Gambling Commission’s evidence to support that five years’ PQE is appropriate? How is this a sufficient level of experience, bearing in mind they are likely to have absolutely no experience of gambling and, given their lack of seniority, very minimal experience making unsupervised decisions?

Unlike the 2020 consultation which failed to specifically mention other adjudication frameworks, this time, the Gambling Commission has made fleeting mention to the General Medical Council (regulates medical doctors), Ofqual (regulates qualifications, examinations and assessments) and Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (regulates law firms and solicitors) to support the move to a mixed model of decision-making. We remain wholly unconvinced by the Gambling Commission’s rationale. There are about 90 statutory regulators in the UK and yet the consultation includes no details, or evaluation, of the different models of adjudication and relative advantages and disadvantages (including appeal rates) of each model. Nor is there any reference to the determining factors for the chosen mixed model or the appropriateness of application to the regulation of commercial gambling. As with the 2020 consultation, we are left to assume this is deliberate given many of the other models appear impartial, independent and robust. By way of example, approximately half of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Regulatory Decisions Committee’s 18 members come from finance or financial services backgrounds. The other half have esteemed legal, governance, policy or academic backgrounds. Independence is further emphasised by the FCA handbook stipulation that: (i) none of the members are employees; and (ii) the committee has its own legal advisers and support staff.

The Principles of inspection and enforcement, as set out in Philip Hampton’s Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement report state: “egulators should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities, while remaining independent in the decisions they take setting out a number of core principles of effective regulation – the standard against which all regulators’ performance should be judged.” At a minimum, the Gambling Commission must publish its research into each adjudication model and its evaluation criteria for monitoring the “efficiency and effectiveness” of each model, together with the impact on applicants/licensees.

There is no mention of a trial period of using Adjudicators.

Default of paper decisions

Another proposal is to change the default from oral hearings to paper-based decisions. An oral hearing can be requested by the applicant/licensee; alternatively, the Panel itself may decide it is “required” – using a test of “fairness”, for example, where there are “material and significant disputes of fact”.

The main reasons for this proposed change are to reduce the burden on applicants/licensees particularly where they have unrepresented and find it difficult to navigate, and to increase the promptness of decision making.

Our main concern is that applicants and licensees will be denied the opportunity to bring their arguments to life. What is the test of fairness and why do we need one?

The requirements of fairness are flexible and fact specific. Legal history places huge importance on oral argument and, in our view, with good reason. Over 20 years ago, Lord Justice Laws recognised “oral argument is perhaps the most powerful force there is, in our legal process, to promote a change of mind.” Further, in R (H) v Secretary of State for Justice EWHC 2590 (Admin), Cranston J summarised the legal position in respect of oral hearings as follows:

Procedural fairness sometimes demands an oral hearing. There can be greater confidence with an oral hearing that the relevant standards have been properly applied and that the facts on which the decision is based are accurate. The oral hearing also gives the person affected by the decision the opportunity to tailor the arguments to the concerns of the decision maker.

Another concern is the matter of mutual respect for the Gambling Commission and the applicant/licensee with the latter’s perception of the process being central, as acknowledged in Osborn v Parole Board UKSC 61, in which Lord Reid referred to the principle that:

…justice is intuitively understood to require a procedure which pays due respect to persons whose rights are significantly affected by decisions taken in the exercise of administrative or judicial functions. Respect entails that such persons ought to be able to participate in the procedure by which the decision is made, provided they have something to say which is relevant to the decision to be taken.

We feel strongly that the Gambling Commission’s proposals do not conform to the necessary standards of fairness. The proposed barrier should therefore be removed, and the policy should simply say that an oral hearing can be chosen on request. This will address the Gambling Commission’s main reason for the proposed change whilst still enabling those who want one, a fair hearing.

The consultation cites the stress that the unrepresented applicants/licensees experience in attending hearings as a reason for changing the default to paper decisions. However, there is no mention of how many of the 12 requests, to the Regulatory Panel, last year were unrepresented. The Consultation is silent (no doubt, intentionally) on the introduction of a policy dealing with unrepresented parties.

Concluding thoughts

It is undeniable that the Gambling Commission is a very powerful regulator. How many other UK regulatory authorities can impose limitless fines, commence criminal proceedings and decide to close multi-million pound businesses?

It appears that the Gambling Commission’s primary focus is to cut costs. Inevitably, good decisions will not be made in the public interest, nor will those decisions be made following a fair process. The new proposals will have a far bigger negative impact than announced changes in 2021, which will be implemented at the same time (as amended). The only possible – dim – glimmer of hope is that decisions will or should be quicker. However, if those decisions are of poor quality and unfair, it means that they will be more routinely appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, which will be lengthy, uncertain and expensive. Therefore, any possible benefit gained from quicker decisions will be more than outweighed by the drawbacks.

If we look at the regulatory landscape, the Gambling Commission is proposing to make these significant changes at the same time as it is escalating fines and sanctions.

Effective regulation requires effective accountability, and it seems to us that the Gambling Commission is removing a weakening mechanism which holds the regulator to account for its own policies and procedures and the law.

In conclusion, and repeating the final words from my May 2020 blog, the proposed changes do not offer a practical vision for adjudication that is consistent with good regulatory and legal practice. There is nothing to suggest that fairness has been a consideration. The only consideration appears to be about saving cost, time for the Gambling Commission and Commissioners, and speeding up the process. In doing so, the duty to act fairly has been compromised.

Respond to the consultation

We strongly encourage industry and its stakeholders to respond to the consultation, which closes on 18 October 2023.

22Sep

White Paper Series: Defining the Future VIXIO Webinar

22nd September 2023 Harris Hagan 189

On 15 September 2023, Bahar Alaeddini appeared as a panellist on a VIXIO Regulatory Intelligence (formerly GamblingCompliance) webinar titled “UK White Paper: Defining the Future” together with Tim Miller from the Gambling Commission, Sarah Fox from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners. The panellists had an insightful and lively discussion about some of the proposals in the recent wave of consultations and next steps:

11Aug

White Paper Series: Give your two pounds’ worth on DCMS’ consultation for online slots stake limits

11th August 2023 Chris Biggs 188

The consultation season well and truly began on 26 July 2023, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) publishing the first two of its promised consultations from the White Paper. In this latest edition of our White Paper Series, we discuss DCMS’ proposals and reasoning for a maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain (the “Slots Consultation”) and strongly encourage the industry to respond.

1. Background

As discussed in our previous White Paper Series blog on stake limits, DCMS foreshadowed its reasons for the Slots Consultation in the White Paper.

It noted that slots have the highest average losses per active customer of any online gambling product, the highest number of players, the longest play sessions and the greatest potential for financial harm, due to the velocity at which people can stake, with no statutory limit on the amount they can stake. On the other hand, it was acknowledged that online operators are uniquely able to regularly monitor and scrutinise their customers’ spending on slots and intervene where necessary.

In the end, having considered the evidence available to it, DCMS concluded that reform was necessary. Although evidence of a clear causative relationship was limited, there was sufficient evidence of an association between higher stakes on online slots and identified risks of harm. DCMS determined it was time for change: there would be a consultation in summer 2023 on a stake limit for online slots of between £2 and £15. In addition, DCMS would also consult on a preferred £2 limit for those aged 18 to 24.

2. The proposals – General population

The Slots Consultation has now been published and DCMS has proposed four options for the maximum stake limit which should apply for online slots, seeking opinions on which option “strikes an appropriate balance between preventing harm and preserving consumer freedoms”.

We discuss the options and DCMS’ headline reasoning for each stake limit below:

Option 1 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £2 per spin

The industry knew £2 stake limits were going to be the starting point for the Slots Consultation and unsurprisingly, this option would have the greatest impact on consumers and businesses alike. DCMS recognises that 97% of all individual online slot stakes are below £2. However, up to 35% of players stake over £2 on a single spin at least once a year. Of course, £2 is a relatively low bar especially given that stakes over this threshold contribute to an estimated 18% of annual slots gross gambling yield (“GGY”). Option 1 would therefore have a significant impact on online casino operators and the industry’s GGY broadly.

Option 2 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £5 per spin

A £5 maximum stake per spin, as DCMS notes, is equal to the highest limit currently permitted on any land-based gaming machine.

There may be a superficial attraction to aligning online slots with the limits imposed on their land-based counterparts, but it would not come without a significant impact to the online industry which already has a wider system of safer gambling protections in place. Indeed, DCMS acknowledges this in the White Paper:

“The stake limits already applied to electronic gaming machines in the land-based sector could be a sensible starting point. However, taking an equitable approach to product regulation should take account of the wider system of protections in place online. For instance, the opportunity for data-driven monitoring of online play may justify a higher limit for online products than in relatively anonymous land-based settings.”

DCMS estimates stakes over £5 represent only 0.5% of online slots staking events but represent approximately 7.4% of slots GGY.

Option 3 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £10 per spin

Although a £10 maximum stake per spin is higher than any stakes permitted on a land-based gaming machine, DCMS is considering whether these higher limits are appropriate in the online world given that there are additional protections for online players, who are required to create an account to play and can therefore be more adequately monitored by licensed operators for signs of gambling-related harm (as suggested in the above quote).

This is particularly relevant given that DCMS does not anticipate severe disruptions to the majority of slots players if Option 3 is implemented, noting that 37% of all stakes placed above £10 were made by high and medium risk players.

As we hinted in our previous blog, it is possible DCMS will be drawn to setting £5 (Option 2) as the maximum stake limit for online slots, noting this figure appeared in an earlier leaked version of the White Paper. However, given its acknowledgement in the above quote, we believe DCMS is open to considering evidence-based responses which favour a higher limit. This is of course dependent on the industry submitting compelling evidence-based responses to the Slots Consultation.

Option 4 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £15 per spin

As with Option 1, the industry was aware a £15 stake limit would represent the maximum stake per spin in the Slots Consultation. Broadly, DCMS considers this stake limit would impact only a small minority of “habitually or occasionally high-staking players”, where stakes over £15 represent 0.05% of all stakes on online slots and 2% of GGY. We consider it unlikely that Option 4 is the option that will finally be adopted.

3. The proposals – 18 to 24 year olds

As we previously discussed, the White Paper committed to consulting on additional protections for young adults aged between 18 to 24 years on the basis that this age group may be a “particularly vulnerable cohort”.

The Slots Consultation cites the Gambling Commission’s Advice to Government for the Review of the Gambling Act 2005 in identifying a number of potential factors influencing gambling behaviours in young adulthood, including continuing cognitive development, changing support networks and inexperience with money management. DCMS separately noted that problem gambling rates are highest in the 16 to 24 years age group, according to the Public Health England and Gambling-related harms evidence review of 2019.

Accordingly, the Slots Consultation seeks views on the following three options:

Option A – A maximum online slots stake limit of £2 per spin for 18 to 24 year olds
Option B – A maximum online slots stake limit of £4 per spin for 18 to 24 year olds
Option C – Applying the same maximum stake limit to all adults, but building wider requirements for operators to consider age as a risk factor for gambling-related harm.

In setting out its evidence, DCMS acknowledges that typical online slots stakes for those aged 18 to 24 are lower than for other adult age groups. Data captured between July 2018 to June 2019 indicates the mean stake in this cohort was £1.05 compared to £1.30 across all adults aged 25 and over, and DCMS cites data indicating the age group’s average stake is 20% lower than the average for all adults (according to Patterns of Play).

In respect of the specific limits proposed in Options A and B, DCMS does not cite data that specifically indicates either maximum stake limit would be best suited to this age group. The reasoning simply appears to be that as a potentially vulnerable cohort, there should be extra protections in place, i.e. lower maximum stake limits than those for the general population.

Option C would of course be the least intrusive option for operators and their customers, and any action required of operators would likely align with the Gambling Commission’s consultation on, and likely increase to, the requirements for operators to check customers’ individual financial circumstances in respect of indicators that their losses are harmful. Watch out for more on this in a forthcoming White Paper Series blog.

4. DCMS data and considerations

The status quo

In the Slots Consultation, DCMS cites Gambling Commission data in summarising the best available statistics about current slots play, set out below:

Furthermore, DCMS sets out staking behaviour for the 2022/23 financial year (representing more than 76 billion spins) which it uses to underpin its consideration of the likely impact of each maximum stake limit:

(The estimated % of slots GGY in Figure 2 assumes that all slots games have a 95% return to player and the distribution of spend within each bucket is modelled as non-linear.)

Aside from the sheer scale of online slots activity in the last financial year, the data presented in the Slots Consultation (including that shown in the above two figures) breathes life into DCMS’ proposals which, if we return to first principles, have been drafted in order to address the fact that there is evidence of a relationship between higher staking on slots and gambling-related harm.

By removing the ability for an arguably very small proportion of slots players to stake high(er) amounts on slots, will this aim be achieved? From the above data, we can see that most online slots spins from the last financial year would not be impacted by any of the proposed stake limits. However, the changes would result in a significant reduction in the industry’s GGY (we discuss this in further detail below).

Potential impact

So, has an appropriate balance been struck? Whilst we do not think there is a straightforward answer to this question (hence DCMS releasing the Slots Consultation), the potential impact of each of the options considered are set out in DCMS’ Online Slots Stake Limit Impact Assessment (the “Impact Assessment”), published alongside the Slots Consultation.

Interestingly, the Impact Assessment models the estimated reduction in annual GGY in the industry for each option considered in Slots Consultation, as follows:

To summarise this data, the Impact Assessment suggests that there will be an estimated reduction in the current annual online slots GGY of between 0.5% to 13.8%, ranging in real terms, from a £16.1m to £413.5m reduction in revenue annually.

Aside from the costs to business, the Impact Assessment also sets out the potential benefits of the maximum stake limits and shares the associated assumptions that DCMS made in coming to these conclusions. It is particularly worth noting that DCMS acknowledges it is difficult to accurately estimate gambling harm reduction from stake limits, stating:

“Gambling harm is complex and often the result of numerous factors both within and external to the actual gambling environment. It would be difficult to isolate the causal mechanism between staking at various levels (that will no longer be available) and the reduction in gambling harm.”

However, it goes on to note that there are clear, qualitative benefits to the stake limits for both the customer and the public sector. To pick a crucial example, the Impact Assessment identifies that each stake limit will have an impact on a customer’s risk of incurring runaway losses, and suffering gambling harm as a result of these losses.

Additionally, public sector benefits would include potential reductions in costs incurred by the public sector in respect of harmful gambling costs which include:
a) Primary care mental health services, secondary mental health services, and hospital inpatient services;
b) Job seekers allowance claimant costs and lost labour tax receipts;
c) Statutory homelessness applications; and
d) Incarceration costs.

We encourage all licensees and stakeholders to review the Impact Assessment, in addition to the Slots Consultation, for a closer look at the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed stake limits and to better inform views on where the balance between protection from harm and consumer freedom lies.

5. Responding to the Slots Consultation

The Slots Consultation will be open for responses for eight weeks only, until 11:55pm on 20 September 2023. Responses can be submitted through DCMS’ online survey, or as a Word or PDF document to [email protected]. DCMS is encouraging evidence from all parties who have an interest in the way gambling is regulated in Great Britain, including any international evidence.

Following the consultation period, DCMS will publish a formal response setting out its decisions in relation to the maximum stake limit proposals and its reasoning, as well as a final impact assessment, before implementing the changes. Changes will likely be made by way of the introduction of secondary legislation, e.g. the creation of a new licence condition for Gambling Commission licensees.

In the short time before the Slots Consultation closes, we strongly encourage all licensees and other stakeholders to consider the impact the proposals would have on their businesses and respond with evidence-based submissions. Now is the opportunity to influence positive change for consumer protection whilst tempering a potentially damaging blow to the commercial viability of the online slots industry in Great Britain.

Please get in touch with us if you would like assistance with preparing a response to this or any other DCMS and Gambling Commission consultations.
With thanks to Gemma Boore for her invaluable co-authorship.

UK Gambling Law