22Dec

Putting the Customer First: Why all licensees should the take the Consultation on Customer Interaction Guidance seriously

22nd December 2022 David Whyte 221

A little over two years on from the launch of its consultation and call for evidence on remote customer interaction requirements and affordability checks, the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) has initiated a new public consultation (the “Consultation”) – this time on the proposed Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators (the “Guidance”). While the Consultation has so far not attracted the same attention as the 2020 exercise, the implications are potentially just as profound. In a series of co-authored articles, Harris Hagan and Regulus Partners will explore the key proposals in the Guidance, examining the evidence that underpins them and asking whether they are in fact proportionate, legal and in the best interests of consumers.

We appreciate that some of the more cynical readers of this article may think there is little point in responding to the Consultation as the Commission will take little or no notice of any feedback it receives from licensees. However, we consider it critically important that all licensees, including non-remote licensees, do respond to the Consultation. It is more difficult for the Commission to ignore numerous representations on common concerns, and experience suggests that similar guidance may be produced for non-remote licensees in the future. Recognising that the timeframe for the Consultation will include the holiday period, the Commission has extended the originally proposed six weeks to approximately nine weeks, and it will now close on Monday 23 January 2023.

There are a number of areas of the Guidance which licensees should be concerned about – Harris Hagan included some of these in previous articles in July and September 2022. In this article, the first of the series, we set out a summary of those issues, and analyse the “Introduction” and “General requirements” sections of the Guidance. In subsequent articles we will also consider the central theme of assessing ‘vulnerability to harm’; and how licensees will be expected to take action to address it.

Key areas of concern

Our key areas of concern about the Guidance, many of which we will explore in more detail in this series of articles, are:

It has been poorly drafted. Many key terms are either undefined or defined in a fashion so highly generalised as to be almost meaningless. An absence of precision in the way that regulatory requirements are described inevitably invites a high level of subjectivity in terms of how they will be interpreted by both licensees and the Commission.
The evidence that underpins key measures contained in the Guidance is either absent or highly selective – and, in some cases, it is misleading.
It appears to conflate “indicators of harm” with actual harm – requiring licensees to take action to correct customer behaviours regardless of whether they are in fact harmful.
The definition of key terms is so broad as to make it almost impossible for licensees to justify not conducting a safer gambling interaction based on either “indicators of harm”, “vulnerability” or both.
It takes no account of the practicability of the measures required, the cost implications, or the potential for negative unintended consequences.
The Commission appears to have undertaken no research into consumer support for the measures that are being mandated or how they might react to them.
One of its more alarming aspects is the suggestion that licensees should harvest medical information about their customers. There is no demonstration within the Consultation that the Commission has considered the ethical or legal dimensions of this requirement, the extent to which licensees possess the requisite expertise to interpret such information, or whether this is even possible.

Issues not addressed in the Consultation

The Commission makes it clear that the Consultation relates solely to the Guidance which is issued on Social Responsibility Code Provision (“SRCP”) 3.4.3. The requirements of SRCP 3.4.3 itself are not within scope, nor are “matters associated with unaffordable gambling and specific thresholds which should apply”, the “separate consultation on the three key financial risks” the Commission committed to in May 2021 (yet to materialise), or matters associated with “single customer view”.

General requirements

“How to use this guidance”

There are inconsistencies in the Guidance between “aims” and “formal guidance”, and it is difficult to ascertain whether the Commission expects licensees to “take into account” or “address” its aim in setting each requirement.

The impact of this inconsistency can be seen throughout the Guidance. For example, requirement 1 states that “icensees must implement effective customer interaction systems and processes in a way which minimises the risk of customers experiencing harms associated with gambling.” However, aim 1 states that “Licensees must have effective controls to minimise the risk of customers experiencing harms associated with gambling”. There is a clear difference between implementing effective systems and having effective controls, the latter being more easily determined subjectively by the Commission and with hindsight: the assumption likely being that if any customer has suffered or experienced harm (a highly malleable term as we will explain further in our next article), the controls were ineffective.

It is critically important that the Commission ensures uniformity in the Guidance. If ‘aims’ are within scope, then the language used for requirements and aims should be consistent: if ‘aim’ is not within scope, then the “How to use this guidance” section of the Guidance should be amended and reference to licensees being obliged to “address that aim” removed, to ensure that this is abundantly clear.

Formal requirements as guidance?

Harris Hagan has previously set out its view that it is inappropriate, and arguably ultra vires, for the Commission to introduce formal requirements through guidance. The Commission seeks to address such concerns in the Consultation where it states:

“On occasion, the proposed guidance document uses the language of ‘must’ or ‘the Commission expects’. This language is used in contexts where the guidance is intended to reflect the requirements or SR Code Provision 3.4.3. The proposed guidance document also uses the word ‘should’, which denotes an approach or action that is not required by SR Code Provision 3.4.3, but which operators are required to consider. We are interested in stakeholders’ views on the language used in the proposed guidance document in this respect.”

Despite this statement, there are several areas of the Guidance where the language used does not reflect the requirements set out in SRCP 3.4.3, goes beyond those requirements, or is inconsistent with those requirements. This is inappropriate, will cause confusion, and exposes licensees to the risk of broad or inconsistent interpretation by Commission officials during compliance or enforcement action.

By means of an example:

Requirement 4 states: “Licensees must have in place effective systems and processes to monitor customer activity to identify harm or potential harm associated with gambling…”;
Aim 4 is stated as being to ensure “that customers who may be at risk of harm are identified”; and
Formal Guidance 4 states that “icensees must identify customers that may be at risk of harm.”

There is a clear distinction between “identifying harm or potential harm” and identifying customers “that may be at risk of harm”: the latter arguably being impossible as it applies to anyone who gambles. We will discuss this in more detail in a subsequent article. The importance of the Guidance being easily distinguished from the prescriptive requirements set out in SRCP 3.4.3, and of ensuring consistency between requirements and aims and formal guidance, must not be overlooked.

“How the Commission will use this guidance”

The Commission refers under this section of the Guidance to its expectation that “licensees demonstrate how their policies, procedures and practices meet the required outcomes”. However, at no point has the Commission set out what those required outcomes are. SRCP 3.4.3 is not outcome-led; it is, at least in part, prescriptive – as is the Guidance. We would therefore suggest that “requirements” rather than “required outcomes” is the more accurate language to be used here.

“Amending this guidance over time”

Under this heading, the Commission sets out that “for the purposes of raising standards, protecting customer interests, and preventing harm to customers, will update and re-issue guidance”. Harris Hagan has previously raised concerns about this approach. We remain of the view that the Commission should consult on any changes to the Guidance, particularly if those changes introduce formal requirements, or if they explain how the Commission may interpret those formal requirements. The Commission is comfortable with short consultation periods; it originally proposed that the Consultation be open for six weeks. To conduct further short consultations before amending the Guidance is hardly an arduous task, particularly given the benefit of doing so, not only to licensees and stakeholders, but to the Commission itself.

In our second article, we will discuss the concepts of “harm” and “vulnerability” that underpin the Guidance.

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

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.

05Jul

Lexology – Getting the Deal Through, Gaming 2022

5th July 2022 Harris Hagan 254

As Harris Hagan continues its contribution to the Lexology GTDT Gaming publication, we are pleased to share with our subscribers, complimentary access to the full reference guide which is now available online.

Our Associate, Jessica Wilson, remains the author of the United Kingdom report, which covers a range of British regulatory insights including land-based and remote gambling and quasi-gambling activities, including legal definition; anti-money-laundering regulations; director, officer and owner licensing; passive/institutional ownership; responsible gambling; taxes; advertising; supplier licensing and registration; change of control considerations; and recent trends in the industry.

The reference guide also allows for side-by-side comparisons with other local insights from jurisdictions such as Australia, Brazil, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Macau, Nigeria, South Africa and the USA.

We invite you to review the reference guide at your leisure.

08Apr

Welcome To Harris Hagan’s Vlog

8th April 2020 Bahar Alaeddini 376

In a blog post last week I mentioned the launch of our video blog with weekly vlogs or blog tutorials providing training on key topics in the gambling industry. These will be published on our website and available completely free of charge.

I am pleased to share our very first vlog in which I discuss our desire to bring a new perspective to what we do and how we interact with you.

Harris Hagan is committed to creating and sharing content you will be interested about and will find useful. Please email us with any (reasonable!) suggestions for future training vlogs.
If you have enjoyed watching our vlog, please like, comment or share.

06Apr

Banks Tackling Gambling-Related Harm

6th April 2020 Lucy Paterson 374

Last year the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) ministers met with banks and gambling operators to discuss their growing concerns, and how companies could use technology and customer data to help those at risk of developing gambling problems. Brigid Simmonds, chair of the Betting and Gaming Council, recently called for the banking industry to intervene with their customers in the same way that gambling operators are required to – but are banks now starting to play their part?

In November 2018, Barclays became the first high street bank to assist problem gamblers in controlling their gambling, by allowing customers to block payments relating to certain categories of spending, including gambling. Unhelpfully, it can be switched instantly on and off through its online banking app. Since then, many other high street banks have followed suit in making similar measures available to customers, which work by automatically declining any attempted payments within selected categories.

Payment blocking is just one way that banks are attempting to protect customers from gambling-related harm, and the range of measures on offer varies greatly between banks.

Whilst many banks provide the option of blocking gambling payments via both credit and debit card, at present NatWest, RBS and MBNA only offer blocking on credit card payments. When the Gambling Commission’s ban on credit cards comes into effect on 14 April 2020 and customers have no option but to use their debit cards should they want to gamble, these banks will need to review this feature if it is to provide any useful function for customers at all.

Some banks are carefully considering how best to protect their customers from gambling-related harms and are innovating new ways to do so. Starling Bank now:

signposts a customer removing a gambling payment block to the National Gambling Helpline; and

has an automatic 48-hour cooling off period before actioning a customer’s request to remove a gambling payment block.

Similar cooling-off periods are already offered by a number of other banks, including HSBC, Lloyds Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland, and is likely to prove a useful tool for problem gamblers. Research shows that providing customers with a break or interruption in play provides a valuable opportunity to reflect on their gambling and, therefore, their decision to remove the gambling payment block, minimising the risk of impulsive decisions.

Monzo and NatWest go one step further. Monzo requires customers to speak to customer services before the gambling payment block can be removed, creating friction and perhaps another opportunity to reflect on their spending.

NatWest recently launched free psychological counselling in-branch to anyone, whether or not they are a NatWest customer, who has a gambling problem. The scheme was initially launched in several branches in London and the South East, but will be extended based on demand from problem gamblers. HSBC, meanwhile, has sought the assistance of GamCare to train its staff to respond to calls from customers about gambling, and has announced that it will analyse data on card spending to see who might benefit from advice.

A holistic approach is undoubtedly the best way to help those experiencing gambling-related harms and is also the approach advocated by the Betting and Gaming Council in key action four of its Safer Gambling Commitments. It is therefore encouraging to see banks of all sizes accepting that they too have a part to play in tackling the issue, and it is hoped that banks will continue to work closely with the gambling industry, DCMS, the Gambling Commission and gambling charities to improve the tools already on offer and to innovate new ways to help customers manage their gambling.

31Mar

Productivity in This Time of Crisis

31st March 2020 David Whyte 361

The widespread closure of land-based gambling businesses, coupled with the impact of a hiatus in sport may, however undesirably, present some operators and suppliers with the opportunity to take advantage of additional spare time and ease regulatory and commercial burdens prior to the much-coveted return to normality.

Annual fees

In its recent update, the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) has confirmed that due to the structure of its fee system, which is based on secondary legislation, it is unable to offer a reduction in annual fees or accept payment by instalments.

The only two options presented by the Commission are:

licence surrender; and
reducing the annual fee payable by applying to vary an operating licence to decrease the fee category where there is a reduction in gross gambling yield (“GGY”).

While option 2 may sound attractive, only some licensees will benefit. We recommend considering the following points when making a variation application to decrease a fee category:

it is the cheapest type of application and only costs £25.00;
it can be submitted quickly and easily though the Commission’s eServices portal;
apply as early as possible – the guideline processing time (up to eight weeks) is likely to be lengthened as the Commission experiences increased levels of absence;
the annual fee reduction will not take effect until the next annual fee is due; and
licensees who have recently paid their annual fee will not benefit from any such variation this year because the Commission does not issue refunds, as it has no statutory mechanism to do so.

Licensees whose annual fees are due in the coming weeks/months and expect to see a significant reduction in GGY should move quickly and submit variation applications as soon as possible.

Please remember that, in accordance with section 100 of the Gambling Act 2005, annual fees are payable before the licence anniversary and the Commission has the power to revoke an operating licence for non-payment.

Compliance

Neil McArthur, CEO of the Commission, has reminded licensees, particularly online operators, of the safer gambling and AML risks presented by COVID-19 and that consumer protection is paramount. In a message to online operators, on 26 March 2020, he said:

“…whilst I recognise the enormous challenges businesses are facing, I want to make the Commission’s expectations absolutely clear… If we see irresponsible behaviour we will step in immediately. So, whilst I know that the current climate is unprecedented, gambling operators must play their part in making sure that people are kept safe…”

As a follow-up to his blog on 25 March 2020, The Gambling Commission’s Response to the Coronavirus Crisis, Julian Harris will be posting his views on Neil McArthur’s latest message shortly. In the meantime, we strongly encourage licensees to view the Commission’s warning as an opportunity to take stock and respond positively and proactively as this is likely to result in improved business practices. Inevitably, this will reduce workloads when gambling businesses are finally able to operate as normal:

We recommend licensees consider the following:

AML business risk assessment

In accordance with licence condition 12.1.1 of the LCCP, all licensees (other than gaming machine technical and gambling software licences) are required to conduct an assessment of the risks of their business being used for money laundering and terrorist financing. This risk assessment must be reviewed at least annually and amongst other things in the light of any changes in circumstances or other material changes.

Licensees may wish to begin their review of this AML risk assessment now, considering internal business changes and the risks presented by COVID-19 (almost certainly a change in circumstances or other material change). Risk assessments that are part completed in draft now will require less time when premises reopen or sport recommences, meaning key employees can focus on other matters.

AML and safer gambling policies

Licensees should review their AML and safer gambling (“SG”) policies. This review should not just consider the adequacy of the policies now, but also the risks presented by COVID-19. Particular attention should be paid to the levels which trigger AML and SG customer interactions, and the approach taken to consider the customer’s affordability given the likelihood of disrupted income. Consideration should also be given as to how audits are completed, and whether any changes are required. Again, the completion of amendments in draft now will mean less effort and time is spent on this review when normality returns.

Marketing

Operators should review their marketing policies, ensuring new customers are on-boarded in a socially responsible way, cleanse customer marketing databases and review relationships with affiliates. They may wish to audit their affiliates and renegotiate terms to strengthen control and their position to deal with non-compliant affiliates.

Training

Employees who have been furloughed and/or who have not been operating in their primary role for prolonged periods of time, may need refresher training on key areas on their return to work. Licensees should take steps now to ensure that they have plans in place for this, to ensure that the high standards being adhered to prior to COVID-19 are maintained. We will discuss training in a separate blog post shortly.

The strong messages from the Commission to the remote industry during the COVID-19 crisis maintain a pre-existing tone that is likely to continue. Land-based and sports betting operators and suppliers should use this opportunity to their advantage so that they have a renewed sense of focus when the time eventually comes to return to normality.

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

31Mar

PMLs: Maintenance or Renewal?

31st March 2020 Julian Harris 341

We have encountered some misunderstanding, not least on the part of the Gambling Commission (the “Commission”), as to the nature and status of personal management licences (“PMLs”). These licences are required for individuals performing certain defined functions in the gambling industry. Holders of PMLs can be held personally liable for failures on the part of entities holding an operating licence.

The Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) provides that a PML has effect unless and until it ceases to do so, by reason either of surrender, lapse, forfeiture or revocation. The Explanatory Notes for section 131 of the 2005 Act, which deals with duration of PMLs, specifies that

“Subject to surrender, lapse, forfeiture or revocation, all personal licences will be of unlimited duration. The Commission does not have the power to introduce limited durations for personal licences.”

However, regulations do provide that a PML holder pay fees every five years of the tenure of the licence. The Explanatory Notes to the 2005 Act explain that these fees are to be paid by the PML holder to the Commission to maintain the licence, and which are used by the Commission to cover the costs of regulation.

On its website the Commission sets out the maintenance process, which involves completing an application including provision of various documents (ID documents, a DBS application (UK and Channel Islands), police report (if overseas) and credit report (if overseas)) and paying the £370 fee. PMLs will no longer receive a maintenance pack in the post. Instead, the Commission will send an email, to their registered email address, informing them that they can sign in to the Personal eServices to start the maintenance process. We understand that this email will be sent on or shortly before the PML anniversary date. If the application is not made within 30 days of the anniversary date (five years from issue and every 5 years thereafter), then the licence will be revoked. Subject to that, and provided of course that the application is properly completed, the process is automatic; it is not a renewal application, and therefore cannot involve any reappraisal as to the PML holder’s qualification, fitness or suitability to hold such a licence. Any such question must form the subject of a licence review under separate provisions.

Until recently there was a reference on the “Personal licence maintenance” page of the Commission’s website to “renewal” of PMLs. This has now been corrected as a result of submissions made by Harris Hagan, that this was wrong in law, as there was no such provision or power. Nevertheless, there is a leftover of this on the webpage, in the inappropriate use of the word “application” to describe the process; this assumes that there is something the Commission is being asked to grant, and therefore something which can be refused, which it cannot. This is an automatic process, the purpose of which is solely the provision of updated information about the PML holder, such as for example, current address and position, and payment of the fee. It is for the Commission simply to check and record the information.

Whilst this may seem pedantic and of little importance, it is vital that the Commission does not assume powers which it does not have, and that PML holders are not confused about their position, or stressed by a pending “application”, which they may believe could be refused. This concern has been thrown into sharp focus in circumstances where PML maintenance has been delayed, or put on hold, by the Commission on the misconceived ground that enforcement action was current in relation to the PML holders’ employer, which potentially could, at some future date, result in a licence review of PMLs. Once your PML maintenance is submitted and the fee paid, and providing this is within time, your obligations are fulfilled. The Commission may ask for further information if necessary. Otherwise the PML continues, and there is no question either of grant or refusal. Job done!

UK Gambling Law