16May

Reporting of Deaths by Suicide: consequence and practical implementation

16th May 2023 David Whyte 237

The Gambling Commission’s consultation on three changes it proposes to make to its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (the “Consultation”) is due to close on 23 May 2023 and there is one issue to which licensees should pay careful attention: the proposal to add a specific reporting requirement to Licence Condition 15.2.2 requiring licensees to notify the Gambling Commission when they become aware that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide.

The Gambling Commission’s proposed wording is:

“The licensee must notify the Commission, as soon as reasonably practical, if it knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a person who has gambled with it has died by suicide, whether or not such suicide is known or suspected to be associated with gambling. Such notification must include the person’s name and date of birth, and a summary of their gambling activity, if that information is available to the licensee”.

There is no question of licensees not wishing to prevent suicide and ostensibly, the arguments in favour of this proposed requirement are logical and reasonable. However, this is an incredibly sensitive issue about which stakeholders will have opposing views. Indeed, we have some concerns ourselves: that a gambler commits suicide does not necessarily mean that the gambling is a contributory factor, nor is the Gambling Commission qualified to make such a judgement. It is therefore questionable whether it is appropriate for the Gambling Commission to require the provision of information of this nature.

As has been the case on many occasions in the past, the Gambling Commission is likely to proceed with imposing this requirement, irrespective of the responses it receives to the Consultation. Consequently, rather than explore the basis of the proposed requirement, this article considers its wording and impact, which as presently drafted potentially exposes licensees to a risk of regulatory bias, imposes a disproportionate burden upon them and is likely to be interpreted inconsistently.

Intention and consequence

The Gambling Commission explains in the Consultation that, in the past, some licensees have notified it when they have become aware that a customer has died by suicide; likely under ordinary code provision 1.1.1 which suggests that, as a matter of good practice licensees should inform the Gambling Commission “of any matters that the Commission would reasonably need to be aware of in exercising its regulatory functions”. However, to enable it to “assess the licensee’s compliance with conditions of its licence” and to help “inform ongoing consideration of policy” the Gambling Commission has determined it necessary to make this notification a licence condition, the breach of which would enable it to commence enforcement action and if appropriate impose a regulatory sanction.

The Gambling Commission also states in the Consultation that, to avoid placing a burden on licensees to determine which deaths by suicide they should notify it about, it proposes that “licensees are required to notify us where a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide irrespective of whether any link between the person’s death and gambling has been established or suggested” and that “the death should be notified to the Commission irrespective of the period of time that has elapsed between the death and the most recent gambling activity.”

The Gambling Commission, many of its key stakeholders, and indeed many of its critics, have made it abundantly clear that gambling related suicide must be a key focus, and rightly so. However, suicide is almost invariably the result of a complex array of factors, and it cannot be the case that irrespective of the time that has lapsed between an individual’s gambling and their suicide, gambling will necessarily have been a contributory factor. An investigation is therefore inevitable, and care needs to be taken by the Gambling Commission when conducting that investigation to ensure that there is no internal regulatory bias on its part: its focus should be on licensee’s adherence to their regulatory requirements and not to the tragic circumstances that have led to the notification being submitted.

A regulatory bias in relation to gambling related suicide, or at least an indication of it, is evident in the Gambling Commission’s consultation Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators, where the Gambling Commission tells licensees that their staff “need to be trained on the skills and techniques they need to help them carry out customer interactions, including what to do if a customer becomes distressed or there is a risk of suicide”. Wording such as this suggests that, in the Gambling Commission’s view, it is the responsibility of licensees or their employees to identify the risk of suicide, and to act upon it. As we have set out in a previous article, this cannot be right: it is the responsibility of qualified professionals to identify that risk, not licensees, and it is dangerous on multiple levels, including in relation to the wellbeing of licensees’ employees, to suggest otherwise. Further, this risks suggesting there is a duty of care at law on the part of licensed gambling operators to prevent suicide, which is a dangerous precedent.

Whether or not licensees are expected to investigate, the Gambling Commission will be doing so. The extent of that investigation is likely to extend beyond the licensee who has submitted the notification: how else will the Gambling Commission ensure that all licensees are adhering to the licence condition and/or that the individual concerned has not gambled elsewhere? Having been identified it is therefore inevitable that the Gambling Commission will have to request information from other licensees; the burden on licensees potentially extending considerably and a consistent and proportionate response difficult to maintain. If gambling is a contributory factor, we suggest it is more likely than not the individual will have gambled with many operators.

As most licensees who have been through a burdensome compliance or enforcement investigation process with the Gambling Commission have experienced, the Gambling Commission can be very unforgiving in its approach, 20/20 hindsight is applied and it is rare that such a process leaves a licensee unscathed. Many licensees have found themselves subject to criticism, and in some cases may have agreed a regulatory settlement, in cases where theirs and the Gambling Commission’s view about some failings identified are not perfectly aligned. Following a notification under this proposed requirement, licensees might be forgiven for being concerned about how any Gambling Commission investigation will be conducted and any consequences of that investigation, particularly given the risk of unintentional bias and the imbalance of power between the regulator and its licensees.

Practical implementation: expectation versus reality

The Gambling Commission states in the Consultation that:

its “current view is that licensees should notify when they become aware that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide”;
it proposes a specific reporting requirement that “would impose a requirement on gambling licensees to notify the Commission if they become aware that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide”;
that licensees “would only be able to notify us that a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide if they themselves are aware of this, either through direct contact or other means, such as media reports”; and
it “would not expect licensees to actively investigate or verify the information in order to make such disclosures – rather, would expect licensees to notify the Commission if they become aware of a death by suicide of any person who has gambled with them (for example, through media reports or notification from relatives of the deceased).”

However, the draft wording of the proposed license condition is ambiguous and goes further than the Gambling Commission’s stated intention in the Consultation. It not only refers to actual knowledge but also to a much broader “reasonable cause to suspect”. This risks imposing a disproportionate regulatory burden on licensees. What amounts to reasonable suspicion will almost certainly be interpreted differently and will ultimately be determined by the Gambling Commission subjectively and in hindsight. Further, the breach of a licence condition amounts to a criminal offence under the 2005 Act, and can lead to various regulatory sanctions, including revocation and the imposition of a financial penalty. Licensees are therefore likely to take a precautionary approach when considering whether a notification is required.

Unlike actual knowledge, which is precise and unambiguous, a licensee’s reasonable cause to suspect that a customer who has gambled with it has died by suicide could be considered to arise in various ways, for example: (1) if they are informed by a customer that they are having suicidal thoughts following which all customer contact ceases without any known explanation or reason; (2) if public information about an individual who has died by suicide exists; or (3) if a licensee is informed that a customer who has self-excluded with them has died, but the cause of death is unknown. To avoid criticism in hindsight from the Gambling Commission about what amounted to reasonable cause to suspect, licensees will inevitably carry out an active investigation or verification exercise. The draft provision therefore appears to conflict with the Gambling Commission’s stated position in the Consultation that an active investigation is not required and this imposes a disproportionate burden on licensees.

This complication is most likely caused by ambiguous drafting, rather than by a malicious desire by the Gambling Commission to extend the reach of the draft provision. However, to ensure clarity of understanding, mitigate the risk of inconsistent interpretation by the Gambling Commission, and prevent the unreasonable or disproportionate use of the draft provision in the future, the Gambling Commission should be encouraged to address this ambiguity. Clarity could easily be achieved either by including additional wording in the draft provision that expressly states that active investigation or verification by licensees is not required, or by amending the draft provision entirely. Alternative and more appropriate wording that will retain the Gambling Commission’s desired objective might be:

“The licensee must notify the Commission, as soon as reasonably practicable, if it knows that a person who has gambled with it has died, and knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that the person has died by suicide.”

Please get in touch with us if you would like assistance with any compliance or enforcement matters.

27Apr

Long-Awaited Gambling White Paper Published

27th April 2023 Harris Hagan 281

The long-awaited High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age (the “White Paper”) has been published today, nearly 30 months after the review of the Gambling Act 2005 terms of reference and call for evidence (the “Gambling Review”) was published on 8 December 2020.

The Gambling Review had the following objectives:

Examine whether changes are needed to the system of gambling regulation in Great Britain to reflect changes to the gambling landscape since 2005, particularly due to technological advances;
Ensure there is an appropriate balance between consumer freedoms and choice on the one hand, and prevention of harm to vulnerable groups and wider communities on the other; and
Make sure customers are suitably protected whenever and wherever they are gambling, and that there is an equitable approach to the regulation of the online and the land-based industries.

Six Gambling Ministers, three Prime Ministers, two Monarchs, 16,000 responses, several leaks, a World Cup and a global pandemic later, we welcome the publication of the White Paper which brings at least the beginnings of some certainty and direction to the industry about Government plans to ensure our gambling laws are “fit for the digital age” and on important issues such as affordability, where speculation (often of the worst-case variety) and uncertainty has been casting a long shadow over the future of the industry. It also brings substantial and meaningful reforms intended to make gambling safer, “to protect vulnerable users in smartphone era”. These include the proposed introduction of a mandatory levy on gambling companies (for spending on research, education and treatment of problem gambling), but will undoubtedly not go far enough to meet the expectations of gambling reform campaigners.

In today’s announcement, Culture Secretary Lucy Frazer outlined a comprehensive package of new measures to achieve the Government’s objectives following the Gambling Review, and captured the balance between consumer freedoms and protection of harm in her Ministerial Foreword to the White Paper as follows:

“Millions of us enjoy gambling every year and most suffer no ill effects, so state intervention must be targeted to prevent addictive and harmful gambling. Adults who choose to spend their money on gambling are free to do so, and we should not inhibit the development of a sustainable and properly regulated industry which pays taxes and provides employment to service that demand. What we will not permit is for operators to place commercial objectives ahead of customer wellbeing so that vulnerable people are exploited.”

The White Paper is 268 pages long and has six chapters.

The key proposed reforms are:

A statutory gambling levy to fund treatment services and research, including through the NHS, the rate of which will be subject to further DCMS consultation. The DCMS consultation will consider the differing association of different sectors of the industry with harm and/or their differing fixed costs, and will commence with design and scope in Summer 2023.
New default stake limits for online slots games that will be between £2 and £15 per spin, with greater protections for 18-24 year olds (options of £2 or £4 or based on individual risk), all subject to DCMS consultation in Summer 2023.
The Gambling Commission will consult in Summer 2023 on two forms of financial risk checks. It is proposed that at a £125 net loss within a month or £500 within a year, there will be background checks for financial vulnerability, such as County Court Judgments. It is proposed that at higher levels of spend, engaging proposed thresholds of £1,000 net loss within 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days, there will be more detailed consideration of a customer’s financial position. It is proposed these triggers will be halved for those aged 18 to 24. The Government estimates that “only about three percent of the highest spending accounts will have more detailed checks”. The intention is that these checks will be “frictionless” with further information only being required from customers as a last resort. Operators will be required to respond appropriately to any identified risks on a case-by-case basis, but “it is not the intent that government or the Gambling Commission should set a blanket rule on how much of their income adults should be able to spend on gambling”.
The Gambling Commission intends to consult on mandating participation in a cross-operator harm prevention system based on data sharing.

Extra powers for the Gambling Commission to enable it to tackle black market operators through court orders and work with internet service providers (ISPs) to take down and block illegal gambling sites. Proposed reform of the fee structure for the Gambling Commission “to give it greater flexibility to respond to any emerging risks and challenges posed by the industry”. The Culture Secretary envisages a “beefed up, better funded and more proactive Gambling Commission”.
Rules to prevent bonus offers from harming vulnerable people – for example, the Gambling Commission will be looking in 2023 at how free bets or spins are constructed and targeted to stop them from being harmful.
A review by the Gambling Commission in Spring/Summer 2023 of online game design rules to look at limiting speed of play and other characteristics which exacerbate risks.
A new industry ombudsman to deal with disputes and rule on redress where a customer suffers losses due to an operator failing in their player protection duties, to be accepting complaints within a year.
A review of the current horserace betting levy to make certain racing continues to thrive.
Casinos of all sizes will be permitted to offer sports betting in addition to other gambling activities.
Government will take steps to reallocate unused 2005 Act casino licences to other local authorities.
Where 1968 Act casinos meet the requirements of a 2005 Act Small casino, including for size and non-gambling space, they will be eligible for the same gaming machine allowance. A single gaming machine-to-table ratio of 5:1 will apply to Large and Small 2005 Act casinos and these larger 1968 Act casinos, and they will be entitled to the same maximum 80 machine allowance as Small casinos. Smaller casinos will benefit from more machines on a pro rata basis commensurate with their size and non-gambling space, subject to the same table-to-machine ratios and other conditions. DCMS to consult in Summer 2023.
Government will legislate, when Parliamentary time allows, so that the small number of high-end casinos operating in the internationally competitive market will be able to offer credit to international visitors who have undergone stringent checks set out by the Gambling Commission.
DCMS will work with the Gambling Commission to develop specific consultation options for cashless payments in the land-based sectors, including the player protections that would be required before the prohibition is removed. Consultation in Summer 2023.
Government will adjust the 80/20 ratio which restricts the balance of Category B and C/D machines in bingo and arcade venues to 50/50, to ensure that businesses can offer customer choice and flexibility while maintaining a balanced offer of gambling products. DCMS consultation in Summer 2023.
Government is supportive of trials of linked gaming machines, where prizes could accrue across a community of machines, in venues other than casinos (where they are already permitted). This is subject to further work to assess the conditions and how to limit gambling harm, and subject to Parliamentary time to legislate.

The White Paper is a Government policy document which sets out proposals for future gambling legislation and regulation. The White Paper does not include a draft Bill, because the proposed reforms (with just a few exceptions) do not require primary legislation. This is consistent with our long-held view that the Government and the Gambling Commission already have wide-ranging and extensive powers under the Gambling Act 2005, that most reforms can therefore be achieved through secondary legislation and regulation, and that the Government has far more important legislative priorities in the present socio-economic climate.

As the previous Gambling Minister, Paul Scully MP, said in his speech to the Betting and Gaming Council on 26 January 2023:

“The White Paper is not the final word on gambling reform. It will be followed by consultations led by both DCMS and the Gambling Commission. I want the industry to stay engaged as policies are refined, finalised, and implemented.”

We urge the industry to heed that imperative. Our initial review suggests that the White Paper is arguably as balanced as the industry could reasonably have expected, with important and overdue liberalisations for the land-based industry, and that it should engage with Government and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the proposed reforms are delivered in a timely, sensible and, critically, workable way. Vigorous engagement will certainly be required in relation to the “affordability” proposals given their importance and complexity. The Government has set out an ambitious timeline for itself and the Gambling Commission in the White Paper and gambling reform campaigners have already made clear their intention to “hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure these measures are implemented swiftly”. So perhaps at least one area of consensus will emerge as secondary legislation and regulation is refined, finalised, and implemented, but do not expect many more as the debate about gambling reform intensifies.

We will continue to review the White Paper in more detail and will be publishing our insights “imminently” and reporting on material developments over the coming weeks and months.

Meantime, watch today’s announcement in the House of Commons made by the Culture Secretary, the Rt Hon Lucy Frazer KC MP:

Download the White Paper

22Mar

Getting it right: how to comply with the “strong appeal” test when using sports personalities to advertise sports betting

22nd March 2023 Gemma Boore 312

Nearly half a year has passed since the introduction of the “strong appeal” test for gambling advertisements in the United Kingdom, and it has been a whirlwind of a six months for sport:

the Rugby League Men’s and Women’s World Cups took place in October and November 2022 after being postponed due to Covid-19 and the Cricket ICC World T20 (Men)’s event was hosted in Australia at the same time;

the FIFA World Cup took the world by storm between November and December 2022; and

2023 has not disappointed yet either – sports fans have been treated to numerous events in Q1 including the Tennis Australian Open, the Rugby Six Nations and the Cricket ICC World T20 (Women)’s event.

For betting operators, the resurgence of live sports presents a rich (and well overdue) opportunity to re-engage with existing and attract new customers. However, regulatory restrictions on advertising gambling products in Great Britain have tightened in recent years and operators must be mindful not to fall foul of current advertising rules including the new “strong appeal” test, which came into force on 1 October 2022.

In this article, we explain the strong appeal test, consider the impact of recent rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) concerning its implementation, and share our top tips for gambling operators, marketing agencies and affiliates that want to ensure they comply with the strong appeal test when advertising sports betting to UK customers.

The strong appeal test – how does it work?

The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (the “CAP Code”) and the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (the “BCAP Code”) (collectively, the “UK Advertising Codes”) set out the rules relating to marketing communications in broadcast and non-broadcast media in the UK.

Parts 16 of the CAP Code and 17 of the BCAP Code set out rules bespoke to gambling advertisements. In particular, since 1 October 2022, each section has contained the following requirement (in rules 16.3.12 and 17.4.5 respectively):

“Advertisements for gambling must not be likely to be of strong appeal to children or young persons, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture.

They must not include a person or character whose example is likely to be followed by those aged under 18 years or who has a strong appeal to those aged under 18.

Where appropriate steps have been taken to limit the potential for an advertisement to appeal strongly to under-18s, this rule does not prevent the advertising of gambling products associated with activities that are themselves of strong appeal to under-18s (for instance, certain sports or playing video games).”

These ‘strong appeal’ tests effectively prohibit content (including imagery, themes etc.) that has a strong level of appeal to under-18s regardless of how it is viewed by adults. It extends to the use of celebrities (including footballers) to promote sports betting or convey responsible gambling messaging.

The new strong appeal tests replace the ‘particular appeal’ test in the previous edition of the UK Advertising Codes, which generally allowed marketing communications regarding gambling to feature celebrities (including footballers) who were well known to under-18s, provided the vast majority of their fans were adults. A typical barometer used was the proportion of the celebrity or footballer’s fans on social media: if 25% or less of their fans and followers were under 18, it was generally accepted that they did not have a particular appeal to children and could therefore feature. The new “strong appeal” tests are much stricter as they focus only on whether there is strong appeal to children – appeal to adults is irrelevant.

The guidance published by CAP and BCAP relating to the strong appeal tests: “Gambling and lotteries guidance: protecting under-18s” Advertising Guidance (non-broadcast and broadcast) (the “Guidance”) notes that “determining the likely appeal of a marketing communication is not always straightforward and is, to an extent, subjective… …Advertising approaches or pieces of creative content of ‘strong’ appeal to under-18s can take a variety of forms”.

The Guidance goes on to give several examples of approaches that are likely to be problematic, two of which are of particular relevance to sports betting advertisements:

Content linked to activities that are very popular or common among younger people (both in terms of their direct participation and viewing)

In its Guidance, the ASA confirms that it considers certain subjects and activities to be of inherently strong appeal to under-18s and gambling advertisements relating to these subjects and activities will be prohibited unless they fall under one of the exemptions. Two examples of sports with strong appeal are cited in the Guidance: football and eSports.

Other national sports such as cricket and rugby are also discussed and it is noted that by comparison, these sports have low-to-moderate levels of participation and interest among under-18s. However, the national teams in these sports attract more media interest and are more likely to be considered of inherent strong appeal. Conversely, sports such as horseracing, greyhound racing, darts, snooker, boxing, motorsports and golf are noted to be more adult-orientated and unlikely to be of inherent strong appeal.

In order to advertise betting opportunities concerning sports that strongly appeal to under-18s, gambling operators must ensure that their product falls within one of the exemptions cited in the Guidance, five of which are of relevance to sports betting:

Exemption A: Products in general terms. This permits betting advertisements to promote licensed products in general terms. The Guidance notes that the rules focus principally on imagery, themes and characters that are of strong appeal to under-18s. They are not intended to restrict simple text or audio references to sports, teams or individuals generally held to be popular with under-18s.

Example: An advertisement stating that bets are available on the outcome of a particular football or eSports match would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption A.

Exemption B: Generic descriptions. This permits generic depictions of or references to the subject of the licensed product. The Guidance notes that the generic depictions must be suitable and not, of themselves, likely to appeal strongly to under-18s.

Example: An advertisement using suitable characters or CGI to depict a sport held to be of strong appeal to under-18s (e.g. football or eSports) or generic items or places associated with the sport (e.g. a ball, goal post, trophy, or stadium) would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption B provided that the depictions are not stylised to appeal strongly to under-18s (e.g. cartoons).

Exemption C: Logos and other identifiers. This permits the use of logos and other identifiers for the subject of a betting activity.

Example: An advertisement showing that bets are available on the outcome of a particular match, tournament or other event that includes the logo for the event or the teams playing in it would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption C.

Exemption D: Branding. This permits material relating specifically to an advertiser’s brand identity. The Guidance notes that this exemption does not extend to brand characters, which will need to be assessed under the strong appeal test for persons and characters (discussed below).

Example: An advertisement including the brand or livery of the operator advertising the bet (e.g. an advertisement featuring the logo of Mr Green in green and white colours) would not be prohibited as this falls within Exemption D. However, the use of the character “Mr Green” would need to be assessed separately to see whether it is of strong appeal to under-18s.

Exemption F: Certain persons and characters. This permits the use of persons or characters associated with subjects of strong appeal (e.g. football and eSports) provided marketers are satisfied that they are not, in and of themselves, of strong appeal to under-18s. Again, this will be assessed separately under the strong appeal test for persons and characters.

Example: An advertisement featuring a football player would not be prohibited as this falls under Exemption F provided the football player is not themselves of strong appeal to under-18s. See below for further discussion.

2. Persons and characters who have a strong appeal to under-18s

As set out above, the UK Advertising Codes require that gambling advertisements must not feature any person or character who has a strong appeal to those aged under 18.

Persons and characters generally fall into one of five categories: (a) personalities/celebrities, (b) brand ambassadors, (c) licensed characters (e.g. a movie or video game character), (d) characters played by actors; and (e) brand-generated characters (e.g. characters created by the advertiser).

The ASA makes its assessment of appeal of these persons and characters to under-18s based both on (i) their appearance and behaviour in the advertisement, and (ii) their profile and relevance outside the advertisement for personalities, brand ambassadors and licensed characters (but not characters played by actors and brand-generated characters as these have no external profile).

In determining the extent of a person’s appeal to under-18s, advertisers are encouraged to use as many insights and sources of data as they can. Having determined what a person or character is known for (in terms of activities, roles or associations) marketers can then identify information and data sources that provide insights on the likely level of a person or character’s appeal to under-18s.

For example:

Profiles outside the context of the advertisement. In determining whether a person or character is likely to appeal strongly to under-18s on the basis of their profile, the ASA will consider factors such as: (a) whether they have obvious and direct links to activities for, or highly popular with, under-18s; (b) the general audience for, and popularity of, what the person or character is known for; and (c) the likelihood that their inclusion in an advertisement will strongly attract the attention or interest of under-18s.

Example: Persons and characters with obvious and direct links to under-18s should be avoided (e.g. current or recent children’s TV personalities, popstars associated with youth culture, licensed characters from popular board games and influencers that focus on youth-related themes).

If a person or character does not have an obvious and direct link to under-18s that would render them of ‘strong’ appeal, advertisers must still assess their likely level of appeal. Social and other media audience demographics are an important and quantitative source of data.

Example: Football players in national or other well-known teams such as Manchester United may be viewed in an aspirational or influential way among under-18s and should be avoided. The same principle applies in relation to leading sportspeople in other sports and those involved in World Cups or other high-profile tournaments. Players in lower-level teams and other individuals involved in sports (e.g. managers) are more likely to be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the individuals have a negligible following of under-18s on social media and/or there is a negligible proportion of under-18s in the audience (either for their sport or other programmes in which they feature).

The ASA notes that more weight should be attached to present and recent activities. Personalities whose appeal has shifted away from under-18s over time are less likely to fail the strong appeal test.

Example: An individual that played in a national sports team in 2002, such as David Beckham, is less likely to appeal to under-18s now compared to an individual that played in a national sports team in 2022, such as Raheem Sterling.

Appearance and behaviour within the advertisement. The second part of the ASA’s assessment of ‘strong’ appeal for persons and characters is how they appear and behave in advertisements.

Marketers must avoid featuring behaviour that is likely to strongly appeal to under-18s. This includes youth culture themes (e.g. disregard for authority, rebelliousness, immature adolescent or childish behaviour and participation in practical jokes), speech and language (e.g. sounding like a child or using slang terms or text abbreviations), humour (e.g. slapstick or juvenile jokes) and other behaviour (e.g. dancing, singing or reciting rhymes).

Example: A person that is behaving in a manner associated with under-18s (such as Simon Bird from The Inbetweeners) is more likely to appeal to under-18s.

In addition, persons and characters played by actors must not be presented in a way that renders them likely to be of ‘strong’ appeal to under-18s. They should not wear clothing, accessories, jewellery, body art, piercings or hair styles that are obviously associated with a current trend or style popular with under-18s.

Example: A person that is wearing clothing associated with teenagers (e.g. a crop top, oversized hoodie, baggy jeans or a bucket cap) should typically be avoided.

Finally, characters that are colourful or have exaggerated features are more likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s and this includes ‘cuddly’ or ‘cute’ animals. Licensed characters (for example, from games and movies) will be assessed based on the popularity of the game or movie with under-18s.

Example: Characters with similarities to soft toys and exaggerated features such as enlarged eyes should typically be avoided. Characters related to stories or themes that are popular among children like pirates, princesses, superheroes, robots and fairy tale characters should also be avoided unless they are from traditional fairy tales, not stylised with exaggerated features and are not otherwise associated with childhood (e.g. characters such as Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny are cited in the Guidance as being associated with childhood and should therefore be avoided).

There is a helpful checklist at the beginning of the Guidance that summarises the risk-based scenarios of featuring different types of persons in gambling advertisements:

High risk	o Anyone with direct connections to under-18s through their role like children’s TV presenters or film stars o Anyone with a significant under-18 following on social media o UK footballers who play for top clubs, UK national teams or in high-profile competitions – this would apply also to managers o Non-UK ‘star’ footballers, particularly those at top European clubs – this would apply also to managers o Other prominent sportspeople involved in sports like cricket, tennis and rugby that, at the highest levels, have a significant national profile o Leading eSports players

Moderate risk	o Footballers from teams outside the top-flight will be assessed on the basis of their social and other media profile o Footballers with lower profiles at top Euro/world clubs might be acceptable o Retired footballers who have moved into punditry/commentary will be assessed on the basis of their social and other media profile o Other eSports players dependent on their social media and general profile o Sportspeople involved in clearly adult-oriented sports who are notable ‘stars’ with significant social media and general profiles making them well-known to under-18s o A small but notable following of under-18s on social media will be considered alongside the personality’s general profile and could contribute to an ASA decision to categorise the individual as being of ‘strong’ appeal

Low risk	o Footballers at lower league and non-league clubs o Footballers at lesser Euro/world clubs o A long-retired footballer now known for punditry/commentary o Sportspeople involved in sports like cricket, tennis and rugby that don’t have a significant role in the sport or general profile o Sportspeople involved in clearly adult-oriented sports (e.g. darts, snooker, golf, horseracing, and motorsports)

Exception for narrowly targeted advertising

There is one key exception to the strong appeal rules: they do not apply in media where under-18s can, for all intents and purposes, be entirely excluded from the audience.

Principally, this applies in circumstances where the marketer can robustly age-verify the potential recipients of the advertisement as being 18 or older such as:

direct mail, email and SMS communications sent to recipients who have been verified as being 18 or older;
areas of websites and applications that can only be viewed/accessed those who have been verified as 18 or older on sign-up; and
online platforms (such as social networks or publications) that provide advertisers with functionality enabling them to target users that have been age-verified to a very high degree of accuracy.

In the event of challenge, the ASA expects advertisers to provide evidence to demonstrate that the systems used to identify audiences from which under-18s are, for all intents and purposes, excluded are robust. Gambling Commission licensed websites are cited as a good example of a media environment where under-18s are extremely unlikely to form part of the audience. Other sources of marketing data may also be acceptable where robust means of age verifications have been employed (e.g. payment data or credit checking). More general marketing data, such as that inferred from user behaviour, is unlikely to be sufficient.

Recent ASA rulings – what do they tell us?

To date, there have been three ASA rulings regarding the strong appeal tests, each of which provides helpful context – particularly in relation to footballers who, as noted as above, can be potentially low, medium or high-risk depending on the individual.

Philippe Coutinho, Jesse Lingard and Kalidou Koulibaly – of strong appeal

In December 2022, the ASA upheld a complaint for a promoted Tweet featuring the text “Can these big summer signings make the question marks over their performances go away?” and an embedded video that featured three current Premier League footballers: Philippe Coutinho, Jesse Lingard and Kalidou Koulibaly, set against a background of question marks.

The advertiser argued that although football and topflight footballers could strongly appeal to under-18s, targeting and age-gating tools had been used to remove under-18s from the advertisement’s audience. This included self-verification by the audience and targeting techniques designed to ensure the advertisement would only reach users aged 25 or over.

The ASA did not accept these arguments and upheld the complaint. In its view, both football and the players used (who were Premier League and international footballers at the time) were likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s; and the targeting techniques were not sufficiently robust to exclude under-18s from the audience with the highest level of accuracy, as required.

Peter Crouch and Micah Richards – not of strong appeal

In February 2023, the ASA did not uphold two complaints regarding advertisements featuring retired footballers.

The first complaint concerned two TV advertisements featuring Peter Crouch conducting a choir and celebrating (amongst other activities) with the text “COMPLETELY FREE BET BUILDER ON ALL ENGLAND GAMES”. During the advertisement, a voice-over was heard saying, “You hear that? That’s the sound of Christmas and the world cup colliding. So come on all ye faithful, let’s be having ya. Glory to the king of headbutts. Knit those kits. Cross those sprouts. Stuff those turkeys. And attack those carols. Cause from this day we’ll forever ask where were you in twenty-two.”

The second complaint concerned a promoted Tweet featuring the text “Club football returns following the international break… Get £20 IN FREE BETS when you place a £5 bet!” and an image of Micah Richards.

Both Crouch and Richards had retired in 2019 and the ASA took a pragmatic approach that although this meant “not long retired”, the teams and the games in which the players featured during the later years of their career (e.g. Burnley and Stoke City for Crouch, and Aston Villa for Richards) meant that they were unlikely still to be of strong appeal to under-18s. The players were therefore assessed on the basis of their social and other media profiles:

Peter Crouch
Crouch did not have public accounts on TikTok, Facebook or Twitch at the time the advertisements were broadcast, and his Instagram account had not been updated since 2014. He did have a public account on Twitter that, at the time the advertisements were seen, had almost 1.5 million followers but demographic data from September to December 2022 showed that 0.46% of his followers were aged 13-17 years. Even though Twitter is a media environment where users self-verify, the ASA accepted this as evidence that a very small number of Crouch’s followers on Twitter were aged under 18.

The ASA further noted that the TV programmes in which Crouch appeared (such as BT Sport, the documentary ‘Save Our Beautiful Game’ and Crouch’s own TV shows, ‘Peter Crouch: Save Our Summer’ and ‘Crouchy’s Year Late Euros’) and his podcasts were primarily aimed at adult audiences and not of strong appeal to children. The exception being ‘The Masked Singer’ in which Crouch appeared as a panellist. The ASA noted this to be a family entertainment programme and of appeal to children. However, Crouch appeared as one of four panellists, the programme was of broad demographic appeal and there was no evidence that his role in the programme had led to him being viewed in an aspirational or influential way by under-18s. Accordingly, the ASA concluded that Crouch’s appearance in this programme was unlikely to make him of strong appeal to under-18s.
Micah Richards
Richards did not have active public accounts on YouTube, TikTok or Twitch and audience demographics on Instagram and Twitter showed that: 0.07% of Richards’ Instagram followers were aged 0-16 years and 2.19% were aged 17-19 years; and 0.04% of his Twitter followers were aged 0-16 years and 2.15% were aged 17-19 years. Again, the ASA accepted that this data demonstrated that his social media profile was unlikely to make Richards of strong appeal to under-18s.

In terms of TV programmes, the ASA noted that Richards was a regular and well-known pundit on Match of the Day but BARB data in the lead up to the advertisement confirmed that a significant number of children had not watched live. The regulator also noted that Richards appeared as a pundit on Sky’s live coverage of Premier League matches which would be of strong appeal to under-18s, but that the strong appeal did not extend to the pundit-based discussion that took place around the game. Accordingly, Richards’ appearance in this context would be unlikely to hold strong appeal to under-18s.

Aside from his role as a football pundit, Richards had appeared on ‘A League of their Own’ and ‘Gogglebox’. Both programmes were scheduled post 9pm and primarily aimed at an adult audience.

In addition, Richards appeared on a CBBC programme ‘Football Academy’, which was considered likely to be of strong appeal to under-18s but the episode had not aired at the time the advertisement was seen. The ASA noted that if Richards had appeared regularly and prominently on such a programme, it was likely he would have been considered to have strong appeal to under-18s.

Top Tips

Below are our key takeaways for operators, marketing agencies and affiliates that want to comply with the strong appeal rules when advertising sports betting in the UK.

Be careful of using anybody in the advertisement that has an active presence on YouTube, TikTok or Twitch. These platforms are known to have particular appeal to under-18s. Although recent rulings do not expressly state that an active account on these platforms would denote someone as having strong appeal, it is notable that neither Crouch nor Richards had a presence on these platforms.

Do not assume that retired players will automatically fall outside the strong appeal category.Consideration should be taken of the individual’s complete career history including the time since they played topflight sport, when they stopped playing completely, and whether they played for a national team during their career, as well as recent appearances on television and other media. The sport that was played is also relevant: football and eSports are highest risk, whereas adult-orientated sports such as darts, snooker, golf, horseracing, and motorsports carry a much lower risk and the use of current or more recently retired players in these sports may be acceptable.

Do not automatically exclude football pundits. Even recent appearances as a football pundit covering football matches that are of strong appeal to under-18s, do not automatically mean that the individual will be of strong appeal themselves. Consideration should be taken of their overall appeal to under-18s.

Be cautious of links with children’s or family entertainment programmes, but do not assume this precludes all individuals featuring in them. Although an appearance in the television show that is aimed at children or is otherwise of strong appeal to under-18s is relevant and should carefully be considered, this will not automatically preclude an individual from appearing in a gambling advertisement provided the advertiser can demonstrate this did not alter the individual’s appeal to under-18s as a result.

Make use of available, verifiable data regarding social media and other followings. Be prepared to defend selections by use of robust data including individual’s social media followings and audience demographics for other media appearances. The ASA’s recent rulings on the strong appeal test are lengthy by usual standards and it is clear significant data was considered. Being able to produce relevant data is going to be vital in cases like this going forward.

Keep the position under review. Where advertisements appear on multiple occasions and/or an individual is used to represent a brand on an ongoing basis (e.g. as a brand ambassador), evidence that the individual does not strongly appeal to under-18s should be kept under regular review. An individual that did not appeal strongly to under-18s yesterday may do so today if they have featured in a new children’s or reality TV show, for example. To mitigate this, consider adding restrictive covenants to commercial agreements with brand ambassadors and others used in gambling advertisements, restricting them from participating in other programmes or media that appeals strongly to under-18s before or during the period that an advertisement is broadcast.

Review commercial scripts to ensure advertisements do not feature characters that appear or behave in a way that is likely to strongly appeal to under-18s. Avoid behaviour, speech / language and humour that is associated with youth culture. Ensure the individuals are dressed in an adult manner and do not feature other characters (e.g. cartoons or licensed characters) in the advertisement that may strongly appeal to under-18s.

If you are not satisfied that you can demonstrate that the advertisement is unlikely to appeal strongly to under-18s, exclude under-18s from the audience. It is imperative that reliable age-gating mechanisms are utilised. These may include validation by payment data and credit checking, but do not extend to self-verification or the use of data inferred by user behaviour.

Summary

This article has explained the strong appeal test, considered the impact of recent rulings by the ASA concerning its implementation and outlined key takeaways for gambling operators, marketing agencies and affiliates that want to ensure they comply with the strong appeal test when advertising sports betting to UK customers.

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

19Jan

The time for reflection?

19th January 2023 David Whyte 279

Harris Hagan and Regulus Partners have set out over the course of four articles our concerns about the Gambling Commission’s (the “Commission”) consultation (the “Consultation”) on the proposed Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators (the “Guidance”). Of these many concerns, the principal one is that the Guidance is so obviously bad regulation. It may have been inspired by noble intentions, but a combination of loose drafting, weak evidence, legislative incompatibility and a failure to fully and adequately consider the consequences threatens to result in a costly, ineffective and incoherent regime. All of these issues can relatively easily be avoided if the Commission revisits the Guidance in the light of responses to the Consultation.

Drafting

Putting aside the fact that it is inappropriate, and arguably ultra vires, for the Commission to introduce formal requirements through guidance, the drafting of the Guidance is hopelessly ambiguous; key terms are either undefined or so highly generalised as to be meaningless. This creates scope for subjectivity, wildly divergent interpretation, market distortion and confusion about what constitutes compliance. Licensees are required, for example, to consider both “young adults” and “older adults” as vulnerable, but without any explanation as to when one stops being ‘young’, or starts being ‘older’. A customer using “multiple products” is said to be displaying an “indicator of harm or potential harm”, but the Guidance is silent on what a ‘product’ is, or what timeframe should be considered; is someone whose only gambling consists of annual punts on the Grand National and the FA Cup Final really exhibiting potentially harmful behaviour?

There is a lack of clarity as to what the Commission considers to be a “strong indicator of harm” in the Guidance. In the Consultation the Commission acknowledges previous concerns raised about this, and states that it “does not consider it appropriate at this time to set requirements which would remove the discretion or ability on the part of operators to tailor processes to their businesses and customers”. There is no easy way of prescribing precisely what may be a “strong indicator of harm”, however, if the Commission wishes to permit discretion, it could assist licensees by explaining to them how it will determine, during compliance assessments or enforcement action, what amounts to a “strong indicator of harm” so that they are appropriately informed when applying that discretion.

The Guidance 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. There is a clear distinction between “identifying harm or potential harm” and identifying customers “that may be at risk of harm”. In consequence, licensees are required to demonstrate impacts on behaviour, even where the customer is gambling without issues. This risks unjustifiably trampling on consumer autonomy, a dangerous precedent in regulation. It also makes it almost impossible for licensees to justify not conducting a safer gambling interaction based on either “indicators of harm”, “vulnerability” or both: a combination of the “indicators” applying to anyone who gambles.

Process

The second big problem is one of process. Whereas the Gambling Act 2005 recognises vulnerability as an exceptional state applicable to people unable to make properly informed or adult decisions, the Guidance conceives vulnerability to harm as being universal, with consumers divided between the victims and the vulnerable. The Commission’s revisionism has enormous implications for the functioning of the market and the interests of consumers as well as parliamentary sovereignty. It is not the Commission’s role to twist the law in order to accommodate moral inclination and the Consultation itself raises questions of process with certain aspects of the Guidance seemingly inviolate.

Neither the Consultation, nor the Guidance takes account of the practicability of the measures required, the cost implications, or the potential for negative unintended consequences.

The Guidance offers few clues as to what specific actions licensees should take in response to “indicators” and proposes a distinction between what operators ‘should’ do and what they ‘must’ do: a distinction that is likely to elude most compliance officers, as well as the Commission’s own enforcement officials.

Evidence

Very little evidence is presented by the Commission to explain the basis for selection of the “indicators”, and much of what is provided is highly selective and in some cases misleading: the classification of in-play betting as an “indicator” is an obvious example of this. The effect is that the regime appears arbitrary and deprives licensees who attempt to understand it of important context: understanding the specific basis for classifying something as an “indicator” would mean licensees are better placed to respond appropriately and to the benefit of consumers.

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 the more alarming aspects is the characterisation of vulnerability in the Guidance based on broad generalisations about age (‘young’ as well as ‘older’ adults), disability (‘poor physical or mental health’) or educational attainment (‘poor literacy or numeracy skills’ and ‘knowledge’). This, along with the suggestion in the Guidance that licensees should harvest medical information about their customers, could be interpreted as unfairly discriminatory and introduces issues of privacy and data protection, with licensees encouraged to harvest and store highly sensitive information about a customer’s health or personal life. 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.

Timing

The Social Responsibility Code (which obliges licensees to take into account the Guidance) will be implemented in full from 12 February 2023, less than three weeks after the Consultation closes. This is an indecently short period for the Commission to weigh opinion and evidence and leaves licensees with little time to align safer gambling systems to the new rules. To date, it appears that very little, if any, effort has been made to understand the views of gambling consumers, or to consider the negative unintended consequences that seem almost certain to arise for them.

As the Commission has itself recently noted, many operators are “moving in the right direction and are looking to move their customers away from behaviours that present a higher risk to licensing objectives.” Whilst the Commission is admirably seeking to ensure that customers are not harmed from gambling, it is vitally important that its expectations are clear and evidence based if that positive progress is to continue. In its current form, the Guidance does not deliver in those areas: this is not only unfair on licensees, it is dangerous from a consumer protection perspective. In recent times the Commission’s actions have indicated a willingness to improve its engagement with licensees. This is a very positive change. Rather than rush to implement the Guidance, the Commission would be best served to consider all consultation responses, and revisit the Guidance, even if this means a delay.

Conclusion

There is common sense at the heart of the Guidance; but common sense tends to be context dependent and often resists codification. The Commission’s approach reflects a philosophy of market regulation by rules alone; something that is guaranteed to result in bad regulation and negative outcomes for consumers. Now is the time for reflection.

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

17Jan

Is in-play betting really an ‘indicator of harm’?

17th January 2023 David Whyte 295

The Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) is currently consulting (the “Consultation”) on the proposed Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators (the “Guidance”). While this exercise has not yet attracted the same attention as its 2020 predecessor consultation and call for evidence on remote customer interaction requirements and affordability checks (on remote customer interaction and affordability checks) it is potentially every bit as significant for licensees and consumers. In this, the fourth in a series of articles, Regulus Partners and Harris Hagan examine one specific detail of the Guidance – its classification of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm” – and consider what insights it holds for the Commission’s approach to evidence-based policy-making.

The decision to single out in-play betting participation, from all the other forms of online gambling, as a behaviour that might be an “indicator of harm” should strike even the most casual reader of the Guidance as odd. The seemingly arbitrary nature of the classification is reinforced by an absence of supporting evidence. Instead, we are offered a rather banal explanation that: “people who bet in-play may place a higher number of bets in a shorter time period than people who bet in other ways, as in-play betting offers more opportunities to bet”. It adds that: “some studies have shown that placing a high number of in-play bets can be an indication that a customer is at an increased risk of harm from gambling”; but the studies themselves are not cited.

In search of enlightenment, Regulus Partners submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain the missing evidence. This turned out to constitute one blog article, one journal paper and a selection of results from the Commission’s 2016 Telephone Survey. An examination of these sources raises various questions about the Commission’s capacity for critical analysis. Most importantly, however, the evidence cited does not support the classification of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm”.

In-play betting

Before we delve into the detail, it is worth explaining what an in-play bet is, because the image of turning sports into a slot machine is somewhat misleading. To bet in-play is to place a wager on an event which has already started, but before the result is known; that sounds simple but here are some practical examples. Placing a bet on the final score of a football match during half-time counts as in-play, but during the 100 minutes or so that a typical football match lasts, there are typically ten domestic horse races, even more international and dogs races, and as many virtual betting opportunities that a customer can hope to find. Equally, a tennis match typically lasts 90 minutes and can go on for hours; in Australia in-play betting is not permitted on the internet, so in tennis it is the game rather than the match which is considered to be the unit of play; therefore most ‘in play’ bets on a standard definition become ‘pre-match’ in Australia by applying a common sense workaround. Basketball can be similarly divided up: a two and a half hour match comprises four twelve-minute periods and a lot of stoppage time. Perhaps the most obvious ‘in play’ definition trap is a three-day test match in cricket, substantially all of the betting is necessarily ’in play’ but hardly ever fast-paced. The frequency at which a gambler bets is clearly an important potential marker for harm, but whether or not a bet is in-play is typically a definitional red-herring based upon the length and game-structure of the sport rather than the customers’ betting frequency on a given sport.

The blog

In April 2013, Professor Mark Griffiths of Nottingham Trent University published a blog The ‘In’ Crowd: Is there a relationship between ‘in-play’ betting and problem gambling?’. The article contained no analysis of betting data or harm. It was instead a conjectural piece that considered whether an ability to place football bets more frequently (through in-play) heightened risk of disordered gambling. It argued that the ability to place successive wagers on successive matches, combined with an expansion in television coverage of live football, might increase risk of harm for some people compared with the days when most games kicked off at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon and were not televised live. If anything, the blog appears to suggest that the dispersal of matches across the week (and at different times of the day), which reduced the intervals between football betting days, was the bigger issue.

The blog concluded that: “in-play betting is something that many of us in the problem gambling field are keeping an eye on because it’s taken something that has traditionally been a non-problem form of gambling to something that is more akin to betting on horse racing.” This is significant for two reasons. First, the speculative nature of the commentary is emphasised by Professor Griffiths’ intention to “keep an eye on” in-play betting. His concerns stemmed not from any actual data or observations of in-play betting, but from what some people might theoretically do given the chance to place bets throughout the duration of a football match. Moreover, Professor Griffiths noted the relationship between bet frequency and event frequency needs further empirical investigation and conceded that “ntil more research is forthcoming a definitive answer is currently not available.” Second, he compared in-play betting on football with horserace betting – an activity with consistently low rates of “problem gambling” reported via official prevalence surveys. In short, Professor Griffiths did not suggest that in-play betting was especially risky.

The journal

The second piece of Commission evidence is a study published in the Journal of Gambling Studies in 2015, Demographic, Behavioural and Normative Risk Factors for Gambling Problems Amongst Sports Bettors (Hing et al.). The study features results from an online survey of sports bettors in Australia in 2012. It concluded that: “risk of problem gambling was also found to increase with greater frequency and expenditure on sports betting, greater diversity of gambling involvement, and with more impulsive responses to betting opportunities, including in-play live action betting.”

It would be wrong, however, to read this conclusion as vindication of the Commission’s targeting of in-play betting. First, the study was based on data from Australia, where in-play betting is only permitted by telephone or in person and where on-line in-play bets may therefore only be placed with unlicensed operators. Second, it is based on a relatively small sample of sports bettors (n=639) and the use of an online survey vehicle that “deliberately oversampled to optimise recruitment of adequate numbers of problem and at-risk gamblers”. Third, the data was gathered via a self-report survey rather than actual observation of betting behaviour. It relied on respondent recollections, from the previous 12 months, of the proportion of bets that they placed by different channels, at different times (i.e. the day before the event, the day of the event, during the event) and on different outcome classifications (i.e. final outcome of event, key events such as ‘first goal’ and micro-bets such as ‘next point’ in tennis). The classification by respondents of betting activity in this way for an entire 12-month period would have involved fairly heroic feats of recall.

Most importantly however, the journal paper’s findings do not support the Commission’s categorisation of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm“. The researchers did find an association between the percentage of an individual’s bets placed “during the match” and their Problem Gambling Severity Index (“PGSI”) score – but they also identified a similar association for traditional bets placed within the hour prior to kick-off. Perhaps more significantly, they found that betting in-play on the final outcome of the match was associated with lower PGSI scores than final outcome bets placed before kick-off. Associations between the percentage of bets on “key events” and PGSI score was similar whether the bets were placed before or during the match. It did indicate that regular betting on “micro events” (which can only be made in-play) are associated with higher PGSI scores: but to suggest that this proves the inherent riskiness (or harmfulness) of all forms of in-play betting is at best a profound misreading of the research.

The survey

The final item of evidence is a set of results from the Commission’s Quarterly Telephone Survey in 2016 (the “2016 Survey”). The Commission reported that “27.4% of online gamblers who bet in-play were classified as problem gamblers, compared to 10.9% of all online gamblers and 5.4% of online gamblers who do not bet in-play. 44.1% of online gamblers who bet in-play were classified as at risk of problem gambling compared to 40.4% of all online gamblers and 26.4% of online gamblers who do not bet in-play.”

On the face of it, these findings appear to support the classification of in-play betting as an “indicator of harm”. This however overlooks important considerations of survey methodology and interpretation.

The 2016 Survey typically samples around 4,000 people a year. While this is a reasonable sample size for estimating overall participation in gambling, findings are likely to be less robust when considering specific activities. For example, we calculate that the number of online football bettors in the sample in 2016 was around 160; the number of tennis bettors just 14. The ‘problem gambling’ rates for online gambling cited by the Commission (using the short-form PGSI rather than the full nine-item instrument) were three times higher than those found in the ‘gold-standard’ NHS Health Survey for the same year, something that raises obvious questions about sample bias. Upon original publication of the results in 2016, the Commission noted with suitable circumspection that “due to small base sizes the data presented here should be considered as indicative, and be treated with caution.“

Issues of survey reliability aside, there are a number of issues of interpretation. The Commission appears not to have considered that people who typically bet in-play may, for other reasons, be considered higher risk. For example, young men (a higher risk demographic group) are likely to be over-represented amongst in-play bettors. It seems plausible that a majority of in-play bettors will also bet traditionally; in which case they may be assumed to have broader wagering repertoires than people who only place bets before the start of the event (because they do both). Finally, the analysis is limited to a comparison of “problem gambling” rates between two different types of online sports betting. It provides no comparison between in-play betting and other forms of gambling, which would be necessary to classify it as a uniquely risky product.

Conclusion

The Commission’s decision to classify in-play betting as an “indicator of harm” is, according to its Freedom of Information Act disclosure, based entirely on an assessment carried out in 2016, which stated: “on the balance of the evidence we have reviewed and considered, we have concluded that the current regulatory regime in place for in-play betting is sufficient and further controls are not needed at this time.” It is unclear therefore why a review of precisely the same evidence base in 2022 should arrive at such a different view.

The Commission is correct to point out that short gaps between bets or high-staking after a big win may be risk indicators for some people, but if so, this is true of many other activities and not just in-play betting. Indeed, in-play betting does not appear to be particularly high-risk viewed solely through a lens of bet frequency or rapidity.

Official prevalence surveys have consistently shown that participation in online sports betting is associated with low rates of PGSI and DSM-IV “problem gambling”. As we pointed out in our third article, this is particularly the case where bettors have not participated in other forms of online gambling. We know from Commission data that around one-quarter of online gamblers, and therefore a much higher proportion of online sports bettors, participate in in-play betting. It is not a difficult jump to realise that it is implausible that problem gambling rates could be so low for remote sports betting in total if in-play betting on its own was a significant “indicator of harm”.

There is no inherent logic to consider in-play betting as especially risky. After all, ‘in-play’ simply denotes the fact that the wager is placed after the event has commenced. A final outcome result bet placed five minutes into a match is really no different to the same bet placed five minutes before kick-off. If anything, the bettor has more information on which to make his or her decision. Some bet types, in particular ‘micro-bets’, may indicate elevated risk; but specific bet-choices may be indicative of risk in all forms of gambling: this is not unique to in-play.

Our analysis indicates that the Gambling Commission’s decision to categorise in-play betting as an “indicator of harm” is based on a mis-reading of a very thin and selectively assessed evidence base. Indeed, we would go further, the Commission’s claims are in fact contradicted by the only peer-reviewed study presented as evidence. The Griffiths blog is a cogent article, however it proves nothing and in any case does not support the Commission’s classification, whilst results from the 2016 Survey appear to be at odds with the ‘gold-standard’ Health Survey for that year (and all other years) and are presented without context and in a way that does not allow further checking or analysis. In this article, we have examined, and found wanting, the evidence presented by the Commission in support of just one of the vast number of “indicators of harm” or “vulnerability” that feature in the Guidance. This may in itself be an indicator of a particular vulnerability within the Commission: a susceptibility to believe the worst about the market it is required by law to oversee. It is certainly an indicator that evaluation is difficult and may be subjective, something that would benefit from introspection in any final version of the Guidance.

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

09Jan

Proposed Customer Interaction Guidance: The problems with common sense by decree

9th January 2023 David Whyte 281

The Gambling Commission (the “Commission”) is currently consulting (the “Consultation”) on the proposed Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators (the “Guidance”). While this exercise has not yet attracted the same attention as its 2020 predecessor (on remote customer interaction and affordability checks) it is potentially every bit as significant for licensees and consumers. Once implemented, it is likely that its strictures will in time bind non-remote gambling licensees and consumers too. Regulus Partners and Harris Hagan have written a series of co-authored articles to assist stakeholders responding to the Consultation. In the second of these articles, we described how the Guidance threatens to alter the meaning in law of “vulnerability” through its definition of “vulnerable persons”, by rendering universal what had formerly been considered exceptional. In this, our third article, we examine why this matters, in terms of both near-term regulatory compliance and longer term attempts to stigmatise participation in gambling.

The most striking feature of the Guidance is the extent to which it attempts to mandate common sense through a series of ill-defined rules – proposing a vast bureaucracy to facilitate and evaluate customer interactions. Having established a wide range of criteria for classifying customers as either “vulnerable” to, or “at risk” of, gambling harm; two concepts that appear to be definitionally similar but which the Commission, at different times, treats as both distinct and the same, the Guidance then requires licensees to configure a range of actions in response. The Guidance is, however, silent on what specific actions should be aligned to particular criteria (or clusters of criteria).

A little less conversation, a lot more interaction

Such is the breadth of the Commission’s conceptualisation of “vulnerability to harm” (there are literally millions of possible combinations of the “factors of vulnerability” and “indicators of harm” contained within the Guidance), it is inevitable that different licensees will take different actions in response to the same risk factors. More significantly and putting aside the inconsistent use of the differing terms “may be experiencing harm” and “may be at risk of harm” in the Guidance, licensees’ interpretation of what actions should be applied to any particular constellation of “indicators” is likely to differ from the Commission’s (and indeed, within the Commission, between one official and another).

In the absence of clearer direction, licensees will be left to learn from painful experience what “vulnerability” looks like through the eyes of Commission officials as well as what action or response should be considered appropriate (knowing that the Commission’s view on any given day is no guide to future interpretation). More cautious licensees may find themselves conducting customer interactions as a response to the vaguest suggestions of vulnerability; for example, being above or below certain, as yet unspecified, age thresholds. In this way, a degree of standardisation may eventually be achieved; albeit with thresholds set at successively lower levels.

Licensees who adhere to the Guidance, are exposed through a requirement that their staff “need to be trained on the skills and techniques they need to help them carry out customer interactions, including what to do if a customer becomes distressed or there is a risk of suicide.” There is no question of anyone in the gambling industry not wishing to prevent suicide. However, this wording implies that it is the responsibility of licensees or their employees to identify risk of suicide, and act upon it. Suicide risk is always the result of a complex array of factors, that may or may not, include an individual’s gambling. It is the responsibility of qualified professionals to identify that risk, not licensees, and it is dangerous on multiple levels, including in relation to the wellbeing of licensees’ employees, to suggest otherwise in formal Guidance.

The consequences of all this may be guessed at: enforcement action ramped up as the Commission weaves an ever more intricate web of compliance tripwires; licensees absorbing (or passing onto customers) substantial increases in the cost of doing business; and customers facing greater levels of intrusion and inconvenience based upon lifestyle preferences but also a range of factors beyond their control, such as age or disability.

Under the Guidance, licensees will be expected to conduct customer interactions according to a quota system based on DSM-IV and PGSI “problem gambling” prevalence rates from the Health Survey for England 2018 (the “Health Survey”). Online sportsbooks must therefore interact with at least 3.7% of their customers each year; while the minimum quota for online slots, casino and bingo operators is set at 8.5%. Licensees will be required to carry out monthly checks to ensure that they are on course to hit these targets.

The use of quotas raises a number of questions not addressed within the Consultation, which does not even canvass views on the wisdom of such a scheme. First, it reveals a discontinuity in the Commission’s logic – with “problem gambling” belatedly introduced as a proxy for “vulnerability to harm”. It should not, however, be assumed that someone with a DSM-IV or PGSI classification of “problem gambling” will meet the definitional criteria set out by the Commission for “vulnerability” or “harm”. This invites the question of just what problem is to be addressed and who, in particular, licensees are expected to protect: those whose gambling might be considered problematic according to recognised psychiatric criteria, or those who may meet the regulator’s often more nebulous definition of “harm”. The requirement that licensees use “specifically the problem gambling rates for the individual activities” exposes a basic misunderstanding of prevalence surveys. The Health Survey does not in fact provide “problem gambling” rates by discrete activity. Instead, it shows prevalence rates for people who participate in certain activities in combination with others, which is a rather different thing.

The Guidance becomes even more muddled in proposing interaction quotas for licensees with online sportsbooks and casinos – suggesting the use of a combination of problem gambling rates weighted for the percentage of revenue derived from each activity. It overlooks a simpler, more targeted and more logical method – using ‘problem gambling’ prevalence rates for customers who only use sportsbooks when gambling online, those who only play online slots, casino or bingo and those who do both. We have provided the figures below from the Combined Health Surveys for 2016: it would be a relatively straight-forward matter for the Commission to update these for 2018.

Activity	DSM-IV/PGSI ‘problem gambling’ rate (% of customers participating)
Online betting	0.4%
Online slots, casino & bingo	7.3%
Online betting and online slots, casino & bingo	8.7%

The Guidance states that these quotas may be recalibrated in the future – with particular reference to how “problem gambling” or “gambling-related harm” are measured. Here it should be recalled that the Commission is part-way through a process to wrest control of the measurement of gambling and “problem gambling” prevalence from the NHS – through the replacement of the Health Surveys with its own vehicle. The Commission’s Update: Pilot of survey questions to understand gambling-related harm published in May 2022 (the “Pilot Survey”) produced a combined PGSI problem gambling’ rate of 1.3% – more than three times higher than the result from the Health Survey. Analysis by Regulus Partners has highlighted previously a number of serious errors with the Pilot Survey (including a failure to carry out cross-checks with regulatory returns data; and overlooking the impact of Covid-19). The Commission has neglected to address these flaws and states, as an article of faith and without supporting evidence, that Health Surveys under-report “problem gambling”.

The Pilot Survey also contained questions about gambling-related harms, although the Commission has been rather selective in releasing these results. Some of these “harms”, as we explained in our previous article, include reduced attendance at the cinema, spending less time with loved ones or “feeling like a failure”. Rather unsurprisingly, they are experienced by a much larger group of gambling consumers than those likely to be classified as “problem gamblers”. Licensees may find therefore that interaction quotas are ramped up significantly in the future as a consequence of surveys controlled entirely by a regulator apparently intent on demonstrating that “problem gambling” or “gambling harms” are widespread in the population.

One obvious difficulty with issuing quota requirements is that they lead inevitably to a tick-box approach to compliance based on quota fulfilment. The Guidance sets out a very catholic definition of what might be considered an “interaction” – from generic safer gambling messages or pop-ups right through to treatment referrals and exclusion. Thus, in order to satisfy the quota, licensees may simply have to make sure that around one-in-five or one-in-ten customers receive a generic safer gambling message at least once a year – a figure that is likely to be well below current levels where responsible operators are concerned. In time therefore, the Commission may either drop the quota system or increase its complexity, with quotas for specific types of interaction (e.g. quotas for self-exclusion).

When combined, all of the above issues will make it incredibly difficult for licensees to act where there are “strong indicators of harm” as there is a lack of clarity in the Guidance as to what the Commission considers to be a “strong indicator of harm”. In the Consultation the Commission acknowledges previous concerns raised about this, and states that it “does not consider it appropriate at this time to set requirements which would remove the discretion or ability on the part of operators to tailor processes to their businesses and customers”. One might take the view that this is precisely what the Guidance does, particularly when it contains formal requirements.

Evaluation and Impact

The greatest area of complexity is likely to reside within the requirement that licensees conduct assessments in order to “understand the impact of individual interactions and actions on a customer’s behaviour”. The Commission is correct to highlight the importance of evaluation, even if it might strike some as hypocritical, given its own aversion to scrutiny, as safer gambling initiatives are often implemented or mandated on the basis of face validity rather than scientific observation. Evaluation is critical therefore if we are to improve and move beyond what should work in theory and understand what works in practice.

However, 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: a customer may continue to gamble at previous levels or even increase their spend following an interaction for various reasons. There are several problems with the demand that licensees demonstrate the effect of changes to customer behaviour of every single customer interaction. First, it will be vastly bureaucratic and costly to implement, given the number of interactions that licensees will be encouraged to undertake. This might be acceptable if the benefits of such a system outweighed the costs, but this is unlikely to be the case. Gambling behaviour, and particularly disordered behaviour, is complex. To suggest that each individual licensee’s action might be separately assessed for discrete impact goes against the balance of research opinion as well as the Public Health whole systems approach. Neither the Guidance nor the Consultation give any consideration to proportionality, in direct contravention of the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board’s evaluation protocol.

This section of the Guidance gives rise to possible negative (and so presumably unintended) consequences. It fails to consider the substantial costs that such a system would impose on licensees or what this might mean in terms of customer experience where such costs are passed on through pricing. Most importantly, however is that it may impede efforts to protect consumers. Licensees swamped by assessing the impact of potentially millions of individual interactions may suffer a loss of perspective, impairing their ability to identify and understand what is happening to those at genuine risk of harm. People who fall under the Guidance’s discriminatory gaze (by virtue of being too old, too young, not physically fit enough or too trusting) may find themselves subject to repeated harassment by multiple licensees. Finally, there is the risk that a requirement to carry out evaluation on such a microscopic basis will in fact deter licensees from undertaking interactions over and above the level demanded by the quota system.

The Guidance of course, is not satisfied by requiring evaluations of every single customer interaction: licensees must also demonstrate impact. This stipulation reveals a fundamental flaw in the Commission’s thinking. As we explored in our second article, the basis for interaction in the Guidance is a range of “indicators” denoting “vulnerability” or “harm”; but indicators are not the same as actual vulnerability or harm. In demanding that all interactions must demonstrate impact, the Commission appears to conflate probability with certainty; and in doing so ignores the presence of false positives that are a feature of any diagnostic system. Under the Guidance, licensees will be required to demonstrate that interactions alter customer behaviour, regardless of whether reform is necessary, or to document, frequently, their decisions as to why such alteration was considered unnecessary despite the indicators identified. Worse, licensees will feel obliged to take progressively more heavy-handed approaches with such customers until a change is observed, the regulatory equivalent of factitious disorder imposed on another.

This impact becomes even more absurd when one considers the nature of some of the indicators in the Guidance that may trigger an interaction. To illustrate, we use the same hypothetical customer from our second article – a 24-year-old with dyslexia who bets in-play on football and cricket and typically spends slightly above the average for his age group. Now imagine this benighted individual suffers a bereavement. Displaying seven indicators of vulnerability or harm, some licensees may consider him an appropriate target for interaction – but what precisely should be the outcome? The licensee cannot alter his age, address his dyslexia or alleviate the distress of personal loss; and so must presumably either deter him from betting in-play (an activity branded an “indicator of harm” on the most spurious grounds, as we show in our next article) or encourage him to spend less. Even if a reduction in spending is achieved (via coercion of an individual displaying no actual symptoms of harm) the customer will still be considered vulnerable on four counts and at risk of harm on two – and therefore subject to further interactions in the future (until he ceases to be ‘younger’ or ‘bereaved’ perhaps). The consequences of such a regime are unlikely to be in the best interests of that customer; and while ‘black market’ risk can be overplayed, it seems legitimate to cite it where such blatantly anti-consumer logic is concerned.

These are the near-term implications of what the Commission proposes in its Guidance. It is possible too that the Guidance hints at longer term aims or outcomes: the addition of further regulatory restrictions which stigmatise betting and gaming as pastimes. The codification in the Guidance (which introduces “formal” requirements) of “younger adults” as intrinsically vulnerable, may in time be used to lobby for the legal age for gambling to be raised (with perhaps a new maximum age being introduced to address risk among “older adults”); while certain modes of gambling (most obviously in-play betting) may be curtailed or banned on the same basis.

The Guidance contains some useful insights but ultimately falls down in its attempt to inculcate common sense by diktat. In doing so, it fails to recognise the essence of common sense as something that cannot be circumscribed by rules. Whilst some of the factors set out in the Guidance are sensible and may have an effect on a customer’s powers of self-regulation, it is impractical to seek to enforce this in “formal” Guidance, particularly when that guidance is unclear. Further, there is no suggestion anywhere in either the Guidance or the Consultation that the Commission has taken the time to understand the basis of current licensee practices (a review of enforcement cases is, by definition, no way to assess the market as a whole); or to consider how desired behaviours might be encouraged rather than coerced. In our last two articles in this series, we will examine the evidence presented by the Commission for classifying in-play betting as an ‘indicator of harm’ in its own right; before closing with a summation of the reasons why all gambling licensees and consumers, alongside those concerned about personal freedom in other domains, should take the time to respond to this most worrying of consultations.

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

09Jan

Chambers Gaming Law 2022 Global Practice Guide

9th January 2023 Adam Russell 248

Partners, Bahar Alaeddini and Julian Harris, have resumed their roles as Contributing Editors to the Chambers Global Practice Guide, with the latest edition of the Gaming Law 2022 eGuide now available online. Associate, Jessica Wilson, joined this year as a co-author.

Harris Hagan contributed to four parts of the publication

The esteemed publication spans over 30 jurisdictions and provides the latest regulatory information including: the availability and duration of licences; B2C and B2B licences; application requirements; affiliates; white labels; responsible gambling; AML legislation; restrictions on advertising; acquisitions and changes of corporate control; trends in social gaming; eSports; fantasy sports and blockchain; tax; and anticipated reform.

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

Please use the above links to review their contributions and the rest of the eGuide at your leisure.

23Dec

Where is the harm? Implications of regulatory revisionism for customer interactions

23rd December 2022 David Whyte 280

In this – the second in a series of articles on the Gambling Commission’s (the “Commission”) consultation (the “Consultation”) on the proposed Customer Interaction – Guidance for remote operators (the “Guidance”) – Harris Hagan and Regulus Partners consider the concept of ‘vulnerability to harm’ that underpins the Guidance. The Commission proposes that licensees be required to identify “harm”, “potential harm” and “vulnerable states” by monitoring customer behaviour, scrutinising private information and making assessments based on a range of demographic characteristics. While licensees should always be sensitive to customer wellbeing, the Commission’s attempt to translate common sense into a bureaucratic checklist appears to be at odds with the intent of the Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”), regulatory coherence and the best interests of consumers.

Vulnerability and harm

The Guidance requires licensees to identify customers exhibiting “indicators of harm” as well as those who – for a wide variety of reasons – may be “vulnerable” to gambling harms. For these terms to be meaningful, it is important first to understand what the regulator wishes to convey by the term “harm”. While the Guidance itself is silent on this matter, the Commission has defined gambling harms in its Update: Pilot of survey questions to understand gambling-related harm as “the adverse impacts from gambling on the health and wellbeing of individuals, families, communities and society.” Emphasising the breadth of the concept, it adds that “these harms are diverse, affecting resources, relationships and health, and may reflect an interplay between individual, family and community processes. The harmful effects from gambling may be short-lived but can persist, having longer-term and enduring consequences that can exacerbate existing inequalities.”

To hammer home the scale of the problem, the Commission enumerates 27 “harms” experienced by gambling consumers and a further 13 “harms” to “affected others”. Some of these adverse impacts are incontrovertible – financial consequences such as problematic debt being the least ambiguous – but others are less clear-cut. The Commission, for example, defines having less money to go to the cinema or “other forms of entertainment” as a harm from gambling. Spending money on one pastime in preference to another – as the Australian academic, Professor Paul Delfabbro has pointed out – is “more akin to opportunity costs than true harm”. Its inclusion in the ‘Index’ suggests a moral judgement on those people who prefer to spend their own money on betting in preference to the movies or a meal out. Among the Commission’s other “harms”, we also encounter “feeling like a failure” which in its weakest form is a potential corollary of all unsuccessful wagers and “spending less time with people you care about”, a test that many activities, including going to work or attending a school or college, would fall foul of.

Are these the “harms” or “potential harms” that the Commission expects its licensees to identify? If so, how does it expect them to do so? Will licensees, for example, be required to scrutinise bank statements in order to understand whether or not customers are movie-goers? With what degree of regularity must customers be going to the flicks in order to satisfy the regulator? This may be a case of reductio ad absurdum – but it illustrates the fact that the Commission has in fact set some fairly absurd tests for what should be considered harmful. In the absence of clearer direction, operators are expected to make their own judgements about which of the “harms” listed by the Commission they should be attempting to identify.

A list of 21 prescribed “indicators of harm” are provided in the Guidance as a minimum – but not exhaustive – set of standards. The basis for the selection of these indicators is not made clear, supporting evidence is often not cited, and generally they lack all but the most conceptual definitions. For licensees, this presents a significant challenge in terms of operationalising the indicators. How, for example, should a licensee create a rule for “amount of money spent on gambling compared with other customers”? Is this intended to suggest that anyone spending above the mean (or median) is displaying an indicator of harm? As written, it could be used to describe anyone wagering more than the lowest-spending decile, which would be more than “other customers”. Another example is the “use of multiple products”, without any definition of what constitutes a “product”. Are football betting and tennis betting different “products” or a single product (i.e. sports betting)? Is a ‘Rainbow Riches’ slot game a different product to ‘Cleopatra’, as manufacturers would certainly contend? Where certain activities are concerned, any participation at all is considered potentially problematic. In-play betting is classified as an automatic indicator of harm. Although, as we will explain in a further blog, this appears to be based on the Commission’s misreading of its own evidence.

So much for harm; but what about “vulnerability”? Here, the Guidance does at least provide some kind of definition of what a “vulnerable person” is: “somebody who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care”.

Harris Hagan has raised previously its concerns about the transformation of what the Commission considers to be “vulnerability” and its inclusion of a definition of the term in guidance. It is for Parliament, not the Commission to define a statutory term that is included in the 2005 Act and which Parliament did not find it necessary to define, having clearly considered the interpretation of vulnerability a straightforward matter. Reference in the third licensing objective firstly to children, and then to other vulnerable persons adequately sets out Parliament’s intention that the licensing objectives apply to those people not able to make properly informed or ‘adult’ decisions.

The operative phrase in the definition in the Guidance – “especially susceptible to harm” – implies that vulnerability is a rare or exceptional condition rather than a state shared by the majority. This conceptualisation is however, undermined by the Commission’s use of illustrative examples. “Young adults” are categorised as vulnerable (around 12% of the population are between the ages of 18 and 24 years); but so are “older adults” (23% of the population are 65 or older). Poor physical health denotes vulnerability (43% of adults have a long-standing medical condition); as does poor mental health; (17% have a common mental health disorder; 16% have an eating disorder). One is vulnerable if one is bereaved (15% of us each year), has caring responsibilities (13%) or has dyslexia (10%). Most perplexing of all, a “higher than standard level of trust or appetite for risk” – a quality that might be said to be a defining characteristic of any gambler – is also sufficient to qualify an individual as vulnerable.

The Guidance refers to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (“FCA”) observation that 46% of adults “display one or more characteristics of vulnerability” and indeed, the Commission’s definition of vulnerability is identical to that used by the FCA in its Guidance for firms on the fair treatment of vulnerable customers – February 2021 (the “FCA Guidance”). The FCA Guidance is, however, prepared to serve an entirely different purpose. It is issued under s139A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (legislation which, unlike the 2005 Act, makes no reference to vulnerability) and provides guidance on the FCA’s Principles for Business, which state that, “a firm must pay regards to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”. Principle-based regulation of this nature almost certainly requires guidance and the FCA is justified in defining vulnerability in that context; that the Commission seeks to take an identical approach to the FCA, in an entirely different context, is not.

There is a difference between the FCA’s intention that regulated firms identify “characteristics of vulnerability” to ensure they treat their customers fairly and in accordance with their needs, and the Commission’s duty under the 2005 Act to permit gambling in so far as it thinks it reasonably consistent with, the licensing objective of “protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling”. The Commission’s reinterpretation of “vulnerability” as a universal rather than exceptional state risks distorting and undermining the legislation that it is required to enforce – replacing parliamentary sovereignty with regulatory fiat. Furthermore, the Commission prescribes a requirement in SRCP 3.4.3. It therefore had the opportunity, following consultation, to set out precisely its definition of vulnerability when introducing that requirement. That it now seeks to widen the parameters of that requirement in the Guidance, is plainly wrong.

The concept of vulnerability

The suggestion that we are all vulnerable may be true at a certain banal level – but it is inconsistent with the intent of the legislation and also the Commission’s own conception of ‘especial susceptibility to harm’. A system of customer monitoring predicated on the idea of universal vulnerability risks failing those in genuine need of protection. There are a number of other practical considerations which the Guidance fails to address. For instance, it suggests, by way of reference to past enforcement cases, that operators must routinely scrutinise customer bank statements in order to harvest medical information, or risk facing sanctions for failing to do so. This raises complex ethical issues of discrimination and data protection. Should operators, for example, treat customers differently on the basis of a perceived medical condition (which they are expected to glean from banking data)? How might customers feel about betting companies holding information (however obtained and however accurate) about their health?

To illustrate the scale of the challenge presented by the Guidance, consider the following fictitious scenario. A 24-year-old with dyslexia who bets in-play on football and cricket and spends slightly above the average for his age group could plausibly be said to raise three ‘vulnerability’ flags and three ‘indicators of harm’. As we observe in the next in this series of articles, a licensee would be required to determine for itself whether or not the presence of six ‘indicators’ would necessitate an interaction, and if so of what variety. It is inevitable that operators will adopt widely divergent interpretations in such instances, with implications for market distortion. Perhaps more significantly, the Guidance creates ample scope for disagreement between licensees and the Commission about whether a customer is vulnerable or displaying genuine indicators of harm.

That “vulnerability” is to be determined by whether a “firm”, which we understand to mean a licensed operator (again the use of “firm” a reflection of the Commission’s use of the FCA’s definition), is “acting with appropriate levels of care”. The decision as to whether a licensee has acted with appropriate levels of care must ultimately rest with the Commission and therefore it seems that vulnerability will be determined subjectively by the Commission, almost certainly in hindsight. Further, by suggesting, incorrectly, that licensees have a duty of care at law to prevent customers from gambling if they are or might meet the Commission’s definition of vulnerability, the Commission risks improperly introducing such a duty in law, or at least exposing licensees to such a challenge. This is dangerous territory for any regulator, and for licensees.

Autonomy – a wider debate

Finally, there are some genuine ‘slippery slope’ consequences for the wider economy, privacy and personal freedom. One of the Commission’s key items of evidence for the proposed interactions regime is a survey carried out in 2020 by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute (‘MMHPI’) included in the report A Safer Bet. The Commission states that 24% of people with mental health problems experienced financial problems in consequence of online gambling and 32% said that they had bet more than they could afford to lose. This representation of the findings is misleading (the survey was of people with mental health problems who had gambled online and not all people with mental health problems – an important distinction); as is the Commission’s repeated misuse of the Problem Gambling Severity Index item “bet more than afford to lose”, which is a risky behaviour rather than a harm.

Quite aside from matters of precision, there is an important omission of context. In the same year, the MMHPI also published the results of a survey on online shopping by people with mental health problems – with very similar, and in some cases more alarming, results. The MMHPI report, Convenience at a cost found that 29% of respondents had spent more than they could afford when shopping online while 63% “had cut back on essentials” and 56% “had fallen seriously behind on payments for bills or debt repayments as a result of not being able to control their spending.” In short, the basis for regulatory intervention on remote gambling could just as easily be applied to shopping with Amazon or Tesco. Context is important because it helps us understand whether state action in one domain is consistent with broader societal ‘rules’ – and so deters unfair discrimination against particular groups (in this case, people who enjoy gambling). The Commission’s deliberate exclusion of this information, which was brought to its attention as part of the original consultation, is unhelpful and reinforces the idea that the regulator is not in earnest in its use of public consultations.

The Commission’s obsession with vulnerability suggests a rather hopeless outlook on life. To the extent that we are all, to some extent vulnerable, we are all resilient too and possessed of broad powers of self-regulation. An exclusive focus on what makes us weak with no recognition of what makes us strong is distortive and may lead to negative consequences – most obviously through undermining individual agency, which is an essential ingredient for wellbeing.

The identification of harm and vulnerability set out in the Guidance is the basis for ramping up operator interactions with customers, which may in some cases be warranted. The practical implications of the requirements to interact, and to evaluate the effect of those interactions, is the subject of our next article.

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

22Dec

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

22nd December 2022 David Whyte 294

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 299

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.

UK Gambling Law