UK Gambling Commission Updates: What Players and Operators Need to Know
The impact of online financial risk checks (to be implemented by the Gambling Commission) are explored in detail in Annex A to this white paper. The researchers conclude that young people and young adults experiencing problem gambling should be considered at risk for suicidality. Evidence from people with personal experience of gambling harm highlighted that this may make individuals more susceptible to developing a gambling disorder.
Relatedly, studies have shown a relatively small proportion of players access activity statements (which summarise a customer’s recent gambling activity, including spend). Research was shared with us that found 69% of those who suffered financial harm from gambling had not set a limit, despite having some idea of the amount they were willing to lose. This could be an inappropriate distraction at a time when customers are trying to reflect on appropriate controls on their gambling. They argued such tools can put too much responsibility on the individual gambler and are therefore unlikely to be effective for those in the grips of an addiction, and may even backfire in increasing the guilt of those participating in harmful gambling.
Game Design Regulations
However, it is our intention to apply a fixed maximum of 80 gaming machines per physical location. The government proposes that a new regime will apply to 1968 Act casinos that seek to increase their gaming machine entitlement. We also acknowledge concerns about an increased availability of machines potentially leading to greater opportunities for gambling-related harm. Over half of respondents who indicated an intention to move onto the new regime stated they would look to take up the maximum entitlement of 80 gaming machines in at least some of their venues (57%).
The white paper set out a detailed rationale for the need to reform the current 80/20 rule governing gaming machine allowances in AGCs and bingo halls. As a result, these venues will be entitled to choose between adopting any revised entitlement set down in legislation following this consultation or retaining the four Category B machine allowance for AGC premises and eight Category B machine allowance for bingo premises. The proposals outlined in this consultation to reform the 80/20 rule will again permit AGC and bingo premises to retain these legacy rights where the relevant premises licence was granted before 13 July 2011. Please upload any further evidence or any other information that should be considered as part of this consultation relating to casino measures.
- While it is vital that individual operators have effective procedures to protect their customers from harm, online gamblers on average hold 3 gambling accounts and use 1.5 on a monthly basis.
- We live in an age where people have a virtual mobile casino in their pockets.
- If you or someone you know is struggling with gambling-related problems, contact the National Gambling or NHS Wales Helplines (opens in new tab).
- These rules will take good practice already offered by some operators and expand that so customers can expect the same standards across the industry.
- The Commission is also dealing with an increase in the number of novel products from both licensed and unlicensed operators, with many blurring the line between gambling and other markets such as financial investment and video games.
- In particular, we are already clear that any direct marketing to self-excluded customers by affiliates will be regarded as a breach of licence conditions by the licensee on whose behalf the affiliate is contacting the customer.
Common ADR providers used by UK casinos include eCOGRA, IBAS (Independent Betting Adjudication Service), and the Gambling Commission’s own ADR scheme. All games offered by UKGC-licensed casinos must be independently tested to ensure fairness. We recommend choosing casinos that offer medium or high protection.
In addition to identifying a lawful basis for processing, operators will need to comply with other aspects of GDPR, such as any applicable requirements for transparency with data subjects, and safeguarding of personal data. If the decision making is based on the data subject’s explicit consent3. GDPR gives data subjects certain qualified rights in relation to their data, such as the “right to erasure” and “the right to prevent decisions being made solely based on the automated processing of data”.
Role of the UK Gambling Commission
The government has already indicated that it intends to examine radical new ways to mainstream and improve ADR across the economy for all types of disputes including consumer disputes, so it is no longer viewed as an ‘alternative’ to court but operates as an integrated part of the justice system. Most submissions called for a gambling ombudsman, though there were significant differences in proposals for how best to design a new system, its remit, powers and the specific details around the desired outcomes of the new arrangements. There may also be particular difficulties if the complainant is vulnerable due to gambling disorder or some other factor. This can be costly, time consuming and potentially inequitable given the resource disparities between the typical complainant and the gambling operator.
(2) The floor area of the gambling area must be less than 1,500m². (4) Any separate area that comprises less than 12.5 per cent of the minimum required table gaming area is not to be taken into account in determining the table gaming area. (a)half the size of the floor area of the gambling area,
Any fee increase must be linked to the cost to that particular local authority of carrying out its gambling functions. We recognise that the maximum for licensing authority fees has not been updated since 2007, during which time inflation has inevitably reduced its value. Some have expressed a desire to do more to apply local considerations in their areas when making licensing decisions. For example, existing powers, such as local policy statements, allow licensing authorities to account for factors such as public health and crime. In England and Wales, the government sets a cap and licensing authorities have flexibility below that to set their fees.
Responsibly Gambling
We have been working closely with the ICO to ensure that the way in which licensees are interpreting and implementing GDPR does not conflict with the requirements of gambling regulation1. This document may be updated from time to time in accordance with legal developments, including the finalisation of the Data Protection Bill. It will remain licensees’ responsibility to ensure they are legally compliant with GDPR and with our regulatory framework, and we recommend that operators obtain their own legal advice on compliance. Fairness, transparency, accuracy, security, data minimisation and respect for the rights of the individual whose data a business wants to process – these are all things that businesses should already be doing with data.
Not all these tools are applied universally and further development is desirable, including on account-based play in line with the Gambling Commission’s recommendation across the land-based sector. It also advised that increased entitlements should only go to 1968 Act sites meeting the same overall gaming/non-gaming space requirements as 2005 Act Small premises. Its preferred approach is for 1968 Act premises to convert to 2005 Act premises (rather than be given the same machine allowance) in order to deliver the original intention of the 2005 Act that all premises would eventually be of the new type. In its advice to the Review, the Gambling Commission recognises the issues referred to above and prefers a machine/table ratio to a fixed entitlement to support a balance of gaming products.
The UK Gambling Commission’s mandate is to regulate gambling and oversee gaming law in Wales, Scotland, and England. Whether you gamble online or at a live casino, you can count on the UK Gambling Commission to keep you safe. Further information on these changes will be published as it becomes available on the Gambling Commission’s website and communicated to operators and licensing authorities.
Independent UK casino reviews built on real-money testing, transparent methodology, and editorial integrity. If the operator has breached its licence conditions, report them to the UKGC directly, though the Commission does not arbitrate individual disputes. If unresolved, escalate to the casino’s designated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provider, which is listed in their terms and conditions.
The vast majority of responses came from industry representatives and local authorities, however, we also received a small number of responses from academics and individuals with lived experience of gambling-related harm. The evidence generated was diverse and was indicative of the varied positions of stakeholders, primarily arcade and bingo operators and licensing authorities. In making this recommendation we recognise the potential advantages that 1968 Act casinos may have over Small 2005 Act casinos that elect to move to the new regime, in terms of Schedule 9 payments and the portability of licences. This will help ensure that operators are operating within the regulations and enable licensing authorities to undertake appropriate licence checks.
However, we are aware of the possibility that some operators may attempt to maximise their number of Category B cabinets above and beyond that intended by the 50/50 proposal by siting tablets which are not genuinely accessible or in-fill machines in their venues. We anticipate that our proposal to allow operators to increase their number of Category B machines to 50 percent will enable operators to better meet customer demand, and in turn minimise the likelihood of ‘available for use’ guidance being subverted. The Gambling Commission has expressed concern that operators currently seek to maximise Category B machine numbers by providing Category C and D games on inaccessible small tablets or via in-fill machines. To ensure a proportionate and evidence-based balance is satisfied, we are seeking views from a range of interested stakeholders to inform the strengths and risks of each option. While the intensiveness of energy expenditure will vary by machine device type and energy efficiency, the costs to industry of maintaining these machines can be significant. Gaming machines account for a significant proportion of energy costs, a substantial number of which are sited by operators purely to meet the 80/20 rule.
We will also work with the relevant trade bodies and operators to understand the feasibility of implementing voluntary test purchasing to help understand whether operators are abiding by this new restriction. For example, the information could be displayed to customers at regular intervals (such as every 5 minutes for a 30 second period) or be readily available to customers, at their discretion, no further than one button press away. However, we believe that a variant of this feature would help customers to keep a track of their play. They also argued that it is an invasion of a customer’s privacy and that many people would not be comfortable with other players knowing how much they have spent and how long they have played on a machine for. The split was mainly between non-industry and industry respondents, with industry opposing this proposal.
The equalising of these machine types may come at significant costs for some businesses. Bacta have argued, however, that the benefits to operators would not be as substantial as those outlined in Option 1. A 50/50 ratio based on device types would therefore be likely to have a positive impact, allowing them to remove a number of energy intensive Category C cabinets. Data provided by the Bingo Association, based on 60 percent of bingo halls, indicates that the number of Category B to Category C and D cabinets would remain largely unchanged from the current 80/20 regime. Data provided by industry indicates that this option would achieve to a limited extent the objective of ensuring commercial flexibility.
Our intention is that these checks will also be frictionless for customers and conducted online by credit reference agencies or through other means such as open banking in the first instance. These enhanced checks are narrowly targeted and we estimate only around 3% of online gambling accounts will be affected. We also propose that the triggers for enhanced checks should be halved for those aged 18 to 24 given evidence on increased risk. Second, at higher levels of spend which may indicate harmful binge gambling or sustained unaffordable losses (we propose thresholds of £1,000 net loss within 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days), there should be a more detailed consideration of a customer’s financial position. However, around 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing ‘problem gambling’, defined as gambling to a degree which compromises, disrupts, or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits, and a further 1.8 million are identified as gambling at elevated levels of risk.
The legal age for lottery is different than other gambling forms. No one under the age of 18 is allowed entry into a brick-and-mortar casino. Casinos – There are multiple brick-and-mortar casino establishments in the United Kingdom offering varied games like baccarat, blackjack, poker and more. While bingo is considered more of a game of leisure and chance, it is still popular amongst online gamblers.
In addition to failing to identify those suffering harm, respondents identified wider practices which might be detrimental to consumers, such as the profiling of customers and the restriction of winning accounts. Operators broadly argued in favour of these tailored controls, rather than measures which may limit the enjoyment of gambling for the majority of players who suffer no ill effects and may (if curtailed in their gambling) turn to unlicensed operators. Many operators were confident that their current and increasingly sophisticated harm detection algorithms would have prevented ‘historic cases’ where harm occurred without sufficient action. Given the Review’s focus on ensuring our gambling laws are fit for the digital age, it is unsurprising that a significant amount of evidence was submitted in response to the remote gambling questions in our call for evidence. When used in conjunction with self-exclusion, payment and website blocks can add a further layer of protection for people recovering from gambling harm.
The rise of digital gambling has triggered sweeping reforms—but until now, land-based casinos operated under softer guidelines, particularly when it came to machines. For converted casinos, however, there is an additional restriction on the number of betting machines relative to the size of the floor area of gambling area in that casino. Regulation 3 of these Regulations amends section 172(5)(b)(i) of the Gambling Act 2005 (c. 19) (“the Act”) to change how to calculate the number of gaming machines that may be made available for use in small casinos licensed under the Act. “extended converted casino premises” means premises in which gaming machines are made available for use in accordance with the extended gaming machine entitlement;
The precise impact of data sharing depends on the nature of the system introduced following the trials, but it is intended to benefit a minority of online gamblers at particular risk of harm. The current proposals apply only to the remote sector, but in due course we want to explore the use of frictionless financial risk checks where appropriate in land-based settings to benefit operators and help protect customers. We recognise this risk, the chilling effect which asking customers for bank documents can have, and that implementing a financial risk-based approach will come with costs to operators. Some operators have argued that financial risk checks based on self certification (where customers declare their financial circumstances) could be sufficient for the new more prescriptive framework, or at least serve until frictionless checks are developed.
The list of responsibilities of the Gambling Commission includes work to ensure that licencees act in accordance with the requirements imposed by the Gambling Act 2005 and other related regulations and standards. From December 2020 through February 2021, the Commission invited public comment on improving the quality and timeliness of its statistics regarding problem gambling. The Commission’s stated aims are « to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly, and to protect children and vulnerable people ». The Commission concluded that in the period between September 2018 and March 2020 the operators did not make enough efforts to keep gamblers’ safe and prevent money laundering. It also collaborates with the police over suspected illegal gambling.The Commission replaced the Gaming Board for Great Britain in 2007.
Some players object to sharing financial information with gambling operators. Operating without a valid UKGC non gamstop licence while serving UK customers is a criminal offence, and players at unlicensed sites have no regulatory protections. If a casino does not appear on the UKGC register or its licence has been revoked, do not play there.