Safer Gambling
Therefore, when Parliamentary time allows, we plan to give the Gambling Commission increased powers to support disruption and enforcement activity, such as to pursue court orders which require internet service and payment providers to take down or block access to illegal gambling sites. It is also intended that more regulatory data, suitably anonymised, will be made available in due course to support independent research. We also welcome the commitment from governing bodies across the sport sector to develop a cross-sport gambling sponsorship code, with rules to make sure all sponsorship deals are socially responsible. This should reduce children’s incidental exposure to gambling logos while watching football and particularly via products such as stickers and video games, as well as the direct association with star players. Advertising rules have changed to prohibit prominent sportspeople, in particular Premier League footballers, from appearing in gambling adverts, on the grounds of their strong appeal to children.
We believe these to be of a smaller magnitude than the effects considered above, and expect forthcoming policy-specific consultations will broaden the evidence base to support detailed impact assessment. We recognise that our proposals also involve additional friction and/or reduced incentivisation for some people who are spending at high levels which they can afford and who are not being harmed. As part of the consultation, we will strongly encourage licensing authorities to consider the range of resources required for comprehensive monitoring and enforcement, such as IT and analytical capability, which may not have been a necessary or proportionate requirement when the fees were originally set.
Licensing Requirements
For example, 40% of online gamblers who had experienced mental health problems agreed they did not feel like they were spending real money online, compared to 26% of those with no experience of mental health problems. In 2015, just 23% of online gamblers had used a mobile phone to gamble online in the previous 4 weeks, compared to 50% in 2020. Perhaps more significant change has occurred underneath this wider channel shift, as new technologies have also reshaped where, when and how people gamble online. While the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic remain to be seen, it seems likely that the shift towards online participation, as we have seen in many other sectors, will continue. In the year to December 2022, 18.6% of British adults had gambled online in the last four weeks, excluding National Lottery products, compared to 14.4% in the year to December 2018. This is because they offer a free entry route (for instance via ordinary post) or have a skill-based element.
What do you think are the potential impacts of raising licence fees on licensing authorities? In order to produce a more robust estimate for funding raised, we require additional data on the current number of licence applications and live licences. The additional annual cost per premises is an average across all premises types and in reality, will differ depending on the type of licence held. The additional annual cost per premises and the total additional annual funding for licensing authorities has been estimated using existing premises numbers.
The Review has not seen data which robustly quantifies behavioural nudges or barriers in the online gambling sector, so it is difficult to estimate how much they may drive consumer spending/ revenue that would not have otherwise happened, or the impact of any changes. For instance, a recent audit of online operator platforms by the Behavioural Insights team found 8 of the top 10 GB operators stated a minimum account balance was required for customers to withdraw their funds. This approach assumes that those using self-exclusion facilities do so to manage harmful gambling, as opposed to things like marketing and / or data processing preferences. Several specific areas of concern were identified in responses, including how the design of online gambling platforms (the so called ‘choice architecture’) can make it difficult to access tools or information intended to support consumers to make informed and safer decisions about their gambling.
We have taken into account that these machines currently account for approximately two thirds of Category D slot style machines. While many welcomed this voluntary move, some respondents called for the restriction to become mandatory, while others like the Gambling Related Harm APPG wanted it to be extended to ticket-out slot style machines too. The distinction with ticket-out machines was drawn on the basis that while cash can be reinserted for further play (potentially facilitating behaviours like chasing losses), tickets cannot and have no value beyond what they can be redeemed for within the venue. Industry has recognised the concerns around slot style machines and in March 2021, Bacta members updated their Social Responsibility Charter and Code of Practice to voluntarily implement a ban on under 18s using cash out slot style machines. 18% of 11 to 16-year-olds had played on fruit style machines where you win tickets to ‘buy’ prizes and 10% on fruit style machines with small cash prizes. The tickets these machines pay out can be exchanged for a small physical prize such as stickers, sweets or a toy.
As the Commission has set out, experience has shown that such applicants are normally unable to provide complete and satisfactory evidence to answer the questions used to determine applications, including those to assess whether criminal activity has been a source of funds. Similar issues have been raised by the Commission in relation to operating licence applicants seeking to use cryptoassets as evidence of source of funds. The volatility of cryptoasset prices may also impede safer gambling measures, including setting financial limits and identifying unaffordable gambling, and can effectively create a double unknown where the theoretical value of the stake fluctuates alongside the actual bet. Operators must declare to the Commission any changes to the payment options (including cryptoassets) through which they accept deposits and provide assurance this would not pose any risks non gamstop sites to compliance. This will include further reinforcement on the due diligence checks necessary to mitigate risks to the licensing objectives. To ensure all licensees fully understand their responsibilities when entering into such arrangements, the Gambling Commission will consolidate existing information and good practice for operators on contracting with third parties, including white labels.
How gambling operators use the data available to them was also covered by campaign and consumer groups, with some levelling specific criticisms regarding data governance and processing. This included data on operator interactions, showing that just over 3% of online gambling accounts spent over £2,000 in a year, but only 35.5% of these were subject to any safer gambling interaction (such as an email or pop up message), and just 0.84% received a safer gambling telephone call. Conversely, many outside the industry submitted evidence on the harms which individuals had suffered in spite of the existing controls, which they argued were therefore ineffective. Firstly, there was significant discussion of the existing controls and the majority (including industry stakeholders) presented evidence that current protections could and should be further improved. As well as specifying how certain account level protections should function, these include specific rules for online gambling product design, aimed at making sure games operate in a socially responsible manner and do not encourage potentially harmful gambling activity. These rules specify seven relevant categories of ‘indicators of harm’ which all operators must monitor from the moment an account is opened (Figure 4), and set out how operators must tailor the action they take based on these behavioural indicators.
Some respondents felt restricting children from playing all Category D machines would protect them from harm, but the research on this is mixed. The government will challenge the remaining operators who allow 16 and 17-year-olds to buy their products to stop this practice so that there is no online or widely and easily accessible scratchcard gambling for under 18s. Our intent is that the most easily accessible lotteries should only be available to adults to further reduce the risk of gambling-related harm to children.
- We have been provided with a number of scenarios in respect of which industry has expressed concern that GDPR will prevent them from processing personal data needed to comply with licence conditions and further the licensing objectives.
- Some academics, treatment providers and groups with personal experience have also argued the environment of online gambling and certain structural characteristics of online products are inherently risky for all customers, and particularly for those who are otherwise vulnerable.
- Casinos may not offer (other than on a gaming machine) virtual casino games where random number generation (RNG) technology would be needed (e.g. to replicate the cards being dealt in blackjack or baccarat).
- This covers 3.95 billion spins on online slot games, and reports how these were distributed across different monetary thresholds (see Figure 28 below).
Research from Professor Ian McHale commissioned by the English Football League (EFL), which is sponsored by Sky Bet, looked at data from the Health Surveys and the Gambling Commission’s Young People and Gambling Survey, as well as a YouGov survey of football fans. The evidence we have seen on sport sponsorship indicates that it does have a level of impact on gambling behaviour, although this may not be as marked as for other forms of marketing addressed in this chapter. A more varied and targeted approach to public health messaging also has the potential to address specific high-risk audiences, for example young adults who are getting used to new levels of financial independence at the same time as gambling has become available to them (explored further in section 5.4 below). DHSC, DCMS and the Gambling Commission will work together, drawing on public health and social marketing expertise, to develop a robust approach to informational messaging throughout the user journey, replacing industry owned safer gambling messaging. The Prevention of Future Deaths report issued following the inquest into the suicide of Jack Ritchie identified a lack of adequate information on gambling harm and signposting to support as an area for action. Safety messaging on gambling-related harms should be led by statutory bodies, drawing on relevant public health expertise, ensuring impartiality and rigorous evaluation.
In 2019, members of the Bacta trade association decided to take voluntary action to ban under-16s from playing ‘cash-out’ slot-style machines while unaccompanied by an adult on their premises. Currently, Category D machines have no age restrictions nor area restrictions in licensed/permitted premises. In order to help customers make informed decisions and keep track of spending, the government considers that the display of session time and session net position (£) should be mandatory on machines that accept direct cashless payments. This will include assessing the role of session limits across Category B and C machines alongside safer gambling tools. Default limits for machines in betting shops are £150 being inserted as credit since session start or 20 minutes of machine play (both leading to a 30 second cooling-off period when triggered). However, there is no uniformity across land-based machines as a whole.
Annex E: Organisations and published authors that responded to the call for evidence
Likewise, our understanding of gambling-related harms and gambling disorder has developed enormously over recent years. Land-based gambling also finds itself in a very different place in light of these changes, with some of the assumptions which prevailed 18 years ago looking increasingly outdated. Newly available data and technology can both increase risks to players and facilitate innovative protections. Multinational tech businesses now provide gambling services which customers can engage with from almost anywhere and at any time of day or night. In the past year or so, the Gambling Commission has introduced a series of curbs on gambling, including raising the age limit for playing the National Lottery and banning the use of credit cards.
In the meantime, the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has provided us with an informal evaluation of some of the measures which were voluntarily adopted by most operators in September 2020. While we cannot preempt the outcomes of the Gambling Commission’s review, strengthening the verification procedures for gambling accounts (for instance by matching payment information) should bring benefits for all parties. For instance, we welcome the steps taken by some operators to introduce enhanced security measures, such as multi-factor authentication. With new payment regulations now in force, the Commission can reassess this issue and determine whether new requirements for licensees might be justified to address the risks identified above. SCA has now come fully into force, so card-based e-commerce transactions that are non-compliant should now be declined.
There is ongoing work in the sector to develop ways to ensure cashless gambling has safer gambling controls, which we explore further below. The legislation also requires ATMs to be positioned so that any customer who wishes to use them must stop gambling in order to do so. Cash-only gambling was assumed to give players more control over their play by providing natural interruptions in play to obtain more cash, helping players play within budget limits. We would need to do further work to ensure that robust player protections were in place to mitigate any harms, particularly taking into account the issues raised by the Gambling Commission about appropriate legislative safeguards on stake and prize levels, game speeds and the ability to set technical standards. Operators would like to be able to adapt their existing terminals to offer a wider variety of electronic casino games, using RNG technology. Casinos may use electronic terminals to offer games which are based on real events but only games based on the spin of a roulette wheel are currently available.
Several operators submitted information on their current approaches to preventing unaffordable gambling, which often already involved some form of financial vulnerability (FV) and enhanced checks (albeit triggered at different thresholds). Also, while PoP research is based on a large sample (around 139,000 accounts), the fact that it comes from 7 ‘high impact’ operators means that it will not perfectly represent the sector as a whole. We build on this research to model volumes of different types of gambling at different levels and then multiply these to reflect the entire size of the Great Britain online gambling market. While key details will be determined through a forthcoming Gambling Commission consultation, our proposal for financial risk checks (Section 1.2 above) is likely to have a significant impact on online GGY. Impacts and costs are baselined in 2022, as this is the most recent available full year gambling GGY dataset. The estimated range depends on factors such as compliance with and findings from financial risk checks, as well as behavioural responses to various reforms where we currently have limited data available.
Drinking in pubs is legal, but being drunk on licensed premises is an offence under the Licensing Act 1872. They are legal if held in a private setting without entry fees or profit; public or profit-based games are illegal. Private gambling at home is legal if it’s among friends, not open to the public, and no one profits from running the game. Low-stakes gambling, such as poker, is permitted in pubs under strict rules, with no entry fees, no rake, and limits on stakes and prizes.
Overall, they would either prefer the current contactless payment restrictions to apply for debit card payments on machines or for chip and pin to only be required at the beginning of any session. While this option does not provide as great an increase in commercial flexibility as Option 3, Option 2(b) and, potentially for some operators, Option 1, the evidence received suggests that the vast majority of operators would benefit under this option. We also received a small number of responses from gaming machine manufacturers and suppliers to the supplementary consultation. The majority of these respondents stated a preference for Option 2, as this would place the greatest restriction on the number of Category B machines available in arcades and bingo clubs.
Some respondents used this section of the consultation to further highlight their opposition to the minimum table gaming area requirement. • Lobby areas and toilet facilities may be taken into account but the non-gambling area shall not consist exclusively of lobby areas and toilet facilities. • Facilities for gambling cannot be provided in the non-gambling area.
These operators tend not to offer personalised account management or tailored incentives for specific customers. The number of customers on such schemes has fallen substantially and there have been no enforcement cases related to operators failing to meet the new standards. The Gambling Commission’s significantly strengthened protections around online VIP schemes specifically (as defined in the existing Gambling Commission rules) are making sure they are not used to exploit gamblers who are suffering harm. Nonetheless, the question remains as to whether incentivising continued spending from customers who have already gambled high sums should fundamentally be considered too dangerous a practice in a sector with a known addiction risk, especially where that high spending is in itself a risk indicator.
There was broad support amongst respondents for alignment, including from the Lotteries Council and the Chartered Institute of Fundraising. Little evidence was received to support the inconsistency between the minimum age of 18 to play the National Lottery and the minimum age of 16 for large society lotteries. We also received specific evidence on the vulnerabilities of the under 18 to 24 age group which are considered in Section 5.4 below. Some operators highlighted policies to limit access to VIP/HVC incentives for young adults, and reported that they set lower deposit limits and intervention triggers for those aged 18 to 24. We expect operators to continually review and improve their age verification procedures as new technologies or capabilities are developed, such as digital identity, which is discussed in section 1.2 above.