Recent years have witnessed a period of remarkable growth for the iGaming industry. The emergence of new technologies has enabled gaming studios to push the boundaries of what a game can do. At the same time, increased player demand for hybrid betting experiences and more social gameplay has also driven innovation.
However, these innovations are beginning to outpace the regulatory frameworks that control the industry, creating a significant challenge for both regulators and gaming studios.
As player demand and studio creativity accelerate, how can regulators keep up with these changes? And what can the wider industry do to help control the growing tensions between developers and regulators?
Striking a balance between innovation and regulation has never been more important for the industry, but it has also never been more difficult.
Alex Lorimer, Chief Operating Officer at Gaming Corps, Deborah Conte Santoro, Managing Director ReelLink, at Swiss Casinos and Susan O’Leary, CEO at Alderney Gambling Commission, share their thoughts on the subject.
How can regulators promote innovation while also ensuring responsible growth and player protection?
Alex Lorimer: Regulators need to adopt a more progressive mindset towards new game formats, especially those offering softer, more casual experiences. Not all innovations are high-risk; in fact, many simple RNG-based titles encourage slower, more measured gameplay, reducing intensity and making them less likely to foster problematic behaviour.
These formats can be inherently safer, while also delivering a more engaging, social, and ultimately healthier player experience – yet they are still too often met with scepticism.
Deborah Conte Santoro: Regulators can support innovation by creating agile, principle-based frameworks that prioritise player protection, fairness and transparency rather than prescribing rigid technical solutions.
Regulatory sandboxes, pilot projects and open dialogue with the industry help ensure that new ideas can be tested in a controlled environment, allowing responsible growth without compromising core values.
Regulators should also continuously update their technological expertise to keep pace with industry trends, as any gaps here can prevent operators and suppliers from innovating or leave players vulnerable to new products that sit outside the remit of regulations.
Susan O’Leary: It depends on the regulator and the framework you’re dealing with. Some regulatory regimes are very prescriptive and rigid, while others take a more risk-based approach. Player protection will always be the priority of a regulator but it does not necessarily have to be at the expense of embracing innovation.
The Alderney Gambling Control Commission’s (AGCC) regulatory framework is considered the gold standard in eGambling licensing, and it has the expertise and experience of over 25 years to be able to apply a risk-based approach to regulations which applies the regulations proportionately. Most of the team at the AGCC have practical industry experience so they get it.
How this works on a practical basis is that each licensee is appointed a relationship manager as a single point of contact. Together, the licensee and relationship manager work on a bespoke document called the Internal Control Systems (ICS) manual; essentially a business blueprint comprehensively outlining the inner workings of the licensee’s operational processes setting out how it operates to ensure compliance with the regulations.
It’s not prescriptive, which gives a lot of flexibility to maximise innovative ideas, especially with content, products and verticals. It’s a live document that can be amended to reflect any changes within the business.
This unique approach coupled with regulations’ in-built flexibility, means that the AGCC is able to keep up with the fast pace of development within the industry so that innovation isn’t stifled but rather, encouraged.
On the other hand, what can creators do to be proactive in engaging regulators during the creative process?
Alex Lorimer: As content developers, we’re eager to work more closely with regulators from the outset – especially during the early concept stages. This would help us align with expectations and avoid unnecessary delays or rejections later down the line.
However, most of these conversations are currently mediated through operators or testing houses, which can be time-consuming and inefficient. A more direct, structured dialogue would result in content that’s safer, more compliant, and ultimately more successful.
Deborah Conte Santoro: Creators should consider regulatory requirements as an integral part of the development cycle, not just a hurdle at the end.
By involving compliance experts early, sharing prototypes and inviting regulators for feedback or technical demonstrations, this can build trust and reduce time to market – there’s nothing worse than spending months designing and developing a product for it to fall short of regulatory requirements once sent off for testing and certification.
In addition, transparent documentation and regular risk assessments signal commitment to player safety and responsible gaming and foster constructive collaboration.
Susan O’Leary: The AGCC takes a collaborative, forward thinking approach but we know it isn’t always as easy in a home market, you don’t always get that one-on-one relationship with the regulator.
The key consideration here is for the licensee to talk to their relationship manager at an early stage during the creative process. If a new idea is something super innovative, the content creator would need to demonstrate why the harm is mitigated.
If creators feel the regulations are not fit for purpose for their product, that again can be discussed directly with the relationship manager. If the licensee can demonstrate that the risk is mitigated, amendments can be made to the ICS document.
There are basic technical standards that the AGCC adopt, and Alderney is one of four regulators to collaborate on a multi-jurisdictional testing framework model with the Isle of Man, UKGC and Denmark. It’s useful for studios to know that four prominent regulators are all in tune, so at least creators know where to start.
What role can operators play in helping change regulations and drive innovation from gaming studios?
Alex Lorimer: Many operators have been fantastic advocates for our more forward-thinking content. Their enthusiasm helps put pressure on regulatory frameworks to adapt – but it also adds another layer to the communication process, often slowing down progress. While their support is hugely important, it highlights the need for more direct relationships between studios and regulators.
Operators should continue to champion innovation, but we need to streamline how we work together – reducing friction and ensuring that exciting new ideas can be brought to market more efficiently and responsibly.
Deborah Conte Santoro: Operators are a crucial bridge between gaming studios and regulators. By sharing real-world operational insights, data and player feedback, operators can highlight areas where existing regulations may hinder innovation or fail to address emerging risks.
Operators can advocate for more flexible, outcome-focused rules and act as pilot partners for new concepts, demonstrating that new approaches can enhance both entertainment and player protection. Operators can also set internal standards that go beyond minimum legal requirements, raising the bar for the entire ecosystem.
Susan O’Leary: Again, everything should be collaborative. The better understanding of every part of the ecosystem relating to the gambling structure, the better you can co-create processes to mitigate the harm.
The regulator treads a line between keeping up with the ever-evolving landscape and not being too knee-jerk to jump on all fads. There’s no question though, that regulators who don’t adapt risk being left behind. Finding the balance of when and how to react is important.
A key consideration related to this is money and resources. The budgets and resources for R & D led by operators will be far greater than those of regulators with restricted budgets and limited staff. So if we’re considering the role operators can play in shaping regulation, there’s certainly an education/information sharing piece to factor in.
And it’s why the AGCC’s relationship manager-led approach works well, to ensure the channels of communication are always open for a transparent and cooperative relationship.
What are the potential risks for players in an industry where regulators and gaming studios are not able to work together?
Alex Lorimer: When regulators and studios operate in silos, it increases the risk of misunderstandings, delays, or missed opportunities to improve player protection. Studios may inadvertently push content that doesn’t meet changing standards, or worse, compromise on certain areas just to get approval.
A direct, cooperative relationship between regulators and content providers helps ensure that new products are built with compliance and safety in mind from the beginning. This kind of partnership fosters a more thoughtful approach to innovation – resulting in games that are not only engaging, but also fairer, and ultimately safer for players across the board.
Deborah Conte Santoro: When regulators and studios fail to cooperate, grey zones emerge where standards are unclear or inconsistently applied. This can lead to products with unproven fairness, inadequate player protections or even outright legal uncertainty.
Players may unknowingly take higher risks or be drawn to unregulated offerings and, in the worst case, a lack of alignment erodes trust in the wider industry. Trust is something that all stakeholders are always working to earn, so this can have a major negative impact on the progress we have made in recent years.
Susan O’Leary: Definitely the risk is pushing players towards the black market. Some home markets are in denial about the prevalence of the black market, whereas I think it’s getting easier and easier to fly under the radar.
If industry cannot practically license these innovative products within regulatory frameworks for products that are already in high demand then it is inevitable they will go to a place that can. We want to keep players and content providers in the regulated space, and so we want to create an environment that’s workable and collaborative.
Technology in general and innovation are growing at an unbelievable rate. The one thing I find tough is that we’re often notified of gambling content on platforms like Instagram or Snapchat or Telegram, platforms that are so easy for kids to access and what’s really concerning is that they don’t realise the potential for harm.
So, it’s important to get that back into a suitable framework, because it can cause huge damage. There’s a danger of normalising this type of content, especially because it’s so available and so easily accessible.
What steps can the industry take to bridge the gap between content providers/developers, operators, and regulators?
Alex Lorimer: Given the size and profitability of the iGaming industry, there’s a compelling case for creating funded liaison roles – individuals who act as direct communication bridges between studios and regulators. Whether appointed by regulators or through a reasonable annual contribution from studios, these roles could streamline dialogue and accelerate approvals.
By formalising communication, we can remove ambiguity, build trust, and ensure all parties are aligned. Ultimately, a more connected ecosystem benefits everyone – delivering better content, faster time to market, and stronger safeguards for the players.
Deborah Conte Santoro: The industry should take several focused steps. First, it is important to set up regular and structured exchanges. This can include roundtables or workshops where all key groups are involved do that different perspectives are brought together at an early stage.
Joint pilot projects or regulatory sandboxes are also helpful. In these protected environments, new technologies and business models can be tested. Risks are identified early, and innovations can be developed further in a controlled way.
Transparency is another key factor. Companies should share risk assessments, product roadmaps and technical documentation during development. This makes it easier for authorities to review and demonstrate a sense of responsibility.
Finally, creating best-practice guidelines together is valuable. When all stakeholders define standards and expectations jointly, trust and a common understanding are built. By following these steps, the industry can build real bridges and foster both sustainable innovation and a stable market environment for all stakeholders.
Susan O’Leary: We need to understand what’s on trend – what the interests are, what the demand is and we need to be able to educate each other, share experiences and build a mutual trust and respect.
Alderney eGambling is uniquely positioned to act as a bridge between the commercial world and the AGCC as the regulator; to offer unbiased support and advice to operators and service providers.
With the industry moving at such a rapid pace, what emerging trends do you believe are going to cause the biggest problems for the relationship between studios and regulators?
Alex Lorimer: Multiplayer experiences are going to be a serious consideration for regulators. As online communities grow more socially connected, players increasingly want to interact and compete in real time. This adds layers of complexity to how games function, how fairness is ensured, and how risk is assessed.
For regulators, it’s unfamiliar territory – much more akin to social gaming than traditional slots or table games. Studios will need to work hard to educate and work with regulators to help them understand these dynamics. Without that, we risk stalling one of the most exciting and in-demand areas of growth in the sector.
Deborah Conte Santoro: One important trend is the growing use of artificial intelligence and algorithmic personalisation. This raises questions about fairness, transparency and data privacy and in my experience, current regulations often do not fully address these topics.
Another key issue is the rise of hybrid gaming experiences. These blur the boundaries between online and land-based play, and between entertainment and gambling. This creates new challenges for jurisdiction and player identification. These trends require close cooperation among all parties and a willingness to continuously adapt existing regulations.
Susan O’Leary: The most disruptive thing in the sector will be AI and crypto. Some elements of crypto traditionally don’t work well in the regulated space, while others, like its indelible nature, do.
The growth of the crypto casino market is immense and they’re using content that’s in high demand from a UX perspective but largely unregulated. There’s content for the regulated space, and then there’s content that’s less defined, so we need to bridge those two and harmonise them.
Similarly for AI, there’s no doubt that elements of this tech will benefit the relationship between the industry and regulators, but the adoption is cautious at this stage.
Do you believe it is possible for a game or an innovation to be ‘too early’ for the market in terms of player demand and regulation?
Alex Lorimer: Absolutely. A product can be ready in terms of player appetite but still hit roadblocks because the regulatory infrastructure hasn’t caught up.
However, this doesn’t have to be the case. If studios are given the opportunity to engage regulators early in the development cycle, we can adapt ideas together and ensure new products are designed with compliance in mind.
Doing so shifts regulators from being reactive to being part of the innovation process – giving them a stake in shaping the future of the market.
Deborah Conte Santoro: Yes, I absolutely believe that a game or innovation can be “too early” for the market, even in a time when technological progress and innovation cycles are accelerating rapidly.
While it is true that companies, regulators and players are being forced to adapt to an ever-faster pace of evolution, there are still very real, natural limits to how quickly markets, industry structures and societal acceptance can change.
The phenomenon of being “too early” is not simply a matter of slow regulation or sluggish organisations, it is an ecosystem-wide issue. Even the most advanced product will struggle to achieve sustainable success if player habits, social acceptance or the regulatory environment are not yet ready to support it.
From a regulatory perspective, the pace of change is often deliberately slowed down to ensure that innovation remains in line with important social values such as player protection, integrity and transparency.
Bold pioneers do drive the industry forward and help shape the future of gaming. However, being “too early” requires more than just vision and technology; it also requires patience, a clear communication strategy and a willingness to invest time and resources in preparing both the market and regulators for change.
The risk of being “too early” is very real. True success is achieved when innovation, market readiness and regulatory evolution are aligned. Those who move ahead of the curve need perseverance, a long-term mindset and must be prepared to face setbacks and steep learning curves along the way.
Susan O’Leary: In terms of how the AGCC looks at regulation of innovative developments, there should always be a way forward with it, providing there’s been effective communication between the parties involved.
Let’s take sweepstakes, for example as its very topical. You would need to tweak technical standards within the ICS and our test of technical standards is to mitigate the harm and the risk. So, what is the play? What is the game? What is the risk? What is the harm? Once this is established, we would adjust the technical standards accordingly.
There would also be work required with testing houses on that as well.
Looking ahead five years, what does the ideal regulatory landscape for iGaming innovation look like? And do you believe AI and other emerging technologies can play a role in shaping this?
Alex Lorimer: In five years, I’d like to see a regulatory environment where studios, operators, and regulators collaborate from the outset – sharing ideas, concerns, and ambitions early and often. One where innovation is approached not with suspicion, but with curiosity and care. AI and other emerging technologies will undoubtedly play an increasingly important role across iGaming.
But when it comes to setting the tone for ethical development, human judgement remains essential. Player safety must be guided by conscious decisions rooted in empathy, responsibility, and real-world understanding – not just algorithms or data alone.
Deborah Conte Santoro: The ideal regulatory landscape combines clear principles with flexibility. Player safety, transparency and integrity remain at the core. At the same time, regulations must adapt to new technologies and business models. Regulators will need to become more tech-savvy and should work closely with the industry to develop common standards and best practices.
For example, AI and other emerging technologies will play a double role. On one hand, they will drive new gaming experiences. On the other hand, they will enable smarter and more dynamic compliance monitoring, better player protection and automated risk detection.
In five years, the most successful markets will be those that see technology not just as a challenge, but as a real opportunity for both innovation and responsible gaming.
Susan O’Leary: A regulator’s priority is always going to be to prevent genuine harm to players. With that priority defined, the regulatory landscape can be shaped to ensure all parties are effectively supported.
This requires the regulator to be nimble and educated, to be able to understand innovations and how they affect the gambling transaction, but it also requires a level of collaboration so that the regulator (in the case of the AGCC, the dedicated Relationship Manager) is kept informed at the earliest stage of development so that adjustments, if required, can be made to accommodate the innovation.
Developments within AI will obviously help to improve systems and compliance. But for now, it’s the human contact and ease of communication that is key, and the structure adopted by the AGCC means that licensees have a singular point of contact with the regulator.
AI will inevitably play a role in the sector and indeed the regulatory space. For the time being the personal touch and the access the licensees get to the regulator directly works best for all involved.
In an ideal world, I’d like to see more cooperation between regulators and some harmonisation of standards, so they’re not in competition with each other, and everyone across the full ecosystem collaborates and works together. That would be my dream.
The post Roundtable: when innovation moves too fast appeared first on G3 Newswire.
Recent years have witnessed a period of remarkable growth for the iGaming industry. The emergence of new technologies has enabled gaming studios to push the boundaries of what a game can do. At the same time, increased player demand for hybrid betting experiences and more social gameplay has also driven innovation. However, these innovations are…
The post Roundtable: when innovation moves too fast appeared first on G3 Newswire.