Yesterday, 7 July, the Gambling Commission (GC) announced it is to plough ahead with plans to introduce financial risk assessments (FRAs) despite opposition to the measure among regulated operators and punters.
As part of a phased rollout, the initial stage will see only the largest operators required to undertake FRAs, while the regulator confirmed the initial threshold for intervention will be £5,000 net deposits within a rolling 24-hour period for players aged over 25, or £2,500 for those under 25.
The triggers will eventually be set in stone at £1,000 net deposits in a rolling 24-hour period and £3,000 net deposits in a rolling 90-day period for those 25 and older, or £750 in 24 hours and £2,000 in 90 days for 18- to 24-year-olds.
The regulator has not confirmed when the initial implementation will begin, nor the timeline for lowering the trigger thresholds, while no operator will face any potential enforcement action during the implementation period for flouting the rules.
FRAs were first touted in 2023 as part of the white paper into a government review to overhaul the Gambling Act 2025, though the GC, which launched a pilot in 2024, reckons the vast majority of customers will not face FRAs due to the ability of operators to carry out background checks using sources such as credit reference agencies.
Here, we have compiled the thoughts of industry insiders to gauge their reaction to the GC’s intention to follow through with its controversial proposals.
Melanie Ellis, partner at Northridge Law
“The GC’s announcement shows it has taken criticisms from the industry into account, yet despite the proposed gradual introduction of FRAs, a number of concerns remain. The accuracy of the credit reference agency data remains in question, but the interim period where only the highest spending customers will be subject to these checks at least reduces the number of customers likely to be affected by operators taking action based on inaccurate data.
“The GC also appears to acknowledge the concerns of operators about what action they would need to take based on the outcome of a FRA, by agreeing not to take enforcement action against operators failing to act on FRA findings during the early stages of implementation.
“The GC gives some indication of what proportionate action should look like – reducing marketing, supporting customers to set deposit limits or “more where needed” – but it is the questions over what “more” would entail and when it would “be needed” that are likely to catch operators out once FRAs are fully in force.”
Harry Stewart Moore, partner at Child & Child
“The position is that we have a regulator for the sport of horseracing, a sport largely funded both directly and indirectly by gambling, telling the regulator for gambling that affordability checks are going to significantly damage the horseracing industry and the regulator for gambling completely ignoring that warning.
“If, as the Commission says, affordability checks apply to so few people, why do all regulated operators now make it well-nigh impossible for punters to place remotely substantial bets? That is not a habit which could conceivably be in their commercial interests, and it is one which is guaranteed to fuel demand for the black market.
“The difficulty we have is that the regulator has become highly interventionist on the question of problem gambling but remains very remote from the industry it regulates on almost all other issues.”
Richard Williams, partner at Keystone Law
“Anecdotal industry evidence suggests the Gambling Commission may be acting after the horse has bolted in pressing ahead with FRAs. Many believe a significant proportion of the high-spending customers (ie VIPs) these measures are designed to protect have already migrated away from the regulated market as a result of the cumulative impact of recent regulatory reforms. FRAs represent the final major player protection measure proposed in the white paper.
“Introducing FRAs will also impose further costs on an industry that is already facing a 25% increase in Gambling Commission licence fees, statutory levy contributions and the increase in remote gaming duty from 21% to 40%. At some point, it is legitimate to ask how much additional regulatory and financial burden the regulated remote gambling sector can absorb.
“Although it is encouraging that the Commission has indicated it will initially adopt a supervisory rather than enforcement-led approach, significant uncertainty remains over what operators are expected to do when a FRA identifies a customer as presenting financial risk. Without clearer guidance on the appropriate response, operators may struggle to apply the new requirements consistently.
“Given the concerns that remain following the pilot, including differing outcomes from different credit reference agencies, uncertainty over how operators should respond to identified financial risk, and the absence of compelling evidence that FRAs will achieve material additional consumer protection beyond the extensive measures already introduced. I remain unconvinced that now is the right time to proceed with their implementation.”
Sian Harding, managing associate in the Interactive Entertainment team at Mishcon de Reya
“The Commission’s staged approach reflects a degree of pragmatism; they intend to use a higher initial threshold than previously proposed, and the commitment that no enforcement action will be taken following a ‘failure to act’ during the initial implementation phase will be welcome news to operators.
“However, the fundamental concerns raised during the pilot have not been resolved. The Commission has still not published a full evaluation of the pilot, questions remain over the reliability and consistency of credit reference agency data, and operators have little clarity on what they are expected to do when FRAs show potential vulnerability (or when they do not provide adequate information for an assessment to be made). The Commission’s decision also lands at a moment when the licensed sector is absorbing an unprecedented volume of regulatory and fiscal change.
“The decision to proceed without first publishing any evaluation of the pilot, and without any cumulative impact assessment of the wave of changes the sector has absorbed since 2023, is difficult to reconcile with the Commission’s own emphasis on evidence-led regulation – and means the critical regulatory question of proportionality remains unanswered.”
Anna Soilleux-Mills, partner at CMS
“Whilst it has taken three years to reach this point, fundamental questions and uncertainties remain. A key issue is different FRAs can produce materially different results for the same customer. Although the Commission has acknowledged this problem, it has yet to provide a solution or meaningful guidance on how operators should respond when faced with inconsistent outcomes. Nor has it set out what operators are expected to do with the results of an FRA more generally.
“These are significant questions, and clear, specific and proportionate guidance from the Commission, together with a robust and transparent evaluation of the staged implementation period, will be crucial. Without this, the Commission may leave itself open to challenge.
“The staged implementation period, and the Commission’s commitment not to take enforcement action against operators that do not act on an FRA during that period, is a pragmatic approach and, had the Commission stopped there, might have provided some reassurance to operators. However, the Commission immediately went on to state that “operators are still subject to all other existing licence requirements which must be met, and in relation to which action may be taken”.
“This raises a significant concern: whether a failure to act following an FRA could, in practice, be enforced indirectly.”
Grainne Hurst, CEO of the Betting and Gaming Council
“We are deeply disappointed and frustrated that the Gambling Commission has decided to press ahead with FRAs despite the significant concerns raised over the last 18 months by the BGC [Betting and Gaming Council], operators, racing, parliamentarians and customers.
“The pilot exposed inconsistencies in the information returned by credit reference agencies, with the same customer potentially receiving different outcomes depending on the provider. Customers risk being wrongly identified as financially vulnerable based on a system that remains unproven. That is not a sound basis for regulatory intervention.
“Until the Commission can demonstrate these checks are accurate, consistent and genuinely frictionless, our fundamental concerns remain, including the risk of driving customers towards the growing illegal gambling market.”
Brant Dunshea, CEO of the British Horseracing Authority
“We understand these checks have been proven by the Gambling Commission’s own pilot to not be ‘fully frictionless’, as originally promised by successive government ministers.
“Rather than protecting consumers, these checks will have the opposite effect: driving more customers to the illegal market – which puts them at much greater risk of gambling-related harm – and starving the Treasury of much needed tax revenue.
“Objective evidence from across the globe makes clear this decision is one of self-harm on an immense scale that will have damaging economic and societal implications.
“For this decision to be taken unilaterally by the Gambling Commission shows a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has failed to grip this process or properly consider the damaging consequences of the decision.”
The post Industry reaction to the GC green lighting the rollout of financial risk assessments first appeared on EGR Intel.
Stakeholders express their concerns to EGR around the reliability of credit reference agency data, along with the “absence of compelling evidence” the controversial measure will achieve “material additional consumer protection”
The post Industry reaction to the GC green lighting the rollout of financial risk assessments first appeared on EGR Intel.