19Oct

White Paper Series: DCMS statutory levy consultation – polluters pay is the fairest way…

19th October 2023 Ting Fung 224

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s (“DCMS”) consultation on the statutory levy (the “Consultation”) was published on 17 October 2023.

The White Paper stated that the Consultation would consider:

the proposed total amount to be raised by the statutory levy;
how to construct the statutory levy in a fair and proportionate manner; and
consideration of the differing harm associations between sectors and/or associated fixed costs, for example, whether a “polluters pay” principle should be adopted.

We set out below the DCMS’ response to these and other key points of the Consultation.

Proposed total amount?

The Consultation indicates that the new gambling levy, which is expected to be in full force by 2026/2027, will raise an estimated £90 to £100 million per year for research prevention and treatment by 2027.

Construction of the levy

The levy will be calculated based on a percentage of gross gambling yield (“GGY”) and be applicable to both B2Cs and B2Bs. Where GGY is not applicable, percentages should be applied to gross profits instead.

Licensees with more than £500,000 GGY or gross profits will be expected to pay the levy.

Summary of proposed levy rates

Levy rates (% gross gambling yield) when fully in force (2026/27):
• 1% from all online operators (excluding society lotteries with remote licences)
• 1% from remote software licences
• 1% from remote machine technical licences
• 1% from remote pool betting licences
• 0.4% from land-based casino/betting
• 0.4% from non-remote software licences
• 0.4% from non-remote machine technical licences
• 0.4% from non-remote pool betting licences
• 0.1% from land-based arcades and bingo
• 0.1% from society lotteries (including External Lottery Managers and local authority lotteries licensed by the Gambling Commission)

Government emphasises that it is “committed to a proportionate, evidence-led approach” and states that the proposed rates may change depending on evidence received from the Consultation.

Subject to the Consultation response, payment of the levy will be either with the annual fee or on a fixed date, with Government priority being a streamlined process for levy payment and collection.

Government recognises in the Consultation that online providers of higher-risk gambling products “are associated with greater levels of ‘problem gambling’ and gambling-related harm” and therefore “can also reasonably be expected to contribute more to cover the costs of tackling and preventing gambling-related harms”. Nevertheless, Government acknowledges that a polluter pays principle would currently be difficult to implement by product, as the evidence base is not yet sufficient to confirm the particular share of harm by product. In addition, Government’s view of B2Bs as “a crucial part of the broader supply chain fundamental to the industry as a whole” has resulted in the same levy being applied between B2Cs and B2Bs.

Levy distribution

Oversight by:

A central Government levy board comprising the Department for Health and Social Care and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology;
Additional oversight by HM Treasury;
An expert advisory group comprising public bodies with relevant expertise and the third sector will also be established to help prioritise how funds should be used.

Administered by: the Gambling Commission, as directed by Government.

The proposed percentage allocations across the areas of research, prevention and treatment (“RPT”) respectively are:

10-20% to UK Research and Innovation for a Gambling Research Programme.
15-30% for a co-ordinated approach to prevention, early intervention, and education across Great Britain.
40-60% to the NHS, who will be the main commissioner of treatment in England, Scotland and Wales.

What about regulatory settlements and RET payments?

Subject to the final levy system, the Gambling Commission has indicated that it will review its process for approving the destination of settlements, should there be any, and consider how to avoid, as far as possible, a dual system or duplication of work alongside the levy.

Until the levy is implemented, licensees are expected to continue making RET payments as required by the Licence conditions and codes of practice.

Conclusion

Speaking on fairness, Gambling Minister Stuart Andrew has said that:

“Gambling firms should always pay their fair share and this new statutory levy will ensure that they are legally required to do just that.”

The Consultation lasts for 8 weeks, with a deadline of 14 December 2023. Responses should be provided via the Government’s online survey. If you cannot access the link, responses can be sent in PDF or Microsoft Word format to [email protected].

We encourage all to respond and let us know if you wish to discuss or require any assistance.

13Oct

Gambling Commission speech at G2E 2023: Growing importance of international collaboration

13th October 2023 Chris Biggs 246

Tim Miller, the Gambling Commission’s Executive Director for Policy and Research and Senior Responsible Owner for the White Paper, delivered a speech at the Global Gaming Expo (“G2E”) in Las Vegas on 10 October 2023. In his speech, Mr Miller discussed (1) the “growing importance” of international collaboration with other gambling regulators, (2) how this is assisting in tackling illegal online gambling and (3) the progress of the White Paper and changes to the law and regulations in Great Britain, which remains the largest licensed online gambling market in the world.

This blog, whilst not intended to be a comprehensive overview, will summarise those three key themes from Mr Miller’s speech.

Growing importance of international collaboration

Mr Miller stated that gambling is a global industry and that leading operators and suppliers are now (mostly) multi-national businesses. The Gambling Commission’s motivation to collaborate with international regulators has been piqued, as it witnesses more large British or European operators seek to establish themselves in North American jurisdictions. Indeed, Mr Miller declared:

“Increasingly we regulate the same companies; we address the same risks; we face the same challenges.”

In an effort to provide clarity about what the Gambling Commission means by strengthening its relationships with other regulators abroad, Mr Miller explained that the Gambling Commission continues to look to support new regulators in burgeoning jurisdictions and learn from their experiences, suggesting:

“The more gambling regulators know of each other’s rules, standards and markets, the more we are sharing information and best practice, the more we support each other then the more effective we will be.”

Consistent with the Gambling Commission’s tough stance on compliance and enforcement (indeed, Mr Miller mentioned the Gambling Commission broke its own record for “the largest ever settlement” twice in the last financial year), Mr Miller also gave a clear warning for licensees who are non-compliant in one jurisdiction not to be surprised if they are “the subject of regulatory conversation in other jurisdictions.”

Further collaborative efforts mentioned by Mr Miller include:

He, alongside the Gambling Commission’s Chair, Marcus Boyle, hosted a roundtable discussion at G2E with North American regulators on the practical steps the Gambling Commission will take to enhance regulatory collaboration;
the Gambling Commission is close to concluding a number of Memoranda of Understanding with US regulators, which look to establish clear working relationships with those regulators; and
the Gambling Commission continues to build stronger links between the North American Gaming Regulators Association and the Gambling Regulators European Forum.

Collaboration improving the combat against illegal online gambling

Mr Miller used illegal online gambling as an example of why international collaboration is important: what is illegal in one jurisdiction may not be in another, and some jurisdictions do not regulate online gambling at all. The key point made here is, as Mr Miller states, “legitimate, licensed operators from one jurisdiction can actually be the illegal or black market in another.” Tackling illegal online gambling is therefore a particular focus of the Gambling Commission and one which it relies on international collaboration to deliver greater results in making gambling safer, fairer and crime-free.

In terms of results, Mr Miller announced that by engaging and collaborating with payment providers, internet search providers and product and game developers, the Gambling Commission has delivered a 46% reduction in traffic to the “largest illegal sites coming into market.” Notably, Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission’s Chief Executive, Andrew Rhodes, will be providing further information on this topic in a speech at next week’s International Association of Gambling Regulators conference.

Lastly, Mr Miller explained that the Gambling Commission continues to hold discussions with regulators in Europe and as far away as Australia to improve its response to illegal online gambling and influence on those outside of the gambling industry, declaring:

“The collective voice of gambling regulators across the globe pressuring big tech companies, banks and even some other jurisdictions to address the role they play in facilitating illegal gambling, will be much harder to ignore.”

Update on Great Britain’s changing regulations

Referring to the Gambling Commission’s first consultation following the White Paper released on 26 July 2023, Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission has already received “thousands” of responses to these consultations. We strongly encourage stakeholders within the industry to respond to this consultation before it closes shortly on 18 October 2023.

Additionally, Mr Miller indicated there has been progress with the GamProtect project, which grew out of the Gambling Commission’s challenge to the gambling industry to produce a holistic view of risk of harm, known as the Single Customer View. Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission has been working with the Betting and Gaming Council and the Information Commissioner to set up a pilot for this project and ensure the data gathered will only be used to protect people from harm.

Lastly, Mr Miller indicated that the Gambling Commission is finalising its new methodology for the collection of Participation and Prevalence data as part of the Gambling Survey of Great Britain. The Gambling Commission expects this survey (1) to have 20,000 respondents per year, (2) will be the “largest of its kind in the world when up and running”, and (3) will become the “new gold standard” of gambling data in Great Britain. Mr Miller stated the Gambling Commission is clear that “better data will lead to better regulation and better outcomes for both consumers and operators as a result.” As we have discussed previously, this is something we strongly support; better evidence and data should lead to better regulation, but time will tell.

Summary

Gambling is a global industry with global gambling businesses. The Gambling Commission’s desire to increase collaboration, especially against the backdrop of the Gambling Act Review and its previous speeches, is unsurprising. As Mr Miller acknowledged, “o regulator – regardless of their experience or scale can be the world police” for the gambling industry. Watch this space to see what increased collaboration amongst international regulators means!

22Sep

DCMS Committee inquiry on gambling regulation

22nd September 2023 Harris Hagan 293

In case you missed it earlier in the month, on 5 September 2023, the Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP (Gambling Minster), Ben Dean (Director, Sport and Gambling at DCMS), Andrew Rhodes (Chief Executive, Gambling Commission), Sarah Gardner (Deputy Chief Executive, Gambling Commission) and Tim Miller (Executive Director for Research and Policy, Gambling Commission) appeared before the DCMS Committee examining the Government’s approach to the regulation of gambling. The Gambling Commission gave evidence in the first session at 10am, and the Gambling Minister and DCMS gave their evidence in the second session at 11.30am.

Watch the recording of the DCMS committee oral evidence sessions:

22Sep

Julian Harris wins VIXIO’s 2023 Compliance Lifetime Achievement Award

22nd September 2023 Harris Hagan 248

We are very delighted to announce that Consultant and Founder Julian Harris has been awarded the Global Regulatory Award for Compliance Lifetime Achievement by VIXIO Regulatory Intelligence.

This special award recognises Julian’s unprecedented work in trailblazing a “culture of compliance and regulatory standards within the industry” for more than 40 years. During that time, Julian has advised many of the world’s largest online and land-based gambling companies, regulators, governments, financial institutions, and private equity firms on gambling law and regulation. Julian has also been at the forefront of thought leadership in the gambling sector, sharing his extensive experience and insight on various gambling regulatory issues by authoring many articles on the topic, including acting as editor of global publications on gambling law, and in his speeches at conferences across the world. He also served as President of the International Association of Gaming Advisors, the first person to do so from outside North America, testament to the esteem in which he is held amongst gaming advisers worldwide.

Julian first came to specialise in gambling law in 1981 representing the Gaming Board for Great Britain (the then British regulator). He co-founded Harris Hagan with John Hagan in 2004, in anticipation of the Gambling Act 2005 and the expected growth of the gambling industry in Great Britain. It was a bold and inspired decision at a time when niche law firms were rare in the City of London.

Upon receiving this distinguished award, Julian commented:

“I am greatly honoured and humbled by this award. I have felt privileged to have enjoyed being a part of this exciting industry for some 40 years, working with industry, fellow advisers and regulators internationally.
To receive this award from such a distinguished panel of judges and from the most respected global regulatory awards is particularly gratifying.”

The 2023 Global Regulatory Awards will take place on 29 November 2023.

22Sep

White Paper Series: Regulatory Panel changes – Fair or unfair?

22nd September 2023 Bahar Alaeddini 253

In this blog, we consider the Gambling Commission’s most recent proposals to the Regulatory Panel.

It will not come as a surprise to readers that, as gambling lawyers, we have serious concerns about the proposals to:

use Adjudicators with only a minimum of five years’ post qualification experience (“PQE”); and
change the default from oral hearings to paper-based decisions subject to a fairness test.

Regulatory Panel and its importance

The Regulatory Panel provides an important opportunity for applicants and licensees to attend an oral hearing to challenge decisions made by Gambling Commission staff. It is the only avenue of recourse, outside the expensive options of the First-tier Tribunal and judicial review, when the Gambling Commission is going against you. Whilst we accept it is still, in fact, the Gambling Commission, it is an important accountability mechanism for Gambling Commission employees making decisions under delegated powers. This narrow and non-independent avenue of recourse should not be further eroded.

2020 consultation

On 18 May 2020, the Gambling Commission announced planned changes to its Regulatory Panel, which included: (1) the recruitment and appointment of legally-qualified Adjudicators, solely for the purpose of sitting on the Regulatory Panel with the “presumption” they will also provide legal advice; and (2) reconstituting the quorum as follows: (a) for operating licences: one Commissioner and one Adjudicator; and (b) for personal licences: one Adjudicator.

At the time, we were so concerned by the proposals and that the duty to act fairly was being compromised that we submitted a response to the 2020 consultation and shared it on our blog to assist others in preparing responses.

More than 14 months later, on 21 July 2021, the Gambling Commission published its consultation response which summarised the 22 written responses received from gambling operators, trade associations and others, including Harris Hagan. As explained in our August 2021 blog, The overwhelming majority of respondents disagreed with each of the Gambling Commission’s proposals, with a key concern being that “the independence and impartiality of the Panel would be adversely affected by the proposal to use adjudicators” as outlined in my May 2020 blog.

2023 consultation

The two main proposed changes are:

Quorum and composition

The Regulatory Panel will no longer comprise up to two to three Commissioners, advised by an independent legal adviser. Instead, it will be chaired by a legally qualified Adjudicator sitting alongside one Commissioner and one senior Gambling Commission employee. The Adjudicator would sit alone on case management matters and personal licensing cases.

The main reasons for the proposed change are to improve availability, improve governance and accountability and provide an enhanced skillset for decision making.

Our main concerns are:

Adjudicators will, as proposed in 2020, be employed by the Gambling Commission. In a small feat of victory, we note from the draft Governance Framework (published this time as part of the consultation) the Gambling Commission has acknowledged some of our previous concerns by indicating that Adjudicators’ will be home-based and appraisals will be run by a Commissioner.

Adjudicators will only need a minimum of five years’ PQE. The idea that someone with potentially as little as five years’ PQE would be adjudicating on a £20m fine, suspension or revocation of a licence is frightening. Where is the Gambling Commission’s evidence to support that five years’ PQE is appropriate? How is this a sufficient level of experience, bearing in mind they are likely to have absolutely no experience of gambling and, given their lack of seniority, very minimal experience making unsupervised decisions?

Unlike the 2020 consultation which failed to specifically mention other adjudication frameworks, this time, the Gambling Commission has made fleeting mention to the General Medical Council (regulates medical doctors), Ofqual (regulates qualifications, examinations and assessments) and Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (regulates law firms and solicitors) to support the move to a mixed model of decision-making. We remain wholly unconvinced by the Gambling Commission’s rationale. There are about 90 statutory regulators in the UK and yet the consultation includes no details, or evaluation, of the different models of adjudication and relative advantages and disadvantages (including appeal rates) of each model. Nor is there any reference to the determining factors for the chosen mixed model or the appropriateness of application to the regulation of commercial gambling. As with the 2020 consultation, we are left to assume this is deliberate given many of the other models appear impartial, independent and robust. By way of example, approximately half of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Regulatory Decisions Committee’s 18 members come from finance or financial services backgrounds. The other half have esteemed legal, governance, policy or academic backgrounds. Independence is further emphasised by the FCA handbook stipulation that: (i) none of the members are employees; and (ii) the committee has its own legal advisers and support staff.

The Principles of inspection and enforcement, as set out in Philip Hampton’s Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement report state: “egulators should be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities, while remaining independent in the decisions they take setting out a number of core principles of effective regulation – the standard against which all regulators’ performance should be judged.” At a minimum, the Gambling Commission must publish its research into each adjudication model and its evaluation criteria for monitoring the “efficiency and effectiveness” of each model, together with the impact on applicants/licensees.

There is no mention of a trial period of using Adjudicators.

Default of paper decisions

Another proposal is to change the default from oral hearings to paper-based decisions. An oral hearing can be requested by the applicant/licensee; alternatively, the Panel itself may decide it is “required” – using a test of “fairness”, for example, where there are “material and significant disputes of fact”.

The main reasons for this proposed change are to reduce the burden on applicants/licensees particularly where they have unrepresented and find it difficult to navigate, and to increase the promptness of decision making.

Our main concern is that applicants and licensees will be denied the opportunity to bring their arguments to life. What is the test of fairness and why do we need one?

The requirements of fairness are flexible and fact specific. Legal history places huge importance on oral argument and, in our view, with good reason. Over 20 years ago, Lord Justice Laws recognised “oral argument is perhaps the most powerful force there is, in our legal process, to promote a change of mind.” Further, in R (H) v Secretary of State for Justice EWHC 2590 (Admin), Cranston J summarised the legal position in respect of oral hearings as follows:

Procedural fairness sometimes demands an oral hearing. There can be greater confidence with an oral hearing that the relevant standards have been properly applied and that the facts on which the decision is based are accurate. The oral hearing also gives the person affected by the decision the opportunity to tailor the arguments to the concerns of the decision maker.

Another concern is the matter of mutual respect for the Gambling Commission and the applicant/licensee with the latter’s perception of the process being central, as acknowledged in Osborn v Parole Board UKSC 61, in which Lord Reid referred to the principle that:

…justice is intuitively understood to require a procedure which pays due respect to persons whose rights are significantly affected by decisions taken in the exercise of administrative or judicial functions. Respect entails that such persons ought to be able to participate in the procedure by which the decision is made, provided they have something to say which is relevant to the decision to be taken.

We feel strongly that the Gambling Commission’s proposals do not conform to the necessary standards of fairness. The proposed barrier should therefore be removed, and the policy should simply say that an oral hearing can be chosen on request. This will address the Gambling Commission’s main reason for the proposed change whilst still enabling those who want one, a fair hearing.

The consultation cites the stress that the unrepresented applicants/licensees experience in attending hearings as a reason for changing the default to paper decisions. However, there is no mention of how many of the 12 requests, to the Regulatory Panel, last year were unrepresented. The Consultation is silent (no doubt, intentionally) on the introduction of a policy dealing with unrepresented parties.

Concluding thoughts

It is undeniable that the Gambling Commission is a very powerful regulator. How many other UK regulatory authorities can impose limitless fines, commence criminal proceedings and decide to close multi-million pound businesses?

It appears that the Gambling Commission’s primary focus is to cut costs. Inevitably, good decisions will not be made in the public interest, nor will those decisions be made following a fair process. The new proposals will have a far bigger negative impact than announced changes in 2021, which will be implemented at the same time (as amended). The only possible – dim – glimmer of hope is that decisions will or should be quicker. However, if those decisions are of poor quality and unfair, it means that they will be more routinely appealed to the First-tier Tribunal, which will be lengthy, uncertain and expensive. Therefore, any possible benefit gained from quicker decisions will be more than outweighed by the drawbacks.

If we look at the regulatory landscape, the Gambling Commission is proposing to make these significant changes at the same time as it is escalating fines and sanctions.

Effective regulation requires effective accountability, and it seems to us that the Gambling Commission is removing a weakening mechanism which holds the regulator to account for its own policies and procedures and the law.

In conclusion, and repeating the final words from my May 2020 blog, the proposed changes do not offer a practical vision for adjudication that is consistent with good regulatory and legal practice. There is nothing to suggest that fairness has been a consideration. The only consideration appears to be about saving cost, time for the Gambling Commission and Commissioners, and speeding up the process. In doing so, the duty to act fairly has been compromised.

Respond to the consultation

We strongly encourage industry and its stakeholders to respond to the consultation, which closes on 18 October 2023.

22Sep

White Paper Series: Defining the Future VIXIO Webinar

22nd September 2023 Harris Hagan 251

On 15 September 2023, Bahar Alaeddini appeared as a panellist on a VIXIO Regulatory Intelligence (formerly GamblingCompliance) webinar titled “UK White Paper: Defining the Future” together with Tim Miller from the Gambling Commission, Sarah Fox from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners. The panellists had an insightful and lively discussion about some of the proposals in the recent wave of consultations and next steps:

11Aug

White Paper Series: Give your two pounds’ worth on DCMS’ consultation for online slots stake limits

11th August 2023 Chris Biggs 251

The consultation season well and truly began on 26 July 2023, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) publishing the first two of its promised consultations from the White Paper. In this latest edition of our White Paper Series, we discuss DCMS’ proposals and reasoning for a maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain (the “Slots Consultation”) and strongly encourage the industry to respond.

1. Background

As discussed in our previous White Paper Series blog on stake limits, DCMS foreshadowed its reasons for the Slots Consultation in the White Paper.

It noted that slots have the highest average losses per active customer of any online gambling product, the highest number of players, the longest play sessions and the greatest potential for financial harm, due to the velocity at which people can stake, with no statutory limit on the amount they can stake. On the other hand, it was acknowledged that online operators are uniquely able to regularly monitor and scrutinise their customers’ spending on slots and intervene where necessary.

In the end, having considered the evidence available to it, DCMS concluded that reform was necessary. Although evidence of a clear causative relationship was limited, there was sufficient evidence of an association between higher stakes on online slots and identified risks of harm. DCMS determined it was time for change: there would be a consultation in summer 2023 on a stake limit for online slots of between £2 and £15. In addition, DCMS would also consult on a preferred £2 limit for those aged 18 to 24.

2. The proposals – General population

The Slots Consultation has now been published and DCMS has proposed four options for the maximum stake limit which should apply for online slots, seeking opinions on which option “strikes an appropriate balance between preventing harm and preserving consumer freedoms”.

We discuss the options and DCMS’ headline reasoning for each stake limit below:

Option 1 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £2 per spin

The industry knew £2 stake limits were going to be the starting point for the Slots Consultation and unsurprisingly, this option would have the greatest impact on consumers and businesses alike. DCMS recognises that 97% of all individual online slot stakes are below £2. However, up to 35% of players stake over £2 on a single spin at least once a year. Of course, £2 is a relatively low bar especially given that stakes over this threshold contribute to an estimated 18% of annual slots gross gambling yield (“GGY”). Option 1 would therefore have a significant impact on online casino operators and the industry’s GGY broadly.

Option 2 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £5 per spin

A £5 maximum stake per spin, as DCMS notes, is equal to the highest limit currently permitted on any land-based gaming machine.

There may be a superficial attraction to aligning online slots with the limits imposed on their land-based counterparts, but it would not come without a significant impact to the online industry which already has a wider system of safer gambling protections in place. Indeed, DCMS acknowledges this in the White Paper:

“The stake limits already applied to electronic gaming machines in the land-based sector could be a sensible starting point. However, taking an equitable approach to product regulation should take account of the wider system of protections in place online. For instance, the opportunity for data-driven monitoring of online play may justify a higher limit for online products than in relatively anonymous land-based settings.”

DCMS estimates stakes over £5 represent only 0.5% of online slots staking events but represent approximately 7.4% of slots GGY.

Option 3 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £10 per spin

Although a £10 maximum stake per spin is higher than any stakes permitted on a land-based gaming machine, DCMS is considering whether these higher limits are appropriate in the online world given that there are additional protections for online players, who are required to create an account to play and can therefore be more adequately monitored by licensed operators for signs of gambling-related harm (as suggested in the above quote).

This is particularly relevant given that DCMS does not anticipate severe disruptions to the majority of slots players if Option 3 is implemented, noting that 37% of all stakes placed above £10 were made by high and medium risk players.

As we hinted in our previous blog, it is possible DCMS will be drawn to setting £5 (Option 2) as the maximum stake limit for online slots, noting this figure appeared in an earlier leaked version of the White Paper. However, given its acknowledgement in the above quote, we believe DCMS is open to considering evidence-based responses which favour a higher limit. This is of course dependent on the industry submitting compelling evidence-based responses to the Slots Consultation.

Option 4 – A maximum online slots stake limit of £15 per spin

As with Option 1, the industry was aware a £15 stake limit would represent the maximum stake per spin in the Slots Consultation. Broadly, DCMS considers this stake limit would impact only a small minority of “habitually or occasionally high-staking players”, where stakes over £15 represent 0.05% of all stakes on online slots and 2% of GGY. We consider it unlikely that Option 4 is the option that will finally be adopted.

3. The proposals – 18 to 24 year olds

As we previously discussed, the White Paper committed to consulting on additional protections for young adults aged between 18 to 24 years on the basis that this age group may be a “particularly vulnerable cohort”.

The Slots Consultation cites the Gambling Commission’s Advice to Government for the Review of the Gambling Act 2005 in identifying a number of potential factors influencing gambling behaviours in young adulthood, including continuing cognitive development, changing support networks and inexperience with money management. DCMS separately noted that problem gambling rates are highest in the 16 to 24 years age group, according to the Public Health England and Gambling-related harms evidence review of 2019.

Accordingly, the Slots Consultation seeks views on the following three options:

Option A – A maximum online slots stake limit of £2 per spin for 18 to 24 year olds
Option B – A maximum online slots stake limit of £4 per spin for 18 to 24 year olds
Option C – Applying the same maximum stake limit to all adults, but building wider requirements for operators to consider age as a risk factor for gambling-related harm.

In setting out its evidence, DCMS acknowledges that typical online slots stakes for those aged 18 to 24 are lower than for other adult age groups. Data captured between July 2018 to June 2019 indicates the mean stake in this cohort was £1.05 compared to £1.30 across all adults aged 25 and over, and DCMS cites data indicating the age group’s average stake is 20% lower than the average for all adults (according to Patterns of Play).

In respect of the specific limits proposed in Options A and B, DCMS does not cite data that specifically indicates either maximum stake limit would be best suited to this age group. The reasoning simply appears to be that as a potentially vulnerable cohort, there should be extra protections in place, i.e. lower maximum stake limits than those for the general population.

Option C would of course be the least intrusive option for operators and their customers, and any action required of operators would likely align with the Gambling Commission’s consultation on, and likely increase to, the requirements for operators to check customers’ individual financial circumstances in respect of indicators that their losses are harmful. Watch out for more on this in a forthcoming White Paper Series blog.

4. DCMS data and considerations

The status quo

In the Slots Consultation, DCMS cites Gambling Commission data in summarising the best available statistics about current slots play, set out below:

Furthermore, DCMS sets out staking behaviour for the 2022/23 financial year (representing more than 76 billion spins) which it uses to underpin its consideration of the likely impact of each maximum stake limit:

(The estimated % of slots GGY in Figure 2 assumes that all slots games have a 95% return to player and the distribution of spend within each bucket is modelled as non-linear.)

Aside from the sheer scale of online slots activity in the last financial year, the data presented in the Slots Consultation (including that shown in the above two figures) breathes life into DCMS’ proposals which, if we return to first principles, have been drafted in order to address the fact that there is evidence of a relationship between higher staking on slots and gambling-related harm.

By removing the ability for an arguably very small proportion of slots players to stake high(er) amounts on slots, will this aim be achieved? From the above data, we can see that most online slots spins from the last financial year would not be impacted by any of the proposed stake limits. However, the changes would result in a significant reduction in the industry’s GGY (we discuss this in further detail below).

Potential impact

So, has an appropriate balance been struck? Whilst we do not think there is a straightforward answer to this question (hence DCMS releasing the Slots Consultation), the potential impact of each of the options considered are set out in DCMS’ Online Slots Stake Limit Impact Assessment (the “Impact Assessment”), published alongside the Slots Consultation.

Interestingly, the Impact Assessment models the estimated reduction in annual GGY in the industry for each option considered in Slots Consultation, as follows:

To summarise this data, the Impact Assessment suggests that there will be an estimated reduction in the current annual online slots GGY of between 0.5% to 13.8%, ranging in real terms, from a £16.1m to £413.5m reduction in revenue annually.

Aside from the costs to business, the Impact Assessment also sets out the potential benefits of the maximum stake limits and shares the associated assumptions that DCMS made in coming to these conclusions. It is particularly worth noting that DCMS acknowledges it is difficult to accurately estimate gambling harm reduction from stake limits, stating:

“Gambling harm is complex and often the result of numerous factors both within and external to the actual gambling environment. It would be difficult to isolate the causal mechanism between staking at various levels (that will no longer be available) and the reduction in gambling harm.”

However, it goes on to note that there are clear, qualitative benefits to the stake limits for both the customer and the public sector. To pick a crucial example, the Impact Assessment identifies that each stake limit will have an impact on a customer’s risk of incurring runaway losses, and suffering gambling harm as a result of these losses.

Additionally, public sector benefits would include potential reductions in costs incurred by the public sector in respect of harmful gambling costs which include:
a) Primary care mental health services, secondary mental health services, and hospital inpatient services;
b) Job seekers allowance claimant costs and lost labour tax receipts;
c) Statutory homelessness applications; and
d) Incarceration costs.

We encourage all licensees and stakeholders to review the Impact Assessment, in addition to the Slots Consultation, for a closer look at the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed stake limits and to better inform views on where the balance between protection from harm and consumer freedom lies.

5. Responding to the Slots Consultation

The Slots Consultation will be open for responses for eight weeks only, until 11:55pm on 20 September 2023. Responses can be submitted through DCMS’ online survey, or as a Word or PDF document to [email protected]. DCMS is encouraging evidence from all parties who have an interest in the way gambling is regulated in Great Britain, including any international evidence.

Following the consultation period, DCMS will publish a formal response setting out its decisions in relation to the maximum stake limit proposals and its reasoning, as well as a final impact assessment, before implementing the changes. Changes will likely be made by way of the introduction of secondary legislation, e.g. the creation of a new licence condition for Gambling Commission licensees.

In the short time before the Slots Consultation closes, we strongly encourage all licensees and other stakeholders to consider the impact the proposals would have on their businesses and respond with evidence-based submissions. Now is the opportunity to influence positive change for consumer protection whilst tempering a potentially damaging blow to the commercial viability of the online slots industry in Great Britain.

Please get in touch with us if you would like assistance with preparing a response to this or any other DCMS and Gambling Commission consultations.
With thanks to Gemma Boore for her invaluable co-authorship.

11Aug

White Paper Series: Transforming corporate culture by “driving personal accountability and responsibility” for lookers-on seeing most of the game?

11th August 2023 Bahar Alaeddini 268

The White Paper included a fleeting mention of extending the requirement to hold a personal management licence (“PML”). In the recent first wave of consultations, the Gambling Commission recently announced plans to change licence condition 1.2.1 to “clarify and extend the roles” that trigger a requirement to hold a PML. The goal is “ personal accountability and responsibility”, allowing the Gambling Commission to “take necessary action against individual (personal) licensees when failures are found.” The key proposed changes are to extend the requirement to hold a PML to a licensee’s Board Chair and, on a case-by-case basis, to CEOs and directors of “parent companies or subsidiaries in the group”. In this blog, we consider the current requirements, the proposals and what they mean. Before we do so, we pause to consider the correlation with corporate culture.

Corporate culture

These proposals come at a time when regulatory uncertainties in the British market remain a daily challenge for gambling businesses, their Boards, their PMLs and their other key decision-makers. Every decision must be underpinned by the licensing objectives if it is to minimise harm and help ensure the success and sustainability of the industry we cherish. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but business leaders undoubtedly play the most important role in building a strong foundation and effective corporate culture that protects the most important asset – a gambling licence. It is corporate culture that tends to be the key driver of conduct and deficient culture which results in poor standards of behaviour.

Corporate culture is not mentioned in the White Paper or consultation, but we think both DCMS and the Gambling Commission would agree that it is inextricably linked with personal responsibility and accountability.

What is culture?

Culture is a set of behaviours and mindsets that characterise a business. As we know from our client experience, whilst there are commonalities, the culture of every gambling business is individual.

Why is it important?

Business leaders are generally expected to manage the drivers of behaviour to create and maintain culture. Designing a good culture is obviously easier than implementing and embedding the culture, particularly in large multinationals with hundreds or thousands of employees. In sophisticated regulated industries, the regulator is also considered to play an important role given its central position, unique viewpoint and often a desire to drive change. However, trust in the Gambling Commission is low and seemingly not many gambling stakeholders place much trust in the Gambling Commission’s own culture. The Gambling Commission was however named last year as one of the UK’s Best Workplaces, so maybe we can expect to see improvement soon.

Financial services

The Financial Conduct Authority has been very alive to the topic of transformational culture, since at least 2015, seemingly working collaboratively with financial services, having identified culture as the key cause of harm in firms:

“We are working to promote healthy cultures across the industry. Firms’ cultures have been a major root cause of conduct failures, and our work supporting firms in delivering real and sustainable culture transformations will help prevent harm caused by inappropriate behaviours.”

The Financial Conduct Authority has a Culture and governance webpage dedicated to this topic, including publication of a discussion paper and hosting a conference dedicated to transforming culture, in 2018:

“The success of our work depends not only on the involvement of firms and their leaders but everyone with an interest in transforming financial services culture for the better. Our work so far includes how we are transforming culture by improving the accountability of individuals in financial services, including leaders, by extending the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) to all authorised firms.”

SM&CR was initially introduced, in 2016, following the global financial crisis in 2007-2008 and Libor scandal in 2012 following concerns that the regulatory system did not have sufficient focus on individual accountability. The regime’s core aim is to instil “a culture of compliance and good behaviour within firms, rather than being a reactive regime that relies on regulatory enforcement action.” Although certain aspects of SM&CR are currently subject to Government consultation, with the response awaited, there is widespread support for the regime amongst industry and regulator. Over 90% of respondents to UK Finance agreed that the regime had brought about meaningful change for the better and many firms expressed the view it was “having an impact on the mindset of senior managers, with a stronger tone and ownership from the top.” It is therefore difficult to see any major drawback from the Gambling Commission’s proposals, other than self-preservation for the person holding a PML. As a PML is personal to the individual he/she could have their PML reviewed, potentially affecting their future employability in the gambling or another regulated industry.

Who needs a PML currently?

Under licence condition 1.2.1, any person responsible for a “specified management office” must hold a PML. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure individuals with certain responsibility are suitable, which is checked every 5 years (not, “renewed” as the Gambling Commission incorrectly states because PMLs are indefinite in duration!).

“Management office” is defined in section 80(5) of the Gambling Act 2005 as:

the “office of director” (where the licensee is a company); and
any position where the appointment terms require the person “to take or share responsibility for”:
“the conduct of a person who performs an operational function in connection with a licensed activity”; or
“facilitating or ensuring compliance with terms or conditions of the operating licence”.

What are the proposed changes?

The Gambling Commission proposes to:

make clear that the person responsible for “overall management and direction of the licensee’s business or affairs” (which triggers a PML requirement) “is likely to be the CEO, MD or equivalent”;
require the person “chairing the Board (where the licensee has such a body)” to hold a PML (note: this does not mean you need to appoint a Chair and it specifically refers to the licensee rather than a parent company);
make it clearer that those responsible for AML and CTF, including the Money Laundering Reporting Officer and Nominated Officer, need to hold a PML; and
assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether CEOs and directors of “parent companies or subsidiaries in the group” need to hold PMLs too.

Why is it changing?

The consultation is very clear on this; the Gambling Commission is “concerned” by the number of enforcement cases and repeated failures by the same licensee:

“In cases over the last five years, eleven licensees have been subject to enforcement action multiple times. The majority of these cases relate to similar, repeated failings linked to anti-money laundering and social responsibility. By increasing the personal accountability of individuals within a licensee, seek to reduce this risk. This also supports wider work to raise standards, including through tough enforcement action at operator level.”

Individuals make decisions, and, therefore, these individuals will determine whether or not a gambling business is compliant. These proposals therefore come as no surprise. They are a blunt instrument for, firstly, “driving personal accountability and responsibility” and, secondly, ensuring the Gambling Commission has “adequate regulatory reach over individuals when failures are found”. From our extensive enforcement work, both for gambling businesses and PMLs, the Gambling Commission, has a mounting focus on identifying who (generally within senior and executive management) was responsible for failures. So, what does “responsibility” mean? It could mean day to day responsibility or executive responsibility. In our experience, not enough consideration is given by gambling businesses or the Gambling Commission – outside enforcement action – to mapping out individuals’ responsibilities (in full or shared) and considering governance and control aspects.

In principle, and against the backdrop of the SM&CR, it seems to us that the Gambling Commission is striking the right balance with these proposals, particularly with the requirement that Chairs must hold PMLs. Increasing the number of PMLs, particularly at a senior level, will drive personal accountability and responsibility, and thereby hopefully enhance the corporate culture.

Where the licensee has a Chair, they play a critical role in promoting the effectiveness of the Board and directors. This role is very different from the role of a CEO, with the Harvard Business Review noting “he Chair is responsible for and represents the Board, while the CEO is responsible for and is the public face of the company.” Unlike a CEO who is accountable to the Board, the Board is accountable to shareholders. A key aspect of that accountability is risk management so, arguably, the Board should be promoting a culture of compliance and good behaviour, and be concerned by excessive risk-taking that would threaten the company’s financial and economic stability. As the 16^th century proverbial saying goes, “lookers-on see most of the game”!

By personally licensing the Chair of the Board, the Gambling Commission will “ensure that those responsible for scrutiny, strategy and leadership at the most senior level within the organisation” will improve Board focus on, and accountability for, the licensing objectives and encouraging them to set the tone from the top and lead a culture of compliance.

It is worth noting, the Gambling Commission could have proposed that each member of a licensee’s Board hold a PML. Whilst it did consider this option, it decided it would have unintended consequences of diluting accountability and making it harder to take enforcement action.

“Implementation issues, timelines and practicalities”

Question 106 of the consultation requests feedback about implementation issues, timelines and practicalities. Unpicking the proposals, we make the following initial observations:

Will there be a grandfathering period?
How will the new Chair and potential director PML requirements be applied to large multinational gambling businesses? Will it extend to the Chair of a parent company? Based on the current wording, this seems unlikely, but clarity is required.
Although not expressly mentioned, it seems clear to us that the requirement as presently drafted applies to both Executive and Non-Executive Chairs.
Will Part III of the LCCP, setting out the personal licence conditions for PMLs, remain unchanged? Or will the Gambling Commission use this is an opportunity to set an enhanced standard of conduct for a Chair or business leader? Note, the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority have an enhanced standard of conduct applicable only to Senior Managers and certain other individuals, regulated under the SM&CR.
Will there be a delineation between the responsibilities of Board members’ holding PMLs and others? Note, the SM&CR requires firms to submit documentation on the scope of a Senior Manager’s responsibilities known as the Statement of Responsibilities. This includes a statutory requirement for senior managers to take reasonable steps to prevent and/or stop regulatory breaches in their areas of responsibility.

Harris Hagan services

PML applications

We regularly work with clients to prepare PML applications for their employees, senior managers and Board members. Please get in touch if you would like our assistance.

Training

Borne from our strong desire to help clients navigate the complex framework and landscape in Great Britain, we offer Partner-led PML training covering the key legal, regulatory and licensing issues for PMLs, Boards, Compliance Committees, employers and those in supporting roles, as well as scanning the horizon on key changes, including the Gambling Review, and providing practical advice based on our extensive knowledge, experience and expertise. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss your training needs.

Next steps

There are 8 questions in the consultation about these proposals which appear at questions 102-109. The consultation will last for 12 weeks and will close on 18 October 2023.

Please get in touch if you would like to discuss the consultation further or receive a deck about our training services, including client testimonials.

A specified management office is defined in licence condition 1.2.1(2) as:

the overall management and direction of the licensee’s business or affairs
the licensee’s finance function as head of that function
the licensee’s gambling regulatory compliance function as head of that function
the licensee’s marketing function as head of that function
the licensee’s information technology function as head of that function in so far as it relates to gambling-related information technology and software
oversight of the day to day management of the licensed activities at an identified number of premises licensed under Part 8 of the Act or across an identified geographical area
in the case of casino and bingo licences only, oversight of the day to day management of a single set of premises licensed under Part 8 of the Act.

“Operational function” is defined in section 80(6) of the 2005 Act as: (a) any function which enables the person exercising it to influence the outcome of gambling, (b) receiving or paying money in connection with gambling, and (c) manufacturing, supplying, installing, maintaining or repairing a gaming machine.

31May

White Paper Series: “Hurry up and wait”

31st May 2023 John Hagan 315

As the dust settles (at least temporarily) following the publication of the White Paper, we have “take time to think” so that we may share our insights in a series of blogs and vlogs on the many and varied aspects of the proposed gambling reforms. With the Gambling Commission already seeking to manage expectations by saying that the implementation of the White Paper “will likely take a number of years to fully complete” and urging “more haste, less speed”, this may be a long running series… We will focus on what we consider is important or interesting, ideally both, and our content will be concise and hopefully thought provoking.

Speaking about the White Paper recently in the House of Lords, Lord Grade referred to a saying in the film industry – “hurry up and wait” (also a song by Stereophonics and a military motto) – describing where you get to the location after being forced to spend a lot of time waiting, everybody is standing around, ready, but nothing happens. Having waited nearly 30 months for the publication of the White Paper, coupled with the latest (estimated) indication from the Gambling Commission that the first wave of consultations will not be seen until mid-July, this saying seems apt.

1. Spirit and intention of the White Paper

Throughout our White Paper Series, we will have as our touchstone the aim of the Gambling Review when it was published on 8 December 2020:

“The Government wants all those who choose to gamble in Great Britain to be able to do so in a safe way. The sector should have up to date legislation and protections, with a strong regulator with the powers and resources needed to oversee a responsible industry that offers customer choice, protects players, provides employment, and contributes to the economy.”

The White Paper is true to that laudable aim. As the Secretary of State says in her Ministerial Foreword, at the heart of the Government’s Review is making sure it has the balance right between consumer freedoms and choice on the one hand, and protection from harm on the other. The Government seeks to achieve this balance through an extensive package of measures across all facets of gambling regulation. If it is to be successful, the Government – and Gambling Commission – will need to retain an unerring focus on this balance, essentially the spirit and intention of the White Paper, as it is inevitably buffeted by vested interests through consultation, regulation, and legislation.

2. All things to all people

The first thing to say about the White Paper is that it has been broadly well received; when it was delivered in Parliament, within all sectors of industry, by the NHS, in the third sector and at the Gambling Commission. This was equally broadly unexpected, given the acrimony and divergence of views between stakeholders during the “hurry up” phase, so why has the White Paper been such a resounding success? At the risk of oversimplifying, but not wishing to overlook the obvious (including the lack of detail and long grass kicking), it is precisely because the Government has achieved a healthy balance in its proposed reforms, for which it deserves enormous credit, and it is because there is something valuable in the White Paper for everyone.

Responding to its publication, and demonstrating some of the “wins” for the respective stakeholders, comments on the White Paper included:

“Given the correct powers and resources, the Gambling Commission can continue to make gambling safer, fairer and crime free. This White Paper is a coherent package of proposals which we believe can significantly support and protect consumers, and improve overall standards in the industry.” Gambling Commission CEO, Andrew Rhodes.
“BGC members will now work with Government and the Gambling Commission to deliver targeted and genuinely ‘frictionless’ enhanced spending checks to further protect the vulnerable, a new Ombudsman to improve consumer redress, and overdue plans to modernise the regulation of UK casinos.” Betting & Gaming Council CEO, Michael Dugher.
“..it should not be left to the health service to pick up the pieces left behind by a billion-pound industry profiting on vulnerable people, so I fully endorse the statutory levy set out in today’s White Paper and look forward to reading the proposals in detail.” NHS Mental Health Director, Claire Murdoch.
“At GamCare, our priority is making sure that people who need help receive it as quickly as possible. We therefore welcome the clarity the Government has provided on how research, education and treatment will be funded.” Gamcare CEO, Anna Hemmings.
“As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, I welcome this long overdue White Paper. In the APPG’s 2019 interim report, we asked for affordability checks, parity between land-based and online stakes, an independent ombudsman, a curb on advertising and, most importantly, a statutory levy. Job done.” Carolyn Harris MP.

The introduction of a statutory levy paid by licensees and collected and distributed by the Gambling Commission under the direction and approval of the Treasury and DCMS ministers, is a flagship reform. The long debate as to whether there should be a statutory levy is at an end, there will be a DCMS consultation on the details of its design and, critically, the total amount to be raised. The statutory levy will fund research, education and treatment of gambling harms and is a load-bearing pillar of the reforms for those advocating the “polluter pays” principle.

Financial risk checks, maximum stakes for online slots and the creation of an independent gambling ombudsman have also been very warmly received by key stakeholders and will all be consulted upon by DCMS. The new non-statutory ombudsman will be the subject of our next blog in this White Paper Series.

The Gambling Commission most certainly did not get everything its own way, with Government not religiously following the advice from the regulator, but the Gambling Commission will be the recipient of powers and resources intended to make sure that all gambling is overseen by a “beefed up, better funded and more proactive” regulator. Licence fees will be reviewed (upwards of course) to ensure it has the resources to deliver the commitments across the White Paper. When Parliamentary time allows, it will even get greater power to set its own fees. Detailed analysis of the Gambling Commission’s additional enforcement powers will be the subject of one of our early blogs in this White Paper Series, including some which may have passed below the radar in all the excitement.

The industry positives from the White Paper are more nuanced. The land-based industry can certainly look forward to the long overdue modernisation of casinos and bingo clubs – including greater machine entitlements, credit in casinos for non-UK resident customers, sports betting in all casinos, and additional opportunities for customers to win on the main stage bingo game – and cashless payments across all land-based gambling sectors (following consultation by the Gambling Commission on the player protections which would be required).

From an online industry perspective, the White Paper is arguably as good as could reasonably have been expected in the present political, media and regulatory environment. The Government has resisted calls for bans on advertising, rejected demands for blanket and intrusive low-level affordability checks, and will consult on maximum stakes for online slots at higher levels than leaked previously. However, in outlining the Government’s vision for the future of gambling in moderately business-friendly terms, the White Paper does provide policy direction to which to hold the Gambling Commission accountable, the beginnings of some certainty and a glimpse of what political and regulatory stability might look like, not to mention the hope that the next gambling review might be a generation away.

3. The upcoming consultations

Yes of course everyone wishes the White Paper had gone further (in their direction, naturally). Yes of course there is a lot of work to be done to implement the reforms, once we are no longer “waiting”. Yes of course the devil will be in the detail. But as even the Gambling Commission and the Betting and Gaming Council (the “BGC”) agree in their welcoming press releases, the White Paper is a “once in a generation” opportunity for change. All the key stakeholders will now be seeking to secure their respective prize and imploring Government to prioritise their interests and deliver on its promises at the earliest opportunity, not least through Government and Gambling Commission consultations.

If the risk of the reform process descending into warring factions and reaching a standstill is to be mitigated, and this would not be in anybody’s interests, it is imperative that the process itself remains balanced and that all the key stakeholders see comparable progress in relation to their interests. From an industry perspective, this means engaging positively, constructively, and wholeheartedly with the upcoming consultations, proposing pragmatic and sensible solutions to the difficult challenges the Government and the Gambling Commission face, not least in relation to cashless solutions and frictionless checks, substantiated by evidence wherever possible. It also means holding the Gambling Commission to account on what is expected of it by the Government in the White Paper, with fair prioritisation of its (no doubt stretched) resources and no reforms being left far behind, even when the Gambling Commission is not in favour of them. It means focusing on its prize and not seeking to “re-litigate” settled issues or actively seeking to frustrate other stakeholders, or indeed otherwise antagonising Government which has delivered upon a balanced vision.

The proposed reforms are going to take longer than any of the stakeholders want as they seek to claim their prizes, but they are worth waiting for, the consultation phase will be critical, with both Government and the Gambling Commission under immense pressure to listen, and we will of course be happy to assist clients with their responses where that would be helpful, as we did in the last once in a generation opportunity in 2005!

16May

Reporting of Deaths by Suicide: consequence and practical implementation

16th May 2023 David Whyte 234

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.

UK Gambling Law