Regardless of whether you’re an operator, supplier, regulator, or other third-party vendor, we will have the subject matter experts on hand at ICE. It will be great to be in London again, and walk through our exclusive suite of integrated compliance, testing, and regulatory advisory support services.
How is the increasing lack of regulatory uniformity impacting the compliance burden on operators and suppliers?
It’s true there may be specific legislative and/or regulatory concerns that vary across jurisdictions globally. I don’t think any of us could envisage a world where one size fits all types of regulation will ever be applied across all jurisdictions. Especially as we factor in regional, political, and financial priorities.
But at the same time, it’s important to also acknowledge that the wider the variance in regulations and standards, the heavier the burden on operators and suppliers to enter multiple markets and maintain cross jurisdictional compliance. For suppliers, the greater the lack of regulatory uniformity between jurisdictions, the greater amount of product customisation suppliers must invest in to achieve cross-jurisdictional compliance.
Similarly for operators, a lack of regulatory uniformity between jurisdictions results in operators having to customise policies, procedures, and staff levels to stay on top of different requirements across the jurisdictions they operate in. For both operators and suppliers, this is amplified when factoring in operations across multiple gaming verticals, languages, and time zones.
Having said this, when I step back to look at the big picture, I feel we are getting better overall. For example, we are seeing increased uniformity across technical requirements for sports betting and iGaming in Canada, the U.S., and Latin America. Especially when you factor in that out of the 33 US states that have adopted regulations for sports betting, 26 of them have adopted GLI-33 Standards for Event Wagering Systems, and GLI-20 Standards for Kiosks. And our GLI-19 Interactive Gaming Standard has been adopted in multiple Provinces/States as the gaming standard for iGaming.
Regulators in emerging markets are often under some form of pressure; be it limited resources, potential gaps in knowledge, strict deadlines for launch, or a combination thereof. To acknowledge what one knows, and does not know, and embrace the benefits of inviting GLI in as a strategic growth and compliance partner early on, is a sign of strength.
Tere’s nothing wrong with following a proven track record of success and implanting industry best practices. From what we’ve seen over 33 years is that the greater the uniformity in regulatory requirements, the lesser the compliance burden on operators and suppliers.
Are we seeing moves towards greater collaboration and cooperation between state regulators?
Yes indeed, and we are so pleased to see that is
the case, not only on a country level but on a global level. Greater communication, collaboration, and cooperation between regulators helps avoid intentional or unintentional ‘re-inventing of the wheel’.
For example, when jurisdictions that were looking to launch Sports Betting or iGaming in North America or Latin America, there was great insights gained from speaking with regulators in established jurisdictions such Europe where those forms of gaming have been prevalent for much longer.
We’ve also noticed an uptick in regulators approaching GLI, and our cybersecurity division Bulletproof, to ask things along the lines of “Hey GLI how do other jurisdictions address requirements for gaming product X?”, or “Hey GLI what did other jurisdictions do to successfully stand up their market for the introduction of gaming vertical Y?”, or “Hey Bulletproof, what frequency do other jurisdictions require cybersecurity audits for Z?”
By trusting GLI for these answers, and leveraging our global knowledge base, our clients get the value they deserve from a one- stop-shop for answers rather than them having to research and speak to multiple regulators across the world.
Speaking of which, on April 19-20, 2023, we will once again be holding our annual and informative education conference for regulators, regulatory staff, lottery directors, security directors, and more. Te GLI North American Regulators Roundtable will take place at the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas.
INSIGHT IGAMING COMPLIANCE NORTH AMERICA
Is further regulation required to keep up with continually evolving technologies in iGaming?
Not necessarily ‘further regulation’ but perhaps more ‘adaptable’ or ‘scalable’ regulations. From our experience, regulations and technical requirements that evolve alongside technologies pave the road for success. If regulations and technical standards are agile and scalable enough to accommodate alternate approaches and/or evolving technologies, it saves a great deal of time and increases the likelihood of jurisdictions, suppliers, and operators being able to realise revenue quicker too.
Regulators also save on time and resources because they can pivot quicker when presented with new technologies that are presented to them for consideration by suppliers. If the regulations and technical standards in a jurisdiction allow for different gaming verticals and delivery channels, even though licensees may not have been approved to go live in the jurisdiction yet, it mitigates the draw on governments to make legislative amendments, and regulators to make technical standard re- writes. Moreover, it reduces the potential risks from exposures that may be associated with legislative or regulatory approval delayed periods.
“We are seeing increased uniformity across technical requirements for sports betting and iGaming in Canada, the U.S., and Latin America. Especially when you factor in that out of the 33 US states that have adopted
regulations for sports betting, 26 of them have adopted GLI- 33 Standards for Event
Wagering Systems, and GLI- 20 Standards for Kiosks. And our GLI-19 Interactive Gaming Standard has been adopted in multiple Provinces/States as the gaming standard for iGaming.” Salim L. Adatia
Some states such as Massachusetts are listening more to the thoughts and opinions of stakeholders when devising legislation. Are there any downsides to formal consultation - and what role does GLI play in these conversations?
It never hurts to listen. Being open to hearing thoughts and opinions of the stakeholders who will be impacted the most from devised legislation makes huge sense. Regulators and decision makers in states such as Massachusetts are then able to make the best-educated decisions, as they weigh what they have heard against the needs of their constituents and responsibilities associated with their regulatory or state government roles.
Terefore, consultation, be it formal or informal, tends to have more positives than negatives from what we’ve seen. In addition, formal consultation requests don’t need to translate to increased time and complexity if done right and efficiently. GLI has a proven and efficient methodology in place to help jurisdictions and regulators stand up their new markets.
Tese markets, and many others that are evolving, provide wonderful opportunities for expanded entertainment offerings. GLI’s approach is to make sure that all parties have the necessary intelligence they need to make sound educated strategic decisions for success. Tis includes, but is not limited to, provincial, state, lottery, and/or tribal stakeholders etc. Regulators have come to trust and rely on GLI’s team of technical compliance specialists for insights into the future that are grounded in facts and data.
WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS P77
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162
