what is, and what is not, permitted in each jurisdiction in relation to products and offerings; and for what is permitted – what the specific rules, regulations, and requirements are for compliance.
Utilising GLI’s compliance experts by coming to one place alleviates the burden of operators having to assign internal resources to research, compare, and report differences between each jurisdiction around the world. Instead, they can focus on what they are best at – operations.
Alternatively, if they are already operating in one or more jurisdictions, but determining whether to expand into other jurisdictions, we help operators to understand what the incremental differences are between requirements they are already compliant with vs. requirements for the jurisdiction(s) they wish to enter. Tis is called a Technical Standards Gap Analysis. It’s a detailed report that we deliver that clearly identifies the differences in rules, regulations, and technical requirements as it relates to any permitted products such as games, random number generator (RNG), remote gaming server (RGS), platform, sportsbook, cybersecurity, etc. depending on what vertical they operate in.
Tere’s of course the global Testing, Auditing, and Certification services which we are best known for. However, what some may not know are the lengths to which GLI goes to help operators launch and sustain operations across multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. We offer scale, through time and cost savings from a ‘submit once – but apply to many’ jurisdictions simultaneously approach. Tis approach has become very well regarded by operators and suppliers who partner with GLI for all their certification needs worldwide.
By testing their submissions once, for requirements against all jurisdictions they are operating in today, as well as any additional jurisdictions are interested in entering tomorrow, we save them the pain of repeating testing for each jurisdiction in a piecemeal fashion. Tis saves them time and money because they do not have to treat each jurisdiction as a brand-new project and then pay for replicated testing. Tey also do not have to apply resources to multiple testing projects independently.
Add in here GLI’s robust services around Internal Control Reviews & Audits, Change Management / Continuous Compliance support, GLI University Training/Education, and Regulatory Workshops (remote or in- person), and you get a true recipe for operator and supplier success.
In summary, GLI’s integrated suite of compliance solutions provides the tools operators and suppliers need to comply with regulatory and technical obligations. By having these solutions in one place, the stakeholders that GLI serves are in control, they save time, and they have an easier path to report and evidence compliance. GLI’s integrated services of regulatory advisory, technical compliance, end-to-end testing, and full lifecycle compliance benefit clients of all sizes in each of the 480+ jurisdictions GLI serves.
“Facilitating compliance today requires specialised tools that can be burdensome for organisations to design, develop and maintain.
Oftentimes, resources who have the expertise in data gathering, analysis and visualisation don’t have the expertise of AML/Licensing
compliance obligations and/or vice-versa. This creates the need for compliance-focused IT teams, and that creates a host of overhead costs for organisations. While vetting compliance solutions should
involve extensive due diligence to ensure an organisation's cyber security and compliance standards are met.” Salim L. Adatia
INSIGHT IGAMING COMPLIANCE NORTH AMERICA
Te same way there is no need to reinvent the wheel for an additional vertical in gaming, especially if it’s offered through the same delivery medium, such as desktop or mobile. Evidence of this is the large overlap, often mirroring, of technical requirements found for iGaming in "GLI-19 – Interactive Gaming Systems," as compared to sports betting standard “GLI-33: Event Wagering Systems.”
From a technical and regulatory perspective, the lessons (good or bad) that were learned from the roll-out of any previous form of gaming should ideally be documented, discussed, and learned from for future success. GLI is often called upon by U.S. states, tribes, lotteries, etc., to take part in pre and post rollout analysis discussions since it’s important for them to get an unbiased independent viewpoint of what really went well vs. what maybe could have been done better.
As it pertains to U.S. states in particular, they should take comfort that GLI and Bulletproof are ready and willing to share impartial feedback that we receive from the multiple stakeholders we interacted with during roll-out not only in their state but other states before them.
What lessons can US states take from sports betting for new market rollouts of iGaming?
I would say a hugely important lesson is to know that the majority of the technical and regulatory concerns and controls in a regulated iGaming market mirror that of a regulated sports betting market. Issues around anti- money laundering (AML), age and identity verification (KYC), geolocation verification, responsible gaming (RG), hardware and software testing, and cybersecurity requirements in a robustly tested iGaming market will be readily covered by what was reviewed for a robustly tested sports betting market roll-out.
Te solutions that vendors apply to regulated sports betting can similarly be applied to other forms of gaming such as iGaming, live dealer gaming, etc. Tis is because the underlying concerns and controls around fairness, security, and auditability are the same. To go from regulated sports betting to regulated iGaming is a natural progression that we’ve seen in numerous successful markets around the world to date. One might say it’s like deciding to add the production of a second car model in the same manufacturing plant.
Te parts may be different (akin to games and RNG vs. event wagering and bet placement software) but you don’t need to set up a whole new manufacturing plant with new staff, customer support, hardware, software, policies and procedures, best practices, etc. just because it’s a new model vehicle.
What are the merits of outsourcing solutions vs. investing in internal developments to achieve the collection of data required by AML teams and for licensing applications?
I am a firm believer in giving credit where it is due, so, to answer this I leaned on my friend and industry expert Mr. Sean Topchi from Kinectify who shared with me that Compliance Technology is a unique area. Solutions need to analyse millions upon millions of transactions in ways far different from marketing and player development, visualise the results of analysis, manually risk rate databases of patrons and stay current on required federal government filings, and licensing and compliance tasks with deadlines defined in law and regulation.
Facilitating compliance today requires specialised tools that can be burdensome for organisations to design, develop and maintain. Oftentimes, resources who have the expertise in data gathering, analysis and visualisation don’t have the expertise of AML/Licensing compliance obligations and/or vice-versa. Tis creates the need for compliance-focused IT teams, and that creates a host of overhead costs for organisations.
While vetting compliance solutions should involve extensive due diligence to ensure an organisation's cyber security and compliance standards are met, outsourcing to modern compliance cloud technology platforms can relieve heavy maintenance and overhead from IT/Product departments.
WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS P79
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
