UK LEGAL COMMENT Kristina/Adobe Stock
to the regulator by operators. Both of these might be valuable exercises, but amid claims that the Commission is failing to adequately address risks to consumers they may not be the best use of limited resources. Whilst these exercises were ongoing, the Commission took a total of 19 months from identifying failings in the way remote operator Mr Green interacted with customers in relation to problem gambling and AML to agreeing a regulatory settlement. If Mr Green’s failings were suffi ciently serious to justify a £3m penalty package, surely they were serious enough to justify the expenditure of more than the £10k in investigation costs to get the matter resolved faster. One criticism which appears in the NAO’s report and which is
widely shared by gambling operators is the Commission’s failure to set out clearly what raised standards would look like. The NAO noted that “industry representatives…indicated that more clarity from the Commission about its expectations, and a more collaborative relationship, would help to raise standards”. Rather than focus on this in its conclusions, however, the NAO recommended that the Commission “considers ways to place fi nancial or reputational incentives on operators
to go further in making gambling safer for consumers”. Of
course, to give incentives to operators who are “going further” the Commission would need to make some value judgements about what “raised standards” actually looks like, which is exactly what operators have been asking for. For the Commission to go from just penalising non-compliance to incentivising high standards would necessitate signifi cant work to assess all operators against this higher bar, with cost implications which probably go beyond redirecting the resources it already has. Increased licence fees seem an inevitable outcome of the
NAO report, but will require secondary legislation by the Government to implement. It is likely to be the largest operators that are subject to the greatest fee increases, particularly as the four largest operators now make up 61% of the market. Of course, if the Government goes ahead with a new Gambling Act, the whole licensing system is up for debate along with the Commission’s remit and objectives. We may end up with a different system of regulation, but the Gambling Commission and its CEO are probably here to stay for the time being.
Melanie is a gambling regulatory lawyer with 13 years’ experience in the sector. Melanie advises on all aspects of gambling law including licence applications, compliance, advertising, licence reviews and changes of control. She has acted for a wide range of gambling operators including major online and land-based bookmakers and casinos, B2B game and software suppliers and start-ups. She also frequently advises operators of raffl es, prize competitions, free draws and social gaming products. Melanie has a particular interest in the use of new technology for gambling products and novel product ideas.
MARCH 2020 35
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
