search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
UK LEGAL COMMENT


“A


A sledgehammer to crack a nut?


Northridge Law partner Melanie Ellis looks at the UK Gambling Commission’s potential ban on gambling with credit cards and asks, is it worth it?


ffordability” is the latest watchword in the British Gambling Commission’s drive to protect vulnerable individuals from the harms of


gambling. It goes without saying that individuals gambling beyond their means is damaging, and the Commission is currently considering whether a ban on customers gambling with credit cards should be implemented, to reduce the risk of customers gambling with money they cannot afford to lose. But is this suggestion as unnecessary as it is impractical? The harm caused to a person who racks up


debt to cover their gambling losses which they cannot afford to repay is serious and often life-altering. So, it is right that gambling regulation should take steps to minimise this harm. But the dilemma is what those steps should be and how far they should go. Banning gambling altogether, even if we were to accept this level of paternalistic governance, would simply be ineffective as vulnerable individuals would continue to find ways to gamble, but with none of the protections that regulation brings. An approach must be taken which is proportionate to the level and extent of the harm. In 2018, the Responsible Gambling Strategy


Board (RGSB) recommended that we no longer permit people to gamble online using credits cards and the opposition Labour Party has said it will implement such a ban through new gambling legislation, if elected into government. In terms of the impact of a ban, data from the Remote Gambling Association shows that 5% of gambling deposits (by value) are from credit cards and a further 11% are from e-wallets, which may have been funded using a credit card. Many people, myself included, conduct all online transactions using a credit card simply for security. If there is any problem with the transaction, or your card details fall into the wrong hands, fraudulent transactions will be reversed by the credit card company usually with no questions asked. Requiring that all online gambling transactions be conducted


36 SEPTEMBER 2019


using a debit card would penalise the majority of people who gamble entirely safely and within their means, and may prevent some from gambling online altogether if they are not willing to risk their debit card details. The RGSB’s key conclusion is that “gambling with borrowed money significantly increases the risk that consumers will gamble with more money than they can afford”. Of course it does. This is a risk associated with all forms of spending using borrowed money, from purchasing designer handbags on a credit card to car loans and mortgages. However, our interventions to prevent people getting themselves into financial difficulties must be proportionate to the risks and balanced against peoples’ right to freedom of choice. A ban on credit card use would also mean a ban on deposits via an e-wallet, unless the operator can establish that the deposit into the e-wallet was not made on a credit card. Would such a ban be proportionate and necessary and, more importantly, effective to address the risks?


Gambling Commission consultation


Following a call for evidence, the Commission recently launched a consultation to consider whether it should take this step, or alternatively whether imposing restrictions on the use of credit cards for gambling would be a better solution. The aims of the call for evidence were to develop its understanding of the scale of gambling with credit cards and the associated risks, as well as consider “harm prevention measures which might serve as alternatives to prohibiting or restricting gambling with credit cards”. As part of the consultation exercise, the Commission wants to “obtain further evidence about consumers’ motivations for using credit cards to gamble, and any specific benefits of using them”. The Commission has not (yet) said that it


intends to implement a ban. The alternative restrictions under consideration include ensuring all customers have the opportunity of blocking gambling transactions on their credit cards, imposing delay periods (as yet


volff/Adobe Stock


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