UK LEGAL COMMENT
unspecified) before a customer can use a credit card and limiting customers to one active credit card. Given that the Commission is still asking for further evidence and has put forward this alternative proposal, this consultation is not the rubber-stamping exercise its consultations often appear to be.
Differing approach between land-based and online casinos
As things currently stand, there is a clear distinction between remote and non-remote casinos in relation to gambling on credit. Whilst remote casinos can currently accept credit cards for gambling and can also extend credit to customers themselves if they wish, a bricks and mortar casino can neither offer loans to customers nor accept payment by means of a credit card. What is the rationale for the distinction? To
a certain extent it is historical. Legislation restricting credit being given in connection with gambling in casinos dates back at least 300 years. The Gaming Act 1710 introduced provisions that securities given for money lent for gambling purposes would be void, subsequently the Gaming Act 1845 made all gaming debts unenforceable. It seems that, at the time, the concerns related primarily to the upper classes losing their fortunes in illegal and unscrupulous gaming houses. Casino gambling is no longer the preserve of the upper classes, due to the prevalence and variety of land-based casinos and the wide availability of gambling online. The Gambling Act 2005 made gambling debts enforceable again, however despite general acceptance that licensed land-based casinos were operating responsibly, the 2005 Act imposed alternative restrictions to protect casino customers from the harms of credit. The key restriction is imposed by section 81 of the 2005 Act, which imposes a mandatory licence condition that land-based casinos cannot give credit in connection with gambling, nor can they “participate in, arrange, permit of knowingly facilitate” the giving of credit in connection with gambling. This is not to say that customers do not gamble in casinos using funds obtained on their credit cards. The licence condition only serves to create a disconnect between the casino and the provision of credit, with the aim of preventing the problems prevalent in the 17th to 19th century, where unscrupulous casino operators would act as loan sharks. ATMs can be located in casinos (provided they are sufficiently far away from the gaming tables) and there is nothing to prevent customers withdrawing cash on credit cards using those facilities, which they then exchange for gaming chips. In 2008, the Gambling Commission sent an “open letter” of sorts to the casino industry on credit and debt in casinos. The letter, sent to
38 SEPTEMBER 2019
the British Casino Association, sought to address the introduction of the Global Cash Access machine to casinos, which enables customers to withdraw significant sums on any type of payment card for use to gamble in the casino. After much discussion with the industry and consideration of the risks (including the security risk to customers leaving the casino to obtain large sums from Bureaux des Change) the Commission reached a compromise position. The use of this machine would not breach the condition imposed by section 81, provided the casino did not know (or ignore clear indications that) the customer was gambling using their credit card. Whether the Commission’s focus on affordability extends to a reconsideration of its position remains to be seen, but at the present time, customers are able to gamble in land-based casinos using credit cards, just not in a direct transaction with the casino. So it’s not as simple as asking ‘why should gambling be allowed online with credit cards, when customers in land-based casinos can only gamble with money they actually have?’ To the extent that there is a differing approach, it stems from the particular risk that the restrictions on land-based casinos are designed to mitigate. In the online context, with the absence of in-person interaction between customer and casino, it is probably true that a scenario is much less likely to arise where the casino encourages a customer to continue gambling on the basis that they can settle up later. Of course, the same absence of in-person interaction can also made it more difficult to spot that a customer is at risk.
What would be an effective and proportionate approach?
Even if credit cards were banned for online gambling, there would be no way for an operator to know that a customer has not, for
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 raffles, 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.
example, taken out a loan to fund their gambling or is maxing out their overdraft. Indeed, neither of the options put forward in the consultation include preventing online operators from offering credit to customers themselves. Whilst a credit card ban might reduce the problem, it would not prevent people from gambling money they can’t afford to lose.
It is also worth considering a person who is using a credit card to gamble with funds they do not have and cannot afford to repay is very likely already experiencing a gambling problem. A person in this situation will try to find alternative ways to continue gambling if a credit card cannot be used. As the Commission recognised in its call for evidence, this could involve them turning to high interest payday loans, illegal loan sharks or even crime. Better, surely, to put measures in place that reduce the likelihood of problems developing in the first place. The Commission has already given a strong indication in its latest enforcement report that it considers that, whenever a customer gambles beyond the average disposable income for the operator’s customer base, some sort of affordability check should be conducted. It is perhaps surprising that the proposed LCCP provisions for the alternative approach of restricting the use of credit cards do not include a requirement for affordability checks to be conducted. Although some other commentators
disagree, on balance I think it more likely that the Gambling Commission will proceed with the approach of imposing restrictions on credit card use, rather than banning it altogether. The effects of a ban on both gambling operators and consumers would be considerable and might in fact prompt a backlash against the increasing intervention of the “nanny state” into people’s freedom of choice when it comes to gambling. Taking a cynical view, being saved from the Damocles’ sword of a ban on the use of credit cards may make operators much more inclined to embrace affordability checks and the proposed restrictions.
megaflopp/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
