UK LEGAL COMMENT
incompetently concluded that the Commission is “a failed regulator”. The report has six recommendations, which in summary
are that: 1. DCMS considers the role of the Commission as part of the review of the Gambling Act.
2. The Better Regulation Executive undertake an audit of the Commission.
3. A QC conducts an independent investigation of the Commission’s enforcement process.
4. DCMS takes over the complaints process from the Commission.
5. The review of the Gambling Act considers a differentiation between “high risk” and “low risk” gambling operators.
6. The Commission is placed under ‘Special Measures’. Of these, the first is the most likely to be implemented, if
only because the Gambling Act review already includes in its scope a consideration of “the effectiveness of our regulatory system, including the Gambling Commission’s powers and resources to regulate”. The Guardian also picked up on the launch of a new campaign by GambleAware, which is aimed at engaging women around warning signs and where to seek support before gambling becomes harmful. Highlighting that gambling can harm groups other than younger males (amongst whom problem gambling is most prevalent) is certainly worthwhile. The paper’s headline is that “up to 1 million women in UK at risk of harm from gambling”. Unfortunately, the source of the “one million at risk” claim is rather unclear and this somewhat detracts from the important message. The Guardian reported that it is from the results of a study due to be published later this year, whereas GambleAware itself provided a link to a supporting YouGov survey which took place in 2019, although that doesn’t set out a figure for the number of women at risk. It’s a shame that the underlying data to support this figure is not clearly presented, as I can’t be the only one who is instantly cynical where the phrase “up to” is used, as in the ubiquitous “up to 70% off” sales. A further issue is that GambleAware does not explain what “could be at risk” actually means. A casino manager once told me that he’d been asked during a Gambling Commission compliance assessment what proportion of his customers he considered could be at risk of problem gambling. His answer, “all of them”, was apparently not what the Commission representative was expecting nor one they had heard from any other operator. But it makes sense – everyone who chooses to engage in a habit-forming activity, be it gambling, smoking, taking recreational drugs or playing Wordle, could be at risk of becoming addicted. The PGSI survey, used both by YouGov in its 2019
research and the Commission in its yearly research into the rates of problem gambling, gives participants a problem gambling score from 0 to 9, with those scoring 1 rated as low risk, 2-3 as moderate risk and 4+ as a problem gambler. According to the Commission’s latest research, 0.1% of women suffer from problem gambling and a further 0.6% are at moderate risk (a total of somewhere around 200,000 women based on latest population figures). Low risk female
gamblers add a further around 400,000. It’s worth noting that these figures are falling year on year, although this shouldn’t take away from the harm caused to those who are affected. The Commission’s research does not bear out the 1 million at risk headline and certainly casts doubt on the Guardian’s reference to “the rise in female gambling addiction”. If the campaign further reduces the level of problem gambling among women and encourages those who are suffering to seek help then it certainly has value, regardless of the accuracy of the numbers. However, for gambling operators, categorising customers into those who are “at risk” and those who are “not at risk” is a difficult task. The legal requirement on licensed operators in Great Britain (per the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice) is to “identify customers who may be at risk of or experiencing harms associated with gambling” and to interact with those customers in a way which minimises the risks of them experiencing harm. If it is correct that one million women are at risk of harm, this translates to around 1 in 8 of the women who gamble (the Commission found that 28% of women gambled in the past four weeks, other than just on the National Lottery, which is somewhere around 8 million women). If the figure is accurate, gambling operators should be carrying out responsible gambling interactions with around 1 in 8 of their female customers. Knowing that an even higher proportion of men are at risk than women (by the PGSI metric) and being aware of the difficulties of identifying which customers fall into that category, it would not be unwise to adopt the assumption that all customers may be at risk. Turning back to the Government’s current review of gambling legislation, it would not be surprising to see regulatory changes resting on the principle espoused in the media that gambling poses a risk to society as a whole. It is difficult to know how much the recent Guardian reporting and other articles in the media will affect the outcome of the Government’s review, but it must feel under considerable pressure to be seen to be doing something to address the (inaccurate) perception that problem gambling is an increasing issue.
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.
FEBRUARY 2022 25
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
