UK LEGAL
agency on the customer, including credit performance data and current account turnover data. Only if the assessment could not be completed by the credit reference agency would the operator need to seek further information from the customer. The Commission has not prescribed what action would need to follow certain information being obtained in an FRA, however its original consultation document indicates that this would align with existing customer interaction obligations following a financial vulnerability check and might involve: • enhanced monitoring, • a discussion with the customer about their gambling,
• encouraging the customer to set deposit limits,
• signposting sources of help and support, • ceasing targeted marketing, and/or • stopping the customer from gambling temporarily or closing their account. FRAs are intended to supplement, rather than replace, the existing customer interaction framework in the LCCP. Importantly, they are not intended to assess the affordability of the customer’s gambling. However, despite the Commission disavowing having any requirements in place for affordability checks, it remains the case that if unaffordable gambling were identified as part of action following an FRA, the operator would be expected to treat that as a sign of potential gambling harm.
WILL THEY BE FRICTIONLESS? The debate around the introduction of FRAs has centred around whether they can, in practice, be “frictionless”. In its White Paper, the Government stated that its proposals were “based on the premise that frictionless checks will facilitate operators gathering the necessary information without disruption to the customer experience, for instance through needing to ask for payslips or bank statements as some operators do now” and that “New requirements will not come into force until such a time as they are ready.” The Commission’s pilot phases have identified that less than 3 per cent of active accounts would trigger an FRA. Of these 3 per cent, the Commission states that 97 per cent would have a frictionless assessment, which means that the customer would not need to take any action or provide any documents. In a blog post published on 16 April 2026, the Commission’s Helen Rhodes stated that “operators would only be unable to conduct an assessment in a frictionless way for 1 customer in every 1,000 accounts on average across the remote sector”. FRAs will of course not feel frictionless to those customers for whom follow up action is identified as necessary, whose gambling may
subsequently be limited by the operator following its customer interaction procedures. In her blog post, Helen Rhodes stated that “there would be no need to require document checks following a financial risk assessment and we would support operators, such as through guidance, on how to avoid choosing to build in unnecessary friction for consumers”. Nevertheless, it is likely that the appropriate follow up action in some cases will be to limit the customer’s gambling. If a customer wishes to remove that limit, it is difficult to see how the operator could agree to that without receiving evidence from the customer that they are not, in fact, at financial risk.
The impact of both FRAs themselves and the action that follows them is legally relevant, as actions taken by the Commission must be proportionate (under administrative law principles) and, further, under data protection laws the processing of a customer’s personal data must be necessary and proportionate to the purpose to be achieved.
IS FRA DATA RELIABLE? A key concern throughout the pilot phase has been whether the outcome of an FRA is reliable. The Commission identified early on that different levels of risk were being provided by different credit reference agencies for the same customer. If inconsistent results are being returned, this suggests that one or other credit reference agency may not be accurately reflecting the customer’s level of financial risk. While this remains the case, expecting operators to rely on such data, particularly where it may drive restrictive interventions, raises legal and operational concerns.
NEXT STEPS
The ball remains in the Commission’s court following its meeting on 22 May. Concerns about the impact on customers are perhaps easier to allay, on the basis that if a customer has been identified as at financial risk then some form of “friction” to their further gambling may be justified. However, it will likely need to present a convincing case that assessments provided by credit reference agencies are reliable to remove the risk of legal challenges by the industry acting through the BGC.
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.
JUNE 2026 23
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
