UK LEGAL COMMENT
European club. The players also played for the Spanish national team. In its defence, Bet Victor focused on the profile of the players in the UK. It pointed out that the two players had not featured in any recent matches between England and Spain, did not have any high-value personal sponsorship deals and had few internet searches in the UK. Nevertheless, the ASA considered the players were ‘star’ footballers, taking into account the number of their appearances, honours received and the fact they played for the Spanish national team. This was sufficient to make them high-risk, regardless of their profile in the UK. Comparing this to the recent decision regarding the use of
retired footballers Micah Richards and Peter Crouch, it is clear that the use of current top players in gambling adverts presents a much higher risk of adverse decisions from the ASA compared to the use of retired players, even if those players do not play for UK teams. Obtaining data on players’ social media profiles and UK following may not be sufficient and it appears that a wider international view of a players’ profiles needs to be taken. This case does reveal a possible flaw in the advertising guidance, where players popular in other jurisdictions need to be excluded from gambling advertising despite having a limited appeal to children in the UK.
Gambling Commission regulatory action In the last month alone, financial penalties of over £26m have been paid by gambling operators in Great Britain, following licence reviews by the Gambling Commission. The largest of these was a settlement reached with William Hill Group, which agreed to pay £19.2m to socially responsible purposes in lieu of a fine. This latest round of action saw the Commission return to language of what operators “allowed” customers to spend. In many cases the Commission references sums deposited or lost “without checks”, “without sufficient checks” or “without appropriate checks”, but it remains unclear whether, had such checks been conducted, the operator would have been acting compliantly in allowing the customer to gamble at this level. The relevant LCCP provision in force at the time the
relevant transactions took place (SRCP 3.4.1) stated that licensees were required to “interact with customers in a way which minimises the risk of customers experiencing harms associated with gambling.” This had to include identifying customers at risk of or experiencing harms associated with gambling and interacting with them. Notably, the provision did not specify that operators needed to take steps to prevent such customers from experiencing harm - this is the very reason why recent changes to this provision now specify that operators should “act” rather than just “interact”. It is worth bearing in mind that this wording continues to apply to land-based gambling operators, despite the changes made for the remote sector. In some cases, the operators subject to the recent
regulatory action were pulled up for failing to identify and interact with customers who may have been experiencing harm at all, in other cases the interaction took place at a time the Commission considered was too late.
Although it is now
clear that the Commission’s interpretation of the requirement to “interact” involves limiting a customer’s gambling pending the outcome of a triggered interaction, this was by no means
made obvious when the new provisions were published in 2019. It remains unclear, even under the revised LCCP provision, what limit should be placed on a customer’s gambling pending the operator satisfying itself that the customer is not experiencing harm. Coming back to the White Paper, perhaps the answer to
this question will be (or will already have been) revealed in the Government’s proposed policy changes. Unfortunately, this does seem overly optimistic!
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.
MAY 2023 31
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
