BGC Left Frustrated After Financial Risk Assessment Announcement

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has expressed its frustration at the passing of financial risk assessments (FRAs) from the Gambling Commission, accusing the British regulator of abandoning its original timetable and failing to address issues identified during the pilot.

The Commission announced implementation plans for FRAs on Tuesday, in one of the most significant alterations in the history of online gambling in the UK. The first stage of implementation will be carried out by the largest operators, where a high spend of multiple thousands of pounds across a 24-hour period is identified.

How will FRAs work?

For most players, this will mean a £5,000 net deposit in a rolling 24-hour period, which the Commission said less than 0.5% of players exceed. Once fully implemented, FRAs will be applied to players aged 25 or older with net deposits exceeding £1,000 in a rolling 24-hour period or £3,000 over a rolling 90-day period. For players under the age of 25, the threshold will be reduced to £750 in a rolling 24 hours or £2,000 in a rolling 90-day period.

The announcement followed a pilot which found 97% of players spending above the threshold levels could be assessed for financial difficulties in a frictionless manner, meaning less than 3% of accounts will be assessed and less than one in 1,000 accounts would be unable to get one. In those instances, operators may have to carry out assessments via other means such as open banking.

The pilot is not trusted

The BGC, which represents more than 90% of retail betting shops, online betting, gaming, bingo and casino operators in the UK, has, unsurprisingly, attacked the decision, pointing out what it perceived to be flaws in the pilot, arguing this means the pilot should not have shaped the framework the Commission has decided upon.

Grainne Hurst, BGC Chief Executive, said: “We are deeply disappointed and frustrated that the Gambling Commission has decided to press ahead with financial risk assessments, despite the significant concerns raised over the last 18 months by the BGC, operators, racing, parliamentarians and customers.

“The fact that the Gambling Commission has delayed implementation, raised thresholds and abandoned its original timetable is a clear recognition that the concerns raised by the BGC and others were well founded.

“The pilot exposed inconsistencies in the information returned by credit reference agencies, with the same customer potentially receiving different outcomes depending on the provider. Customers risk being wrongly identified as financially vulnerable based on a system that remains unproven. That is not a sound basis for regulatory intervention.”

BHA also criticises policy

The BGC’s disappointment was shared by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), which argues the checks will push players towards the black market and called the measures an abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

Brant Dunshea, Chief Executive of the BHA, said: “We understand these checks have been proven by the Gambling Commission’s own pilot to not be ‘fully frictionless’ as originally promised by successive Government ministers. Objective evidence from across the globe makes clear that this decision is one of self-harm on an immense scale that will have damaging economic and societal implications.

“[The DCMS] has failed to grip this process or properly consider the damaging consequences of the decision. A policy decision of this magnitude needed to receive parliamentary scrutiny, especially when other policies from the 2023 Gambling White Paper were passed via legislative routes.”