pause_circleOnline slot stake limits — the state of play

Casino Premises Changes to Legislation

Firstly, it would split family groups, requiring adults who wish to play these machines to leave the group playing on non-gambling products. For example, Bacta commented that ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines are substantially different from harder gambling slot machines, and are better described as fruit machines or amusement with prizes machines. These responses highlighted the low-risk nature of these machines. Concerns were also expressed that the exposure of these machines to children may normalise gambling behaviour. However, we will not mandate that these machines be moved into age-restricted areas as we do not believe that it is proportionate, considering the lower risk posed by these types of machines.

Providing facilities without a licence is a criminal offence under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005, and advertising unlawful gambling to Great Britain consumers is also a criminal offence. After the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, an operator generally needs a UKGC licence if its remote gambling facilities are used in Great Britain and the operator knows or should know that British consumers are likely to use them, even if the operator is located overseas. The UK gambling industry is in the middle of its largest tax and policy recalibration in over a decade. You are responsible for verifying your local laws before participating in online gambling. For players, it may help support the financial viability of land-based bingo venues, although it does not affect gambling rules or consumer protections.

• The knock-on impact of the gambling White Paper on the horseracing industry will be minimal, but there will be a review into the current horserace betting levy to make certain racing continues to be appropriately funded for the future.
• Operators told us that there are few places where demand for casinos is not currently met, but that there should be a mechanism for allocating licences to these areas in future.
• A further 25 casinos have multiple licences within one premises, allowing them to supply 40 or 60 machines.
• We therefore do not think there is a justification for split-screen bingo and B3 machine games on tablets in bingo venues, due to the potential for harm with simultaneous play products.
• We will also ​​address the inconsistency in Small premises size requirements that requires them to have a minimum table gaming area of the same size as the minimum gambling area, and enact the commitment made in the last gambling review to be clear that only live tables with a dealer will count towards the ratio.

In contrast, most other respondents (particularly across the health, charity and academic sectors) argued that gambling advertising was in need of significant reform, with several stakeholders in this group advocating for a return to the pre-2005 regime where most advertising was banned. Industry stakeholders (as well as representatives of sectors which benefit from operators’ ability to advertise, such as advertisers, broadcasters and sports governing bodies) broadly took the view that the current regulatory regime is fit for purpose. The questions on advertising and sponsorship in the call for evidence attracted a high number of responses, with strongly polarised views.

Therefore, the risk of increased gambling harm is assumed to be higher for Options 1 and 3 than Option 2. Although the data on mixed sessions creates some uncertainty, we conclude that overall, Category B machines lead to higher losses than Category C or D machines. This suggests a higher risk of unaffordable spending on Category B machines. On the other hand, the data shows that a substantially higher proportion of sessions on Category B machines ended in a loss over £200, compared to Category C, Category D and mixed machines.

A statutory levy will help problem gamblers access the right care at the right time, complementing our commitment to non gamestop casino provide NHS gambling addiction treatment clinics in every region across the country. Today’s white paper is a huge step towards protecting people from the damaging impacts of gambling. As the detailed implementation of the review now begins, we will also be reiterating to all operators that the Commission will strongly maintain its focus on consumer protection and compliance.

pause_circleOnline slot stake limits — the state of play

We welcome the significant contributions industry has made to research, education and treatment (RET) since the introduction of the Gambling Act, and the substantial increase in funding the largest gambling operators have made available for treatment in recent years. The threat of an online gambling black market does not mean we should avoid tightening controls on licensed operators. We welcome that some major online platforms have introduced the facility for customers to opt-out of all gambling adverts, and strongly encourage others to do so. We want customers to have greater control over the types of marketing they receive, such as opting-in for online bonuses and offers for different types of gambling products. In a sector with a known addiction risk, the online data-driven targeting of certain individuals with promotional offers to encourage further spending presents risks because it actively encourages individuals to incur larger and larger losses.

This section of the consultation received 46 responses, primarily from licensing authorities and gambling operators. In contrast, most industry responses were concerned that customers may use this information to incorrectly determine that a machine is due a pay-out and therefore could lead to people spending more on a machine. Most responses in favour of implementing these features on machines were in agreement with the rationale outlined in the consultation that it would help customers to make more informed decisions and keep track of their spending.

We will work with the relevant trade bodies and operators to understand the feasibility of this proposal and the frequency of any reporting to DCMS. We also propose that industry fund, conduct, and, crucially, report on the outcomes of voluntary test purchasing to DCMS. In addition, operating costs have risen significantly over this period, especially as a result of rising energy costs, which have increased by over 225% for some operators. This is in addition to improvements in monitoring and staff supervision of customers. The characteristics of land-based products have substantially improved since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005.

The gambling industry should work with financial service firms to enable the blocks to be extended to other payment methods like bank transfers. While GAMSTOP is the principal means of online self-exclusion, we welcome that banks and payment providers offer opt-in gambling transaction blocks. This will include options of a £2 limit per stake; a £4 limit per stake; or an approach based on individual risk.

We currently estimate that the key proposals we can quantify will lead to between a 3% and 8% reduction in Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) across the gambling sector, with the main decrease being in online gambling (where we estimate a reduction of between 8% and 14% of GGY). It is likely that the proposals will come with costs to the gambling industry, both in terms of upfront delivery cost but also in reduced revenue compared to current levels. Measures in this white paper are designed to increase existing protections against gambling-related harm in a proportionate and targeted way.

This applies universally across all UKGC-licensed online casinos. These changes make every bonus offered at a UKGC-licensed casino today genuinely fairer than at any point in the history of UK online gambling. The new rules also require casinos to carry out enhanced due diligence on players showing signs of problem gambling.

We have considered the potential risk of harm from increasing the machine allowance and think that the mix of products is appropriate for the environment if the safer gambling tools described above are applied effectively. Of the other jurisdictions that apply a machine-to-table ratio, all currently permit a greater proportion of gaming machines compared to Great Britain. It has 75 customers for every gaming machine at busy times and could easily absorb 60 additional machines without impacting its wider leisure offer. Some licensing authorities, as well as the Local Government Association (LGA), specifically suggested that cumulative impact assessments (CIAs) should be introduced for gambling premises licences. However, licensing authority responses to our call for evidence suggested that further powers were needed to give them a real say on gambling premises in their areas and protect communities.

As set out in section 151 of the 2005 Act and in the Gambling Act 2005 (Premises Licences and Provisional Statements) Regulations 2007, the operator will also need to submit an up-to-date plan showing their table gaming area, other gambling areas and non-gambling areas. Respondents pointed to the need for authorities to undertake appropriate licence checks, and therefore it is essential that operators are transparent about any changes of circumstances. This will enable casinos to meet customer demand and bring Great Britain’s casino product offering more in line with international jurisdictions. They did however indicate that the presence of sports betting in venues would likely lead to an increase in revenue from non-gambling products such as sports bars.

Role of the UK Gambling Commission

The current process to assess these changes of control is taking up a considerable amount of the Commission’s time as it often has to pause applications to consider significant suitability concerns or open a licence review. The Commission has found that carrying out due diligence on a new owner to ensure that the licensing objectives are being met can often be complex and challenging. This has been demonstrated over the last few years, including through the implementation of the ban on credit cards and making membership of GAMSTOP compulsory through the LCCP. Such an approach would allow for dedicated team members to develop in-depth knowledge and understanding of these operators, which will also enable earlier intervention.

Progress here will help strengthen the evidence base around gambling and gambling-related harms, and buttress work to increase investment and capacity in the gambling research field. Separately, to support the development of effective treatment interventions, OHID has commissioned the University of Sheffield to calculate harmful gambling treatment needs and demand at local, national and regional levels. Through working collaboratively with NHS and other key delivery partners, including GambleAware, it wants to ensure those experiencing gambling-related harms receive high-quality treatment in a timely manner. It would not be appropriate for the Commission to be responsible for a repository of all data relating to gambling in Great Britain, including on areas such as treatment which fall outside of its remit. Collecting more data will provide rich datasets to assess compliance but will also allow for an increased understanding of consumer behaviour and operator practices which, suitably anonymised, could in turn inform research and understanding of gambling-related harms.

Having an ombudsman in the gambling sector which can deal with social responsibility complaints and whose remit is signposted clearly would be an important first step towards a new approach to consumer redress. These bodies have been approved on the basis that they fulfil requirements under current legislation and the Gambling Commission’s improved standards, ensuring customers get the protections they are entitled to. There are eight providers of ADR for gambling, most of which also operate in other sectors with some performing functions outside of complaint handling too.

Protections applied by the consumer

As well as potentially encouraging further spend, operators use these restrictions to prevent customers using bonus offers for ‘matched betting’ strategies without spending their own money, and to limit the costs of offering bonuses, as customers can’t simply take the money after a single low risk bet. While the Gambling Commission’s new customer interaction requirements will protect those showing the most serious risk of harm from bonus offers and marketing exacerbating their gambling, we must also ensure that bonuses operate in a safe way wherever they are offered, both offline and online. We recognise that offering bonuses (as defined by the CMA) to customers in land-based settings, as well as land-based VIP schemes, are inherent to their business models, in particular that of the high-end casino sector, and we believe the Gambling Commission’s current controls adequately mitigate the risks. However, the sustained targeting of certain groups or individuals with online bonuses based on factors like high levels of spend, even if they are not currently showing strong indicators of harm, may nonetheless increase the risks of future harm. While rewards for customer loyalty and efforts to win back former customers are common across the economy, we recognise that the intensive and data-driven targeting of certain groups or individuals can come with a risk of harmful consequences.

We will work together with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission, drawing on public health and social marketing expertise to develop a new, evidence-based model for independently developed safer gambling messages. We recognise the risk that online bonus offers can present, particularly for those who are experiencing harm. As part of exploring the potential for regulating these types of draws we will seek further data and evidence to enable us to assess the proportionality and impact, including on the society lottery sector of different regulatory approaches. This means that they are not subject to gambling regulatory oversight, can lack protections for players, and are not obliged to follow the rules on identifying and mitigating gambling-related harms which apply to licensed operators. A particular version of this arrangement we received evidence on is when overseas gambling brands reach an agreement with an existing Commission licensee which they use to advertise and grow their brand in the UK without acquiring a licence themselves. The third-party might benefit in various ways including a profit sharing arrangement, a brand licensing fee which is paid by the gambling operator, or through greater exposure for their business.

We will jointly organise a series of workshops later this year with researchers, third sector partners and the Gambling Commission to stimulate interest in the gambling research field. We will consult on how the levy will be constructed, including the rate at which it will be set and the total amount to be raised. We will review the Commission’s licence fees to ensure it has the resources to continue its transformation and deliver on the commitments across this white paper. The Commission has been taking steps to ensure it can effectively respond to novel products which blur the line between gambling and other areas and will continue work in this area.

Other responses from outside of industry thought that the cooling-off period should be longer, with respondents stating either 60 or 120 seconds. There was consensus from industry that the length of the cooling-off period should be 30 seconds if these voluntary limits are hit. While Category D crane grabs may be a lower risk, they are more likely to be played by children and we think a cautious approach to debit card payments should be taken in general.