Industry reaction after cross-party MPs call for online stake limits and blanket ad ban

The Gambling Related Harm All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) sent further shots across the UK gambling industry’s bows on Monday with its latest report into the UK gambling industry recommending wholesale changes.

The cross-party group of more than 50 MPs put the industry under the microscope with 30-plus recommendations, including a blanket ban on all advertising and restrictions on in-play betting, alongside stinging criticism of both the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) and the Gambling Commission (UKGC).

The report prompted a flurry of national newspaper headlines and tweets and provoked heated exchanges from both sides of the highly charged debate.

So the anti-gambling lobby think only 9 million people gamble when it is more than 20 million (the actual figure, excluding National Lottery, circa 21.8m people). If you include gambling on the National Lottery, it’s nearly 30 million (circa 29.6m people). Details, details… https://t.co/CCiXUKaHU7

— Michael Dugher (@MichaelDugher) June 16, 2020

The challenge now is to sort fact from fiction ahead of the UK government’s forthcoming review of the 2005 Gambling Act.

Below, industry stakeholders share their observations on the drastic proposals.

Paul Leyland, analyst, Regulus Partners

With battle-lines already drawn, it would be easy to form the view that an array of stringent measures is long overdue for an industry that has displayed all too many excesses, the damage of which is measured in human harm and a litany of ad hoc regulatory interventions. Equally, it would be easy to characterise the APPG and its supporters as an ‘anti-gambling’ lobby with a regressive and reductionist agenda born of ethical or moral repugnance, egged on by (utterly self-defeating) inter-sector points scoring. Which side of the debate one happens to be on tends to colour whether the report is praised or condemned –  with very little tolerance for healthy scepticism or constructive criticism. However, this ‘political football’ approach is not helpful for producing sound legislation or advancing the debate other than in terms of ink spilled.

Of the 36 proposals contained within the APPG report, we consider four to have merit (based upon analysis of research and likely impact) while six require no change on the basis that they are already contained within regulations or are being implemented. Of the remaining recommendations, eight appear weak or very weak from an efficacy standpoint – and critically these include the headline recommendations. Further down the list, there are some potential kernels of wisdom, but they are inadequately explored and are thus rendered vague or incoherent. Given the time, effort and expense involved in holding the inquiry and producing the report, it is both a shame and a missed opportunity that the end product is of such poor quality.

Betting and Gaming Council

The @GRHAPPG report is a contribution to the debate on problem gambling. However, it contains several inaccuracies that need to be corrected. Thread 1/

— Betting and Gaming Council (@BetGameCouncil) June 16, 2020

Stephen Woodford, CEO, Advertising Association

Now more than ever, it is essential that all parts of the advertising industry fulfil their responsibilities to the highest standards in the UK, both economically and socially. We ask all gambling operators and their agencies to continue to adhere to the strict standards set by the ASA and the Gambling Commission. These rules clearly require gambling operators to be socially responsible and to protect the vulnerable, as well as under 18s. The codes are under regular and rigorous review in line with the evidence. As new evidence emerges, the ASA and Gambling Commission consider this and amend the rules if they believe the evidence supports change. At this time, we believe a total ban is not necessary – such an action has wide implications, particularly for the support of sports across media channels, something enjoyed by millions of people right across the UK.

Melanie Ellis, partner, Northridge Law LLP

While some of the APPG’s recommendations are sensible, my view is that many of its proposals would tip the regulation balance too far and drive customers to the unregulated black market. The Gambling Commission told the APPG that it “does not see a lot of evidence” of a “burgeoning black market”, but a total ban on advertising gambling products would remove one of the key incentives for operators to become licensed in Great Britain – the ability to advertise on TV, on the radio, on billboards and so on. It would need to be combined with robust ISP and payment blocking measures to ensure British customers don’t just as easily find their way onto unlicensed sites as licensed ones. An advertising ban would also create a huge barrier to entry for start-up operators, who would be unable to get information about their products to potential customers, effectively restricting the choice for customers to the big brand names they’ve already heard of.

A £2 limit on online slots could also have the effect of driving customers to the black market, particularly accentuated for the higher staking players, who we most need to protect. The reality is, a £2 stake on online slots is too low to be fun for some players and they are likely to either find unregulated sites to play on, or simply increase the length of time they spend gambling. A staking limit for slots may be appropriate for a machine in a casino or betting shop, where the total spend of a given customer cannot be accurately monitored, but it’s unnecessary in an online environment where that data is available and the operator can take a nuanced approach to individual customers. Another recommendation which I believe goes too far is restricting in-play sports betting to venues or via telephone. This would remove access to a product, which is used safely and enjoyably by most, to those who are unable to attend sporting events in person – this might be due to inability to travel to the venue, difficulty in accessing it due to disability, or even ongoing concerns about the spread of Covid-19.

Richard Williams, partner, Keystone Law

The major recommendations of the APPG will not come as a surprise, given the fact that it made a number of these recommendations in its interim report in November 2019 and asked the gambling industry to consider voluntarily imposing restrictions during the Covid-19 crisis.

The APPG proposals to impose deposit limits, restrict stakes to £2 per spin (in line with FOBT machines in betting shops), end VIP schemes and restrict all marketing and advertising would have a major impact on the online industry in Great Britain. The APPG also agrees with the National Audit Office that the Gambling Commission is not fit for purpose and requires more funding to effectively regulate the industry. The APPG considers that these steps are necessary to rein in some of the extreme cases of gambling harm, which have been widely reported in the press.

Online gambling operators will be strongly opposed to many of these proposals, which would severely impact their finances. The APPG recommendations do not have to be accepted by the UK government, but this is a good indication of the direction of legislative travel. Proposals such as deposit limits for online casinos are due to be introduced imminently in Sweden, so don’t be surprised if some, if not all, of the APPG recommendations make their way into revised gambling legislation in Great Britain in the not too distant future.

Alun Bowden, senior consultant, Eilers & Krejcik Gaming

Any attempt to ban all online gambling advertising is basically inane as it’s impossible. There was loads of gambling advertising before it was even legal, and there is loads wherever it is illegal. You are far better off having the industry inside the tent looking out.

What you, at best, manage to do is stop the good firms who you can exercise some control over advertising. I really hope whoever is writing new legislation tries to understand all this before they make a series of new mistakes to replace the series of old mistakes

There are plenty of people who would be more than willing to provide help on this but I fear instead we get increasingly strategic groups on either side of this debate pushing messages they don’t really believe in order to get a softened version of what they’re asking for.

A bad faith debate where we run the risk of hurtling towards a high variance decision process. What does this remind me of?

Ian Sims, founder, Rightlander

It would be an absolute disaster if that all of the proposals go through. Players will find Google results saturated with ads and affiliate sites promoting unlicensed sites and problem gamblers will lose all the protection that has been carefully built up for them so far.

There has to be a point at which politicians recognise there is a balance between an industry taking responsibility and a player taking responsibility. Problem gamblers need education and controls but ultimately, they have to recognise that they want to stop gambling.