Dutch regulations dubbed “inadequate” at protecting young adults from gambling-related harm
Independent review claims operators’ duty of care requirements are not being met as trade body and politicians weigh in on the issue
The Dutch Remote Gambling Act (KOA) is “inadequate” and in need of “urgent adjustments” to better protect customers at risk of gambling-related harms, according to a study.
A review commissioned by the Scientific Research and Data Centre (WODC), an independent division within the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, called into question licensed operators’ ability to offer the correct duty of care to consumers.
It found that while the KOA was established to help signpost players in the direction of licensed operators, it has yet to contribute sufficiently to a “responsible and controllable gaming” landscape.
In contrast the review, which was also conducted by research firm Dialogic, argued the KOA in its current form will result in more “damage”, particularly among younger adults.
The 198-page study determined that by implementing the KOA, the amount of online wagering has increased, particularly among young gamblers who the WODC argued are at greater risk of gambling-related harm.
After three years of regulated gambling in the Netherlands, with the market launching in October 2021, the evaluation was conducted earlier than usual at the request of the House of Representatives.
The report will be debated in the House, although timings on this have yet to be confirmed.
Dialogic’s research was conducted into three parts: testing the policy assumptions, assessing how the policy plays out in practice and, where possible, analysing the effect of the policy.
Key findings
The report claimed that Dutch players are “insufficiently protected” against the risk of gambling addiction, while the level of personal responsibility placed upon young players is too great.
It also found that the fact protective measures do not cross-collaborate across multiple operators, meaning there is capacity for gambling harms to come to the fore.
Researchers gave the example that players can reach a self-imposed limit with one operator, before starting to wager with another one immediately.
As mentioned, operators are informed of the duty of care responsibilities upon entering the Dutch market, but the review argued those responsibilities are carried out “differently and often insufficiently”.
It claimed that the Netherlands Gambling Authority (KSA) had reached a similar conclusion and therefore presented the question of whether the duty of care should be taken out of the operator’s hands.
The group also raised question marks over the fact it was in the commercial interests of gambling companies to attract and retain players.
The study then suggested that, from a competitive viewpoint, operators can be expected to handle all duty of care requirements with “minimal” hindrance to the player, in fear of sending them into the direction of a competitor.
Cooperation between operators within the Dutch market when it came to forming a gambling-related harm prevention policy was believed to be “very limited”.
The review also addressed what it labelled as “contradictions” within the structure of advertising regulation, citing how operators are required to promote its offering and steer players away from black market operators, but must not encourage gambling in the process.
The current rules surrounding advertising also do not completely prevent vulnerable groups from seeing gambling adverts, according to the report.
Dialogic argued that the impact the regulated market has had on the level of gambling addiction cannot yet be fully determined, given on average it takes between five to eight years for someone addicted to gambling to seek professional help.
Fragilities within the KSA’s approach to tackling issues such as match-fixing were detected, as well as information-sharing between operators.
The Dutch regulator’s ability to act against unlicensed operators was also called into question, as the KSA currently does not boast authorisation to shut down an illegal gambling site that is operating from a different country.
However, despite the perceived shortcomings, the WODC report did not the KOA had supported the aims to drive channelisation above 80% successfully.
A KSA marketing monitoring report from April pegged the channelisation rate at 90%.
Recommendations
Several recommendations were raised within the review of the KOA, including a central body governing operators’ duties of care rather than leaving it in the hands of gambling companies.
Other suggestions included making player data available for independent research into addiction prevention and expanding the KSA’s remit to better push back against unlicensed operators.
One of the most notable recommendations came in the form of changing the KOA’s core objective from ‘preventing gambling addiction’ to ‘preventing gambling harm’, given problems can arise from gambling outside of addictive behaviour.
A shift in focus, the WODC and Dialogic argued, would allow more emphasis to be placed on identifying and preventing all gambling-related harms.
Reactions
The WODC said: “Based on the policy and the current implementation practice, it can be expected that damage will occur as a result of the policy.
“This does not only concern financial damage, but potentially also great personal suffering as a result.
“Placing the care for online gambling players in the hands of parties that offer an addictive product and have to compete with each other for market share, which gives them a financial incentive to retain players for as long as possible, has been naïve.”
Eric Konings, the acting director of the Netherlands Online Gambling Association, suggested the report was a “cause for concern”.
“The evaluation shows that since the law came into effect, there has been a reliable and verifiable supply, but that the supply is still insufficiently responsible,” he said.
“As a result, the underlying policy objectives have not yet been achieved. The latter is a cause for concern, and we will continue to make efforts to arrive at a more responsible supply in dialogue with politicians, government, addiction care and science.
“For example, we have been advocating for a strengthening of the Cruks exclusion register and a more effective fight against illegal gambling supply for some time now.”
He added: “We would like to note that the evaluation is incomplete. For example, the effects of the ban on untargeted advertising introduced over a year ago and of the more recent Regulation on gambling limits and more conscious gambling behaviour have not been included in the evaluation.”
Christian Party leader Mirjam Bikker, who is also a member of the Dutch House of Representatives, added: “The WODC report is crystal clear. Gambling companies are abusing their power, with devastating consequences for the future of young people and children. How many more reports do we need to see this? Take action, cabinet.”