Gambling Commission warns of “new challenges” presented by micro-betting 

Gambling Commission (GC) deputy CEO Sarah Gardner has warned that the regulator and the industry could face difficulty navigating football’s micro-market betting explosion as the field becomes more subjective. 

Speaking at the KPMG Gibraltar eSummit on 27 June, Gardner said allowing customers to bet on more actions which may potentially include an element of human judgement could increase the number of consumer disputes operators have to deal with.  

While decisions such as goals awarded, corners given or cards shown remain black and white, Gardener suggested that other markets are creating a grey area for consumers and operators alike. 

She said: “Whether a shot was taken, was on target, a tackle made and a variety of other micro-markets are ultimately more subjective.

“Once we introduce concepts which require a human being to make a subjective judgement, we introduce debate and argument.  

“I’m not saying these micro-markets should not exist, but we have seen a notable increase in disputes from consumers where already higher-margin, multiple-selection bets now have elements which one person might see differently, especially when it makes the difference between winning and losing.” 

Earlier this year, Gaming Innovation Group (GiG) chief business officer Andrew Cochrane flagged micro-market betting as a fast-growing trend among consumers, estimating that the pattern would continue during Euro 2024. 

The GC’s Market Insight data showed that the number of active accounts engaging in real-event betting – such as football matches – increased 15% in March 2024 when compared to March 2021. 

Although advancements in technology to mirror the increased data might help, Gardener argued that the core issues with micro-market betting will remain.  

She added: “Technology and its continuing development, as well as AI, may well help here but what we do already see today is a significant set of products where consumers are disputing whether the micro-event, perhaps just a single movement in 90-plus minutes of football, happened or not and that brings all kinds of challenges for regulators, as well as the industry.  

“The compilers and providers of data have many processes in place and specific rules to describe events and they often have no relationship with the bets or liquidity itself, but nonetheless this has brought new challenges to us.” 

Gardner went on to note that a natural continuation of micro-betting would be “hyper personalisation” for customers and the potential regulatory impact of more data flooding into the user journey.

She explained: “On the one hand, perhaps it presents an opportunity to reduce unwanted cross-selling of products to consumers, but if products, or the delivery of them, is increasingly attuned to a consumer’s interests and what engages them most, what risks does this present in terms of managing the risks of excessive gambling?

“I’m not standing here with a view or position on that, but let’s all understand these are things which will need serious thought by both the industry and its regulators.”

Furthermore, Gardner defended the GC’s introduction of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) as a new method for collecting data about the industry.  

The survey was conducted between November 2023 and February 2024, and was based on the responses of 5,000 participants, with Wave 2 of the survey’s findings released on 27 June.

The data showed 48% of respondents aged over 18 had gambled in the previous four weeks, with lotteries and scratchcards being the most popular outlets. 

Gardener continued: “GSGB is now a reality. We will continue to develop it over time, of course. But the Commission has taken the steps we needed to both safeguard and improve our data. Better evidence, driven by better data will lead to better regulation, which in turn will lead to better outcomes. 

“I have seen some seeking to decry the GSGB before it has even been published in full because we have been open about the areas where we need to exercise some caution, sometimes vocally supporting datasets which support their argument, where there is little or nothing known about how those figures have been constructed.  

“I think everyone can do better than that and there is an obligation on all of us to use research, statistics and insight in a responsible way,” she concluded.