Study: Bank gambling blocking tools not a “silver bullet” to gambling-related harm
New research calls for a unified approach to customer interaction as some banks say their data is suitable for affordability checks and that gambling spend should be limited
A new report has claimed bank gambling-blocking tools are not a “silver bullet” to tackling gambling-related financial harm and that banks hold a “unique” position in the industry ecosystem to better support at-risk players.
According to research by academics from Queen Mary University of London, blocking tools, while a positive step in the right direction, need to be coupled with other support measures to deliver a more holistic protection style.
The research suggested blocking functionality could be combined with other tools, as well as opening lines of communication with individuals to address problem gambling and flagging activity to external support organisations.
It was also proposed that banks should offer more training to staff to raise awareness and aid spotting potential markers of gambling-related harm, and that banks should monitor the use of these support measures and evaluate and improve their effectiveness.
The report also stated that banks are in a “unique position of opportunity” as they are privy to data about gambling spend, income and transactional meta-data concerning an individual’s gambling that family members and friends don’t have access to.
This position, according to the report, allows banks to spot potential issues and intervene, even if this involves reaching out to the customer and pointing out the spending trends the bank has noticed.
Additionally, the academics said banks were in a better position than gambling operators to “judge a customer’s vulnerability”, as many gamblers bet with multiple operators.
However, the research also revealed that banks are currently not unified in their approach to customer interventions. Some were increasing personal interaction with a customer in-person or over the phone while others used automated support.
Other highlights from the study include the suggestion that open banking, and the greater sharing of customer data, “could be relevant to affordability checks carried out by operators in the near future”.
In fact, the report noted that one bank said there were “a lot of potential for good uses of open banking apps but, equally, there was potential for abuse by the gambling operators”.
Another bank told researchers that it “would be good to have a default limit for gambling on each and every card” due to those suffering from gambling-related harm being unwilling to seek out help prior to reaching an “absolute low”.
The six-month research project involved structured interviews with banks, semi-structured interviews with those who have experienced serious gambling-related harm and by analysing the legal and regulatory responsibilities banks have to their customers.
Professor Julia Hörnle, professor of internet law at Queen Mary University of London and co-author of the report, explained: “While there is a fair amount of discussion and positive innovation, implementation is patchy.
“This means that, in practice, the degree of support for people experiencing harm is a question of luck. Clearer guidance and minimum standards as to what the new consumer duty means for protecting individuals experiencing serious gambling harm is necessary. We recommend that the Financial Conduct Authority issues guidance in this respect and we hope this report is instrumental for this purpose.”
Dr Janelle Jones, senior lecturer in social psychology at Queen Mary University of London, added: “Our research underscores the devastating personal consequences of problem gambling.
“Banks, with their unique position and access to transactional and behavioural data, can effectively identify and assist customers in recognising and addressing their gambling-related issues early.”
Several UK banks and building societies, including Barclays, HSBC, Monzo and Nationwide, offer their customers the ability to establish gambling blocks on their accounts to prevent them from depositing money with operators.
These blocks, once established, last for a minimum of 48 hours, with the respective bank blocking all the transactions categorised as gambling that use the correct Merchant Category Code (MCC). However, banks won’t be able to block transactions from operators or shops that don’t use a gambling MCC or transactions made through an e-wallet.