Little triggers: The UK Gambling Commission has still not proven the financial risk assessments (FRA) system it wants operators to use is accurate, consistent or reliable enough to support decisions affecting customers, says Grainne Hurst, CEO of the Betting & Gaming Council (BGC).

• The Commission said last week it was pressing on with the contentious checks.
• Talking to C+M, Hurst said the regulator’s own pilot exposed a flaw at the heart of the model: namely, the same customer could receive different assessments depending on which credit reference agency (CRA) was used.
• In some cases, she pointed out, “a large number of customers” could have different scoring across all three CRAs.

If you get it wrong, you’ll get it right next time: Automation is not the same thing as accuracy, Hurst argued. A check can happen in the background and still produce the wrong answer, with the friction coming later via restrictions, interventions, document requests or open banking demands.

• “These checks cannot be described as genuinely frictionless if they produce unreliable outcomes, lead to unnecessary account restrictions or ultimately result in customers being asked to provide documents or open banking information,” she said.

Mystery loves company: The Commission has presented FRAs as a way of replacing document-heavy affordability checks with credit-reference data. But the BGC’s point is that an unreliable frictionless check is not a solution; it is a new regulatory trigger wrapped in a black box.

• The BGC’s suspicions are aggravated by the fact the Commission has not published the full pilot evaluation.
• Hurst said neither the sector nor the public has seen the evidence needed to justify checks that could ultimately affect hundreds of thousands of customers.
• The regulator is moving from pilot to implementation while the industry is still being asked to trust a conclusion rather than interrogate the evidence behind it.

Giving an inch: The Commission has sought to blunt the criticism by delaying implementation, raising the initial thresholds and moving to a staged rollout.

• Stage one will apply only at very high spend, with most over-25 customers triggering an FRA only after £5,000 of net deposits in a rolling 24-hour period.
• The eventual threshold is £1,000 in 24 hours or £3,000 over 90 days for those aged 25 and over, with lower thresholds for younger customers.

Begrudge match: Hurst accepts the change is a concession. “The fact it has delayed implementation, raised thresholds and abandoned its original timetable is a clear recognition that those concerns were well founded,” she said.

• But the BGC’s view is that a higher threshold does not cure a faulty mechanism.
• “Simply slightly reducing the number of customers to undergo an FRA but leaving the results as erroneous at lower thresholds is not success,” she added.

Goalposts on the move: The Commission has said there will be no enforcement action in the early stages for failing to act following an FRA, while making it clear existing license obligations still apply. That is unlikely to give operators comfort and it has not removed the gray zone, but merely shifted it.

• Operators will still have to decide what to do with an adverse or ambiguous CRA return.
• Ignore it because the pilot evidence is incomplete; restrict the account to protect themselves; or ask for documents, creating the friction FRAs are designed to avoid.
• The BGC’s answer is that the Commission should not put operators or customers in that position until it has shown the checks will not wrongly identify customers as financially vulnerable.

Model misbehavior: The ever-present risk is the black market, with Hurst claiming unnecessary friction will drive customers towards illegal operators. Modeling based on the original £2,000-over-90-days proposal estimated 74,400 customers could migrate to the illegal market taking ~£624m of GGY with them.

• The Commission has now increased the 90-day threshold to £3,000, but Hurst said it has not published updated modeling showing how those displacement estimates change.
• Without that modeling, the Commission is asking licensed operators to implement a measure whose consumer-protection benefits remain asserted.
• Meanwhile, the risks to channelization, racing funding and tax leakage remain under-analyzed.

Drop the pilot: Hurst was careful to say the BGC is not opposing protection for vulnerable customers. The sector has implemented more than 60 reforms following the Gambling Act review, while operators continue to invest in identifying signs of harm.

• But she argued there has been no evaluation of whether those existing measures, including stake limits and financial vulnerability checks, have addressed the concerns that first led to FRAs.
• The BGC is asking that the Commission publish the full pilot evidence, prove the data is accurate and consistent, and show ordinary customers will not be wrongly identified or pushed through unnecessary friction.
• Until then, the Commission’s “frictionless” claim will continue to be read by operators not as reassurance but as assertion.

Like what you are reading? CLICK here to read the FULL article!