The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) is “deeply disappointed and frustrated” with Gambling Commission’s (UKGC) decision to introduce financial risk assessments in stages, saying core questions from the regulator’s pilot remain unanswered.
The UKGC’s announcement follows months of uncertainty over a proposal that has drawn objections from operators, racing bodies, campaigners and some parliamentarians.
Under the first stage, the largest operators will assess customers aged 25 and over whose net deposits exceed £5,000 in any rolling 24-hour period. The threshold is higher than levels previously considered by the Commission.
Grainne Hurst, the BGC’s chief executive, said the delays in implementation and revised thresholds showed that industry objections had been justified. “The central issues around reliability, consumer impact and the practical operation of these checks remain unresolved,” she said.
Hurst added: “The Commission has failed to address the fundamental issues identified during its own pilot. It has not demonstrated that the data underpinning these checks is accurate, reliable or consistent enough to support regulatory decisions affecting customers.
“The pilot exposed inconsistencies in the information returned by credit reference agencies, with the same customer potentially receiving different outcomes depending on the provider. Customers risk being wrongly identified as financially vulnerable based on a system that remains unproven. That is not a sound basis for regulatory intervention.”
The assessments stem from the 2023 Gambling Act Review white paper. They are intended to flag online gambling customers who may be in serious financial difficulty, using information held by credit reference agencies.
The UKGC distinguishes the plan from affordability checks. It says the assessments would not set spending limits or calculate what an individual can afford to gamble.
BGC: UKGC numbers don’t add up
The policy sits alongside separate financial vulnerability checks that became mandatory for remote operators in 2024. Those checks use publicly available data to identify markers including bankruptcy orders and unpaid debts.
The Commission’s post-pilot account was more upbeat. It said fewer than 3% of active accounts would meet the proposed triggers, and that 97% of assessments could be conducted without customers providing documents or taking other action.
Its analysis found that only one account in every 1,000 would both require an assessment and be unable to complete it in a frictionless manner.
The BGC, which said it was “deeply disappointed and frustrated” with the UKGC’s decision, disputes whether those findings settle the matter, arguing credit reference agencies returned inconsistent information during the pilot.
Hurst said this created a risk that customers could be wrongly identified as financially vulnerable. She also said the Commission had yet to publish a full evaluation of the pilot.
That, the BGC argued, leaves operators and the public without the evidence needed to assess the policy.
The trade body said it supports regulation intended to protect vulnerable people, but any system must be accurate, consistent and genuinely frictionless.
The BGC also repeated its warning that checks viewed as intrusive or unreliable could steer customers towards unlicensed gambling sites.
Hurst concluded: “We support evidence-led, proportionate regulation that protects vulnerable people while allowing the 22.5 million adults in Britain who bet each month to do so safely.
“But until the Commission can demonstrate these checks are accurate, consistent and genuinely frictionless, our fundamental concerns remain, including the risk of driving customers towards the growing illegal gambling market.”
BHA also shows concern
Brant Dunshea, CEO of the British Horseracing Authority, issued a separate statement about the move, saying “We are hugely disappointed that the Gambling Commission will implement affordability checks which will have severe financial implications for British racing and the UK economy and subject racing bettors to unwarranted levels of intrusion.
“We understand these checks have been proven by the Gambling Commission’s own pilot to not be ‘fully frictionless’ as originally promised by successive Government ministers.
“Rather than protecting consumers, these checks will have the opposite effect: driving more customers to the illegal market – which puts them at much greater risk of gambling-related harm – and starving the Treasury of much needed tax revenue.”
