Category: Gambling

The Industry Group for Responsible Gambling (“IGRG”) has updated its Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising (“the Code”) this month. This is the 3rd version of the Code, and a full copy may be downloaded here: http://igrg.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/gicodev3.pdf.

The IGRG is currently composed of the Association of British Bookmakers, BACTA, the Bingo Association, the National Casino Forum and the Remote Gambling Association (“RGA”). IGRG was established in 2014 and incorporated in November 2015. Its object is to promote socially responsible gambling across all of the gambling sectors in the UK.

This latest iteration of the IGRG’s Code is intended to fully be implemented by the end of the year. The Code was originally introduced on 1 September 2007. It was aimed at augmenting other social responsibility measures relating to gambling advertising imposed and enforced by the Gambling Commission (“GC”) and the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) and to detail a range of measures that go above and beyond the already extensive requirements placed on operators by those regulators.

It remains the case, under this latest draft of the Code, that the gambling industry will look to the GC and the ASA for the enforcement of the rules relating to socially responsible gambling advertising. This includes compliance with the Codes of Practice issued by the Committee for Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice, which are enforced by the ASA, which is also required by the GC’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”).

It was always envisaged that the Code would be reviewed on an ongoing basis and, accordingly, the industry welcomed the Government’s decision, in 2014, to initiate a review of all aspects of the regulation of gambling advertising. The then Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) wrote to the RGA to request a review of the industry Code:

“to ensure that controls keep at pace with developments in the market, and continue to reflect public attitudes towards gambling advertising”.

 A number of amendments and updating measures to the Code followed the subsequent review and engagement with DCMS and a commitment was given at the time by IGRG to review the Code on a regular basis. This 3rd version of the Code reflects the latest developments in this ongoing process.

The Code was proactively volunteered, from its inception, by the gambling industry as a result of the liberalisation of gambling advertising brought about by the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005 in September 2007. This was as a result of the facts that the new advertising freedoms were relatively untested and that there was little evidence about their potential impact. As a result, a number of precautionary measures were introduced at that time, the most significant of which being the 9.00pm television watershed for all gambling product advertising except for that relating to bingo and sports betting surrounding televised sports events, a requirement for all advertisements to include information leading to the GambleAware website, and a prohibition on sponsoring operators’ logos appearing on any children’s merchandise.

This latest version of the Code continues primarily to be focused upon the issues of problem and underage gambling. It also continues to place the primary responsibility for enforcement upon the GC and the ASA. In practice, when breaches of the Code are identified, the company concerned has generally already taken remedial action provided any breaches are brought to its attention. If this is not the case then the IGRG will look to the GC to “encourage companies to be compliant”, as per the GC’s LCCP.

Complaints about breaches of the Code go here: adcodecomplaints@igrg.org.uk. The relevant specific Code requirement, together with details of where the alleged breach was noticed, should be included within any complaint, together with any other details that the complainant can provide. The IGRG then commits to considering the case before responding to the complainant and placing a summary of the complaint and decision on its website, albeit the complainant’s details will not be disclosed at this stage. Any sanctions will fall to the GC or ASA to apply and enforce.

The principal changes brought about by the 3rd Edition of the Code are as follows:

• Following a rebranding, GambleAware has been replaced by a reference to the following link: https://about.gambleaware.org/fundraising/begambleaware-logo/. All references to GambleAware on print and broadcast media must be changed and made clearly legible to www.begambleaware.org, as soon as possible and ideally before the end of the year, although the existing link http://www.gambleaware.co.uk will remain operational until the end of 2018, but will redirect visitors to the new website;

• A raft of new measures relating to advertising on social media, designed to limit further the access of under-18s to inappropriate gambling marketing material on YouTube and Twitter.

• Gambling operators must now carry the required social responsibility and age requirement specifications on consumer-facing marketing content on their YouTube channels. They must also use the Twitter age-screening function when marketing to consumers, which approach has previously been piloted by the alcohol industry. In addition, they must restrict or direct marketing video uploads to YouTube. This can be done simply by checking the age restriction option when uploading content, via: https://support.google.com/YouTube/answers/2950063?rd=1.

• For the first time, the Code includes a requirement that operators use their best endeavours to ensure that any affiliates that market on their behalf do so compliantly. This reflects the provisions of the GC’s LCCP, notably Licence Condition 16.1.1(b).

As mentioned above, the latest amendments to the Code, which should be fully implemented by the end of this year, represent an attempt by the IGRG to keep up with the continuously and rapidly involving nature of the online gambling market. As social media continues to evolve, operators will need to take care to ensure that they are similarly vigilant across all channels, even if the IGRG Code does not specifically refer to them. The IGRG expressly says in this month’s Edition of the Code that it’s unlikely that any further revisions will be made in a short term but responsibility nevertheless rests with operators to ensure that they continue to promote high standards across all advertising channels, as these evolve.

This does beg the question as to what impact the IGRG Code will have in real terms, in what is already a heavily-regulated field that falls under the responsibility of the GC and ASA. As I finish writing this article, Guy Parker, Chief Executive of the ASA, is on the news stressing that advertisements on Snapchat and other social media must be flagged as such, for example by the use of the hashtag #ad, and gambling operators advertising on any form of social media would do well to remember this.

Should you have any queries about the latest changes to the IGRG Code, please do not hesitate to contact Anna Mathias at Anna@www.woodswhur.co.uk.

The Gambling Commission (“GC”) published its Business Plan last year for April 2016 to March 2017, pledging to put consumers first and urging operators to do the same. This was hotly followed by its Consumer Plan, described as “a two-way conversation” in which the GC committed to putting consumers at the heart of everything it does, by, for example, making its publications more accessible and continuing to develop its Contact Centre responsiveness and service standards.

Two further recent developments that champion consumers need to be noted by the gambling industry – the publication by the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) of Guidance for the sector on affiliate marketing, and the extension of the services of Resolver to assist consumers in managing complaints about gambling operators and their transactions.

The ASA Guidance was published on 21 July and a full copy may be found here: https://www.asa.org.uk/news/gambling-on-your-affiliates.html. The Guidance applies to non-broadcast affiliate marketing only and essentially emphasises to gambling operators that they bear “primary responsibility” to ensure that advertisements placed on their behalf comply with the Committee of Advertising Practice (“CAP”) Code. In effect, this means that they are entirely responsible for compliance, not simply with the general Chapter of the CAP Code prohibiting misleading, irresponsible or offensive advertising, but also with the specific Chapter of the Code relating to gambling, which may be found here: https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/16.html. Gambling advertisements must not, for example, suggest that a player’s personality, self-image or financial security are likely to improve via gambling. Operators should be aware that, if their affiliates do not act compliantly, they will bear sole, or at the very least joint, liability.

In the latest Guidance, the ASA highlights the requirement that operators ensure that their affiliates are not placing advertisements in a socially irresponsible way and, in particular, not targeting the underage, including on social media. This follows their 6 June Guidance on age-restricted advertisements online, a copy of which may be found here: https://www.asa.org.uk/asset/F0AB1553-1212-4106-8C6E6C0047FEBEBA/ That Guidance focussed on the fact that almost 9 in 10 children aged 5 to 15 go online, a large proportion of whom have their own social media profile. Against that backdrop, the ASA is keen to ensure that advertisements for age-restricted products, including gambling, do not reach an underage audience and expects advertisers to use all the data at their disposal, whether that be actively provided by users, inferred from their behaviour or based on information provided from their devices, to ensure that this does not happen.

The July Guidance also makes it clear that advertisements placed by affiliates must be readily identifiable as such, via sufficiently prominent labelling, and that any significant conditions or restrictions applying to promotions must be made clear and transparent. All terms and conditions must be clearly communicated, where to do otherwise might mislead the consumer.

Resolver is an online tool that enables consumers to track and manage any complaints that they might have about products or services. It already works with other key regulators such as the Financial Ombudsman, and is now working with the GC. The extension of Resolver to cover the gambling sector was announced in July.

The GC has shared information about the new Resolver product, whilst stressing that it is independent and not linked to it in any way. Full details, including a link to the Resolver website and FAQs, may be found here: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/news/2017/Consumers-can-use-Resolver-to-manage-their-gambling-complaints.aspx

Resolver has been available from 1 August. It is a free, independent, online tool for consumers which provides information about the issue the consumer wants to complain about, and advice and support on how to write emails and letters of complaint. Resolver is not an intermediary or Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) entity. It does not act on the consumer’s behalf but, instead, helps consumers to structure their complaint and to make informed decisions about the action to take.

This should, in turn, enable operators to deal with complaints more efficiently and to manage customer expectations. Resolver also enables customers to store all of the information about their complaint in one place, and acts as an email service. The GC expects operators to accept customer complaints sent via a Resolver email address, just as they would complaints sent from any other email address.

Despite the two entities being independent, the GC has collaborated with Resolver to develop the information that Resolver uses about gambling.

Resolver has now provided more details for operators, in particular on how the system will operate and on how operators can ensure that the appropriate information surrounding complaints reaches them. The full advice may be found here: http://www.resolving.uk/resolver-gambling-commission-team-up/

Resolver says that its website is designed to ensure the simple and effective management of complaints, for both consumers and companies. It also provides an escalation process to enable the parties to reach a satisfactory outcome. The escalation process applies both within a company and potentially to the GC, in appropriate cases.

Resolver is gradually adding gambling companies to its system, starting with the largest (a process that will take months), but does not expect an immediate influx of complaints about gambling, as it takes some time for consumers to become aware of its services.

Resolver stresses the importance of routeing complaints to the most appropriate part of an organisation in ensuring a quick and satisfactory outcome, so is encouraging operators to contact it with details of appropriate individuals, escalation contacts and ADR entity. These details may be sent to gambling@resolver.co.uk

It will be interesting to see what the uptake by consumers and operators alike of Resolver is, and the extent to which it will play a positive role in enabling consumers’ complaints about gambling – of which we are seeing an ever-increasing number – to be resolved speedily and to the satisfaction of all involved. It also remains to be seen whether the service will benefit or undermine operators, and we will report on this issue further in due course, as the scheme rolls out.

Should you have any queries about the recent moves to further the interests of consumers in gambling, please contact me on 07767782997 or at anna@www.woodswhur.co.uk.

The Gambling Commission (“GC”) is consulting on proposed changes to its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”) applying to the lotteries sector – both to society and local authority lottery operators and their commercial partners, External Lottery Manager (“ELMs”).

The proposals, which are out for consultation from 20 July to 30 September, are aimed at improving transparency for lottery players.

Full details, including how to respond to the Consultation and a template for doing so, are available here: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/news-action-and-statistics/Consultations/Open-consultations/Have-your-say-on-changes-to-society-lottery-codes-of-practice.aspx

The main proposed changes are to require all operators to publish annually the percentage of all lottery proceeds that go directly to the purpose of the society (the “good cause”) or to the purposes for which the local authority has power to incur expenditure, and to oblige those who promote lotteries as part of a branded lottery scheme to make it clearer to players the name of the society whose lottery they are participating in before they purchase a ticket.

Some of you may recall that, back in May, having listened to Sarah Harrison, CEO of the GC, deliver her keynote address to the Lotteries Council Annual Conference, I reported that these changes were afoot, and this Consultation should therefore come as no surprise. Any changes brought about as a result will come into force before April 2018.

The GC points out that the lotteries landscape has changed significantly since the Gambling Act came into force 10 years ago and that society lotteries now play a crucial role in supporting good causes in Great Britain. This Consultation takes on board various recommendations of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee when it looked at society lotteries in 2015 and proposes new Social Responsibility Code provisions, which have the force of Licence Conditions.

Whilst many society lottery schemes pay considerably more than the statutory minimum of 20% of proceeds to the good cause, some only pay the minimum and the GC believes it is reasonable to introduce a new Social Responsibility Code provision 4.3.1 obliging operators to make this information available to consumers, to enable them to make an informed choice on how to support charity. It is proposed to require this data in charities’ annual reports, on the lottery page of their websites or by “any other means appropriate to the size and scale of the organisation”.

In 2012, the GC published Guidance on branded, or “umbrella” lottery schemes and it has been engaging with the operators of such schemes since, in order to ensure that they are providing sufficient information to consumers to enable them to determine which society lottery they are participating in. The GC now proposes to beef these measures up by the introduction of a new Social Responsibility Code provision 4.3.2 requiring advertising and marketing to make clear that each draw is on behalf of separate identified societies and that the name of the brand is secondary to the name of the society, including on lottery tickets.

The Consultation also seeks comments on the GC’s proposals to clarify the definitions of “high frequency”, “instant win” and “low frequency” lotteries. These definitions dictate, for example, which of the GC’s Remote Technical Standards (“RTS”) will apply, since many will only apply to the last two types.

The proposed definitions are as follows:

• “high frequency” lottery – one in which any draw takes place less than one hour after a draw in a previous lottery promoted on behalf of the same non-commercial society or local authority or as part of the same multiple society lottery scheme;
• “instant win” lottery – one in which every draw takes place either before, or at the point of, purchase of tickets by participants; and
• “low frequency” lottery – a series of separate lotteries promoted on behalf of the same non-commercial society or local authority or as part of the same multiple society lottery scheme where there is a period of at least two days between each lottery.

At present it is unclear how those lotteries falling between “high frequency” and “low frequency”, with draws more than one hour, but less than two days, apart, will fall to be classified and perhaps the answer to that will emerge as a result of the consultation process.

Have your say on this Consultation before 30 September, using the link above. Should you have any questions or concerns, do please contact me at anna@www.woodswhur.co.uk or on 07767782997.

The Gambling Act 2005 was intended to modernise gambling in the United Kingdom by replacing the anachronistic 1968 Gaming Act with legislation better suited to the 21^st Century. The 1968 Act had placed tight restrictions on the number of casinos and these were limited to specific “permitted areas.”

In the months leading up to the 2005 general election the media and the incumbent gambling industry led a campaign against the Gambling Bill, focused on so called “Las Vegas style super casinos.”

Up until that time, grandiose schemes for the redevelopments of places like Blackpool and the O2 Arena in London had been promoted for large-scale, resort-type casinos.

By the time the legislation received royal assent in April 2005, it had been stripped of its boldest attempts at liberalization and the possibility of opening casinos across large areas of the country was removed, as was the ability to transfer existing casino licences from one region to another.

As a result of these changes many large towns (and Boroughs within London) are still unable to see casinos locating within their area and many of the old licences are dormant and remain parked, waiting to see whether liberalization and change will follow.

Prior to the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005, there were 53 permitted areas where casinos could be licensed. These were prescribed by Regulations which came into force back in 1972. The demographic landscape of a huge number of areas had changed over this period, but the permitted areas did not, and as a result the casino sector stagnated. There are a total of 186 1968 Act licences which are “frozen in aspic” and cannot be increased. The last record showed that 146 of these licences are currently being operated, with the other 40 parked and dormant.

16 Local Authorities were granted new licences under the 2005 Act. 8 large and 8 small casino licences but no “super casino” envisaged in the preamble to the legislation. The large and small casinos were given greater flexibility in their public offer than their predecessors under the 1968 Act.

When the National Casino Industry Forum gave evidence before the CMS Select Committee, they raised issues of “portability” of the 1968 Act licences- the ability to move licences from where there was over-provision to areas which wanted a casino but could not have one. This issue gained some sympathy from the Committee, who stated that “we recommend that any Local Authority be able to make the decision as to whether or not they want a casino.” They went on to say “…as a step towards this, we recommend that existing 1968 Act casino licences are made portable, allowing operators to allocate to any Local Authority provided that they have the consent of that Local Authority.”

This seemed a very sensible solution to the problem of dormant licences. Many London Boroughs, unable to have a licence as they were not part of the permitted area scheme of the 1968 Act, and indeed large growing population centres outside of London, were keen to have a casino in their locality. A further benefit would be that the overall number of gambling permissions across the country would not increase but would, instead, see a redistribution of already-granted licences.

Local issues could be dealt with by way of:

• Local Authority approval;
• planning permission; and
• a premises licence issued under the Gambling Act 2005 by the Licensing Authority for that area.

This was immediately attractive to the industry. The number of operators of casinos has diminished due to independents selling to bigger operators and the coming together of the Gala and Grosvenor Estates of casinos.

What we have seen to be particularly successful in London is the siting of quality casinos within 5 star hotels and a good example of this is the licence that was granted to the Park Lane Casino in the Hilton on Park Lane.

Many operators of London 5 star high-end luxury hotels are keen to have a casino licence. For example the City of London and Camden, as well as others, wish to have the ability to have (a) casino(s) in their authority areas. However, without the introduction of portability of licences, this is currently precluded. There is a history of licences which have operated in the permitted areas which were granted where the premises have now closed, trapped in areas where the supply side is saturated, the local demographic has changed or there has been some other factor, for example the grant of a 2005 Act licence. This, in many areas, has eroded the economic basis for their development. Licences are “locked in” while other interested Local Authorities are “locked out”, which is causing the market to fail. There are 13 licences granted under the 1968 Act which have never opened.

It would seem sensible to allow the portability of licences – with no increase in their total number – as demand for casinos in other, currently non-permitted areas would generate investment, jobs and tourism and local demand is currently unmet because licences are not portable.

Of the 16 new licences granted as a result of the 2005 Act, 10 of them were in existing permitted areas. In real terms, therefore, there is now only an increase of 6 new areas where casinos can be licensed. This is not what the 2005 Act set out to achieve.

While the Government seems to have more significant pressing issues to deal with than the casino sector, there does not seem to be much prospect of an introduction of a scheme of portability. This issue appears to have gone off the political agenda. Most of the casino industry, and many Local Authorities, would be keen for this to gain traction. It would present a great opportunity for dealing with so many dormant licences.

The gambling industry is always seeking to develop innovative products, which change the way in which customers can gamble. Who would have thought, when Paddy and I started representing betting clients in 1990, that betting terminal machines allowing customers to bet at fixed odds would be become an integral part of all betting shops in the UK and would represent half, if not more, of a betting shop’s turnover? Who would have thought, at that stage, that there would be so many websites available enabling customers to gamble and that online gambling would have such a significant turnover?

Hand-held devices are common now in many gambling establishments, as are self-service terminals, and questions have arisen lately as to whether, in certain circumstances, the use of a hand-held terminal (such as a smartphone) in a betting office is covered by an ancillary remote operating licence, that licence being ancillary to the non-remote operating licence that allows the operator to apply for a premises licence and to trade at that site. The answer to the question can be found in the Gambling (Operating Licence and Single Machine Permit Fees) Regulations 2017 and in particular, in Regulation 16. Continue reading When is ancillary betting not ancillary?

Bookmaker Bet365 saw further negative coverage in the national press last week after it was forced to admit “acting in error”, over a year into a dispute with a customer involving £54,000 of unpaid winnings.

The bettor, whose identity is known to The Guardian newspaper but which it has not revealed, according to its coverage opened an account with Bet365 on 16 April and deposited £30,000 the following day, when she promptly lost £23,000 on a series of bets on horse racing. On the same day, she received an email from the bookmaker informing her that her maximum bet limit had been increased. The following day she placed further bets with her remaining £7,000 and saw an upturn in her fortunes, winning a total of £47,000, which took her balance to £54,000. At that point, Bet365 contacted her again by email to say that, as a result of a “trading decision”, her account would be restricted to a maximum stake of £1 on racing bets, although she was welcome to gamble as much as she wished on gaming products.

Disappointed by what she perceived as a refusal by the bookmaker to accept her bets, the punter requested that her balance be transferred to her debit card. Although it confirmed on 27 April that her identity had been “fully verified”, Bet365 has so far refused to do, despite a series of requests over the following months. The customer therefore lodged a complaint with the independent dispute adjudicator IBAS, which has been considering the case since November.

The Guardian, which, it is fair to say, generally has a fairly anti-gambling stance, published a piece in June which was highly critical of Bet365, pointing to increasing frustration in recent years on the part of bettors surrounding restrictions being placed on their bets by bookmakers. It quoted figures from the Horserace Bettors Forum showing that as many as 20,000 online accounts had been closed in the first six months of 2016 because, said the paper, “they were not sufficiently profitable for the operator”. It also quoted Paul Fairhead, a campaigner on gambling issues whose Twitter account, @BoycottBetFred, it described as “a rallying point for punters with grievances against bookmakers”. Mr Fairhead levied a number of criticisms against operators in relation to delays in withdrawing balances, saying that “they are holding on to the money in the hope that the problem goes away”. He called for the Gambling Commission to step in to implement and enforce “standardised and streamlined” verification systems across the industry.

The Guardian had another opportunity to have a go at Bet365 last week, when it emerged that the company’s systems had sent an automatically-generated email to the customer with whom it is in dispute, warning her that it could (or would, depending on which paragraph of the Guardian report one chooses to believe) charge a 5% “ongoing administration fee” on her account every 28 days, until the balance reaches zero. This is because the account has been marked as “dormant” following a period of precisely 12 months of inactivity, despite the dispute still being subject to the IBAS investigation, with the result that the account remains frozen.

Bet365 immediately confirmed to the customer that its initial email regarding the administration fee had been “submitted in error” and stated that it would not charge any form of fee “while we are still awaiting for you to sign and return the letter which we have submitted to you”. The coverage does not make it clear what the letter relates to, but it is believed that it is a request for the customer to sign up to new terms and conditions governing her account, something she is refusing to do while her funds remain frozen.

This error on Bet365’s part is unfortunate because, although the operator has promptly admitted its mistake, this has given the Guardian an opportunity to attack administration fees charged on dormant accounts across the industry. The paper points out that such fees are commonplace, and that their amounts, and the period of inactivity after which they apply, vary widely from one bookmaker to another.

Had Bet365 applied its “ongoing administration fee” in this case, the amount deducted from the customer’s balance in the first month would have been approximately £2,700. The Guardian consulted its go-to gambling industry critic again, and Paul Fairhead was quick to go on the record as saying that such a fee would have been “almost impossible to justify”, and called for maximum fees to be set – presumably by the regulator.

Leaving the issue of the gaffe on the administration fee to one side, the issues arising from this case are of significance to the industry – and many will be awaiting the IBAS adjudication, which is expected within a month, with interest. The time it is taking to determine the case is unusually long and, given the lack of any substantive detail about the dispute in the Guardian’s reporting and any disclosure of the correspondence between the parties, it is difficult to know what the real issues are. Bet365 has also refused to comment on the case, via The Guardian or otherwise.

Bet365 has confirmed to the customer that her identity had been “fully verified”, and the fact that the company was willing to allow her to gamble far higher amounts than the £1 limit, applied to her racing bets, on other products would appear to suggest that the operator was satisfied as to the source of funds. In addition, the customer’s bank has (according to The Guardian) assured her that there are “no concerns about money laundering through her account” (although we only have this third-hand). Further, reports state that there is “no dispute about the validity of her winning bets”. There is of course the possibility that the customer concerned, albeit unwittingly, laid bets on races the outcomes of which were judged by the operator to be suspicious, or “fixed”.

The truth will not emerge, if indeed it does, until the outcome of the IBAS investigation. In the meantime, my view is that it is all too easy – and unjustified – for media outlets such as The Guardian to criticise gambling operators for delays in paying out withdrawals from customer accounts. Had this case simply been about the bettor being “unprofitable”, that would explain the limit on bets, but not the refusal to allow the withdrawal to take place. That, and the length of the IBAS investigation, suggest to me that there is more to this case than meets the eye.

The Guardian accuses gambling operators of “stringing out pay-outs for weeks, or even months”. In so doing, perhaps it neglects the fact that the industry is one of the most heavily-regulated sectors in the UK. The industry has to comply with all the stringent requirements applying to money-laundering and suspicious transactions, match-fixing, and collusion and cheating. In addition, operators (and this is of relevance to the criticisms raised relating to administration fees) are subject to a requirement to ensure that their terms and conditions are fair, and that they otherwise meet the licensing objective of ensuring that gambling is provided in a fair and open way.

We await the outcome of the IBAS adjudication – and any response or reaction from the Gambling Commission – with interest and will update you in a future edition of our newsletter in due course.

When the National Lottery and EuroMillions games were set up, the National Lottery also set up the Good Causes Fund as a charitable consortium which sets out to improve communities across the UK. The National Lottery donates a minimum of 28p of every £1 to the Fund as well as all unclaimed prizes and the interest generated and has raised more than 30 billion pounds since it started in 1994. 20% of the money goes to Sports, Arts, Heritage and 40% to Health, Education, Environment and charitable causes.

EuroMillions is one of the most popular lottery games in the world but there are also other lotteries that take place across Europe on a regular basis including EuroJackpot and lotteries in Spain, Germany and Ireland.

However, since 1994 various websites have been set up which have become extremely popular and which offer bets on the outcome of the EuroMillions game and other lotteries throughout Europe. Despite the fact that gambling legislation prohibits betting on National lotteries, it does not prohibit UK customers from betting on EuroMillions draws in other countries even though all of those are drawn centrally in France.

It has been easy in the last 10 years to search the internet and find several of these sites which offer bets on other lotteries and there has been an increasing swell of opinion which criticises these websites for taking money away from the good causes. This was one of the principal reasons for establishing lotteries in the first place. The websites are not bound by any commitment to give any stakes to good causes which is, of course, unlike the National Lottery.

Those who represent the websites argue that they represent “fair competition and an alternative from those disenfranchised with the current monopolistic market and offer”.

It seems that the Lotteries Minister Tracey Crouch does not agree and it was announced at the start of March that there will be a consultation on closing as what is described as a loop hole. Tracey Crouch said “We want to act to ensure that money going to good causes is protected and that there is no confusion around the EuroMillions draw, providing the same levels of clarity as there is with the National Lottery”.

There have been various accusations flying about from both sides of the argument relating to allegedly false and misleading statements, although it is not surprising to read that Camelot are very pleased with the recent announcement.

At the same time as this announcement the Malta Gaming Authority has awarded Lotto Warehouse its first B2B Class 4 platform licence, allowing the company to host managed betting on the outcome of lotteries. This company was set up in 2016 and will now be allowed to offer other operators the chance to add a portfolio of lottery betting products to their platforms.

Lottoland has filed an application to have its own lottery in several German federal states in order to challenge the German lottery monopoly and become the first private lottery operator of a major lottery in the country. This follows on the back of Lottoland receiving its approval in the middle of last year to operate in the Republic of Ireland, which was its third new licence territory in the past 12 months.

No doubt there will be further developments in this story when the consultation is released.

The Sports Betting Integrity Forum has today published the 2017 addition of the Sport and Sports Betting Integrity Action plan which follows on from the 2016 addition. It is reported that “this new and updated Sports Betting Integrity action plan builds on that progress, continuing the collaborative approach across sport, betting operators, law enforcement and government, protects against and deter sports betting related corruption. It has also been amended to include relevant updates and new priorities”.

The Sports Betting Integrity Forum was set up in 2012 to develop an approach which would protect sports betting against corruption and the forum includes representatives from governing bodies, operators, trade associations, law enforcement and gambling regulations. It was originally called the Tripartite Forum. It’s main focus is prevention,  disruption and deterring and was initially concerned about match fixing and the challenge posed for sports betting operators. An earlier project commissioned by the Remote Gambling Association and its partners looked into the prevalence of corruption in international sport and analysed a  database of 2089 cases of corruption which included match fixing both betting and non-betting related, the misuse of inside information and doping. The research identified key trends in the data.

A detailed document had been prepared prior to the Rugby World Club in 2015 outlining the betting integrity support arrangements that were in place which also provided learning points for future events.

There have of course been some high profile incidents relating to betting scandals in sport and the industry has had to react quickly to both understand and deal with all types of corruption. Wikipedia now has a page which lists the Cricketers who are banned for corruption with the major corruption case involving  the Pakistan cricket spot-fixing scandal of 2010. The international cricket Council banned 3 players Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir and Butt and Asif were found guilty by a London Court on criminal charges relating to spot-fixing. In February 1999, a Malaysian based betting syndicate was caught attempting to install a remote control device to sabotage the floodlights at a Premier League match, in 2004 Portuguese Police launched an operation and named several Portuguese club presidents and football personalities suspected of match fixing and in June 2004 in South Africa, 33 people were arrested on Match fixing charges. There was a Bundesliga scandal in 2005 and other scandals in Brazil, Germany, Spain, Finland and Lebanon have been widely reported. In December 2013, 6 people in Britain were arrested for allegedly fixing football games.

It is a difficult area to regulate and control. An extra corner, a late goal or a certain number of throw Ins can all now lead to significant amounts of money being won by organised syndicates given the vast array of products and competing products that are now in the sports betting market place. On Tuesday night the Manchester City forward Leroy Sane scored a late goal in the Champions League match against Monaco which meant a fan  missed out on €34,000 having placed a bet on the results of the Manchester City and Monaco match and the Atletico Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen match.

The dangers of betting operators offering novelty bets was highlighted on Monday night in the Arsenal against Sutton United match when Sutton United reserve goal keeper, Wayne Shaw ate a pie/pasty whilst in the dugout as the FA Cup match was taking place. Not surprisingly the stunt was captured by the BBC who were at the match and initially the pie eating was greeted with much humour. However, it transpired that a betting operator had offered a bet to customers ( odds of 8-1)  that Wayne Shaw would eat a pie during the match and a number of people (unknown) had placed bets on this happening. Wayne Shaw  resigned from Sutton United the following day and the FA are now investigating to see whether or not there is a breach of any FA rules relating to betting. The Gambling Commission is also looking into any regularity in the betting market having previously warned operators in June last year about the integrity of taking bets on novelty markets. Sun bets who sponsor Sutton tweeted that it had paid out a 5 figure sum on the bet whilst Shaw admitted he was told of the betting promotion before the game although maintaining that the eating of the pie/pasty was just a bit of fun. “I thought I would give them a bit of banter and let’s do it, all the subs were on and we were 2-0 down…it was just a bit of banter for them”.

A worldwide ban on betting in football was introduced in 2014 and covers everyone involved in the game and prevents participants covered by the ban from betting, either directly or indirectly on any football match or competition including the passing of “inside information”.

No doubt the Sports Betting Integrity Forum will hope that the 2017 addition of the sport and sports betting integrity action plan will continue to see the industry make progress in working with law enforcement and government agencies to prevent and deter sports related corruption whether it relates to novelty bets or otherwise.

The Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, Sarah Harrison MBE, addressed ICE Totally Gaming 2017 a couple of weeks ago, some 12 months after she first spoke at the event having taken up the position in October the previous year.

Sarah took the opportunity to look back at the past 12 months and to defend the increasing regulatory scrutiny to which operators have been subject in that time. Ramping up the standards expected of them in customer care, personal data handling, crime prevention and social responsibility has, she said, been “timely”. She also signalled a determination on the Commission’s part to assist DCMS in the coming year in tackling perceived issues surrounding gaming machines and gambling advertising.

The speech focussed on three main themes: public policy and market developments, a look back over the last year and a vision of the future.

On policy, Sarah used the speech as another opportunity to champion the consumer, stressing that operators’ fair treatment of their customers is of paramount importance if the sector is to be allowed to thrive. She referred to a recent hardening of public attitudes toward gambling, suggesting that, by comparison with the results of the 2010 British Gambling Prevalence Survey, recent research shows that people have become less tolerant and more concerned about the activities of the gambling industry. The Commission’s 2016 research showed, she said, that 17% of people thought that gambling should be banned altogether, 80% thought that there are too many opportunities for gambling nowadays and 62% thought that gambling was dangerous for family life. Of course, as ever with such statistics, much depends on the precise questions and the way in which they were put, and these results contrast with others that show that 33% of respondents considered that most people who gamble do so responsibly. Sarah did, fairly, concede that direct comparisons cannot be drawn with 2010 due to differing methodologies.

As to market developments, the speech highlighted the growth in the online sector, largely being driven by mobile and app-based gambling. Remote Gross Gambling Yield between April 2015 and March 2016 reached a staggering £13.6 billion and there is no reason to believe that this growth will stutter.

Although rates of problem gambling have remained unchanged since 2012, Sarah pointed to increasing concerns about the prevalence of gambling advertising, with half the population saying they see gambling advertising daily and 60% of 18-24 year olds saying they see it daily online. Against this backdrop, she outlined the continuing work of the Commission in relation to problem gambling, taking as its foundation the new National Responsible Gambling Strategy which is being taken forward by new research being commissioned by GamCare. The most recent figures reported late last year by the Institute of Public Policy Research estimated that problem gambling costs the UK Government between £260m and £1.6b a year. The variance between these two figures is huge, of course – this is largely explained by the difficulties in measuring impacts across the full range of health, welfare, employment, housing and criminal justice topics. Sarah stressed the Commission’s commitment to continuing to work in this area.

Looking back at the Commission’s work over the last 12 months, the speech highlighted the fairness to consumers theme and the ongoing work being undertaken in conjunction with the Competition and Markets Authority. As previously reported here, that work is largely focussing on the betting sector, and specifically on concerns that have been raised surrounding cancelled bets, altering of odds and misleading promotions. The project has recently been extended to cover online betting, and we can expect to see considerable crackdowns in this area. We also anticipate that the Commission will continue, and aim to strengthen, its co-operating and partnership working with other regulators, not merely the CMA, but others such as the Advertising Standards Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO is already undertaking a piece of work looking into spam SMS and Sarah pointed to the gambling sector as being one of the worst offenders, saying:

“…my message to [affiliates] is that they need to get their house in order. But far more importantly, my message to operators is there is no ‘fudge’ around this, no equivocation – the affiliates who promote your brand and who drive business to your websites are your responsibility, and it is you who are accountable.”

Sarah also pointed to the Commission’s work on social responsibility in the last year, notably by strengthening the relevant provisions of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice and the introduction of the requirement upon the biggest operators to produce an Annual Assurance Statement to demonstrate that compliance with the licensing objectives is at the core of their business. She described as “poor” last year’s Statements when it came to operators quantifying the scale of problem gambling in their business but did concede that there are signs of improvement in this field, with some operators using a data-based approach to come up with the answer and some even coming together to better understand drivers and mitigations of problem gambling. Sarah also praised the industry for the progress that has already been achieved through the national self exclusion schemes that now apply across the casino, betting, bingo and arcade sectors and which are due to be extended to the online sector in the coming year.

At the same time, the speech roundly criticised operators who, in Sarah’s view, are continuing to put commercial gain over compliance by, for example, adopting a “wait and see” approach to anti-money laundering measures, ie waiting for the source of funds to be proved to be unlawful before acting. This, she said, is “clearly unacceptable” and she warned the industry that it “must do better”. However she also pointed to the new crime prevention measures introduced by the Commission last autumn and praised Caesars and Rank for showing leadership in this sphere, sharing their learning following adverse enforcement cases at the Commission’s first Raising Standards Conference last November.

Sarah made it plain that, whatever the fate of the 4^th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the Commission will expect operators to continue to intensify Know Your Client activity. Whether the whole or any part of the industry will be exempt from the Directive remains to be seen.

Looking to the future, the speech referred to the Commission’s recent announcement regarding its enforcement powers and reiterated the fact that fines are set to increase, with formal reviews being placed upon an equal footing with voluntary settlements. Sarah made it plain that the Commission are fully committed to tackling unlicensed gambling, particularly to protect children, and that it will not hesitate to use all of the powers available to it and to collaborate with other operators wherever possible, both here and abroad.

Sarah laid down a challenge to the sector, which, she said, if it is to thrive, depends upon building customer trust and confidence and long-term relationships with consumers based upon respect. She invited operators to consider whether some of the vernacular that it uses, such as “price tarts”, “bonus abusers” “grind action” and “whales”, is appropriate, suggesting that it “begs serious questions.”

The speech also pointed to an increased focus on data: the use of data by operators to both protect their customers and promote their products, and the use of data by the Commission to evaluate compliance and to inform consumers and policy makers. Sarah stressed the Commission’s commitment to understanding and dealing with consumers better. It is noteworthy that she also pledged to “[invest in our people, our skills and our culture”, saying that “…we know we need to do more in the spirit of continuous improvement.”

The speech also touched briefly upon the lottery sector, in what many who have been anxiously awaiting it might interpret as a hint that the increase in proceeds limits might come about in the next 12 months. Sarah stressed the need to balance protecting the National Lottery and consumers with enabling contributions to good causes to grow.

On gaming machines, the speech confirmed that part of the Commission’s evidence base forming the foundation of its advice to Government on its Gambling Review will be published “very shortly”: machine play over the last 24 months. Sarah made it clear that the Review will not merely focus on stakes, prizes and speeds, but on the wider questions of consumer protection and prevention of gambling-related harm. Curbs on machines will undoubtedly come and it will be interesting to see precisely what form those curbs will take. We will of course continue to keep you informed of these developments and others in the sector.