Posted on by

New Licence Condition on Gambling Advertising comes into force at the end of this month

The Gambling Commission has decided to introduce a new licence condition to curb the advertisement of gambling products on websites showing unauthorised content. The new condition will come into force on 31 October and will apply to all operators licensed by the Commission, whether remote or non-remote.

This development has come about as a result of the Commission’s consultation between 30 September and 30 December last year on the wider issue of the prevention of crime associated with gambling. Whilst that consultation’s primary focus was on measures to prevent money laundering, it also set out the Commission’s concerns about gambling advertising appearing on pirate websites providing unauthorised access to copyrighted content. Research has established that advertising for gambling products features disproportionately heavily on such websites, to such an extent that the main culprits, in the sense of allowing their advertising to appear on websites functioning illegally, are gambling companies.

Why should the Commission be so concerned about this issue? The answer lies in the fact that it considers gambling operators to be supporting these illegal websites by placing their advertisements there. This means that, in the Commission’s view, they are effectively funding crime. This, clearly, is in direct conflict with the first licensing objective under the Gambling Act.

The Commission therefore issued a short supplementary consultation to look at dealing with this issue, which ran from 9 May to 20 June this year, off the back of the initial, wider, consultation.

During the course of the supplementary consultation process, the Commission did acknowledge that gambling operators had already been working with organisations such as the City of London’s Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU) and the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), using tools already at their disposal such as commercial content verification software, and already taking action against their affiliates who were found to be breaching the rules. However it considered the action taken thus far to be inadequate and unsustainable. It described the current approach as merely reactive, arising largely from the Commission itself bring to major operators’ attention the fact that their advertising is appearing on illicit websites. Despite this, the Commission noted, such advertisements continue to appear and hence it has concluded that additional measures are required to tackle the issue.

The Commission published its response to the consultation in July, in which it noted respondents’ concerns that it was seeking to proceed by way of a new licence condition, rather than by a new ordinary or social responsibility code provision. Nevertheless, the Commission has decided to press on with its plans for a new condition: it does not consider an ordinary code provision to carry sufficient weight commensurate with the seriousness and persistent nature of the problem and further thinks a social responsibility code provision inappropriate, because these are designed to ensure consumer protection, rather than to combat crime. These factors have led it to the conclusion that a new condition is the correct way to proceed.

The Commission has, however, taken on board respondents’ alarm surrounding the difficulty in controlling the actions of third party affiliates. Of course, there is already a social responsibility code in the LCCP requiring operators to take responsibility generally for the actions of third parties with whom they contract for the provision of any aspect of their business related to the licensed activities. However the Commission still sees the need to introduce a specific requirement relating to advertising on pirate websites by affiliates. That said, it has acknowledged the concerns raised by some respondents to the consultation, who flagged up the speed with which advertisements often appear and the very large number – sometimes running into the tens of thousands – of affiliates they use.

As a result, the new condition will introduce an absolute requirement on operators to ensure that they do not, themselves, place digital advertisements on websites that provide unauthorised access to copyrighted content, but the obligations for operators surrounding the actions of third parties will, by contrast, only extend to taking all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not do so and to taking the appropriate steps if they do, including providing within their agreements with third parties the right promptly to terminate the agreement, subject always to the relevant dispute resolution provisions, in such an event.

Operators will be concerned as to how they will ensure that they comply with the new requirement from the end of this month in a “real life” environment. There are various practical steps that they can take to ensure that they do.

PIPCU maintains, and regularly updates, the so-called Infringing Websites List (IWL). This can be obtained via their website: https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/advice-and-support/fraud-and-economic-crime/pipcu/Pages/Operation-creative.aspx

Operators should obtain access to this and monitor it on a regular basis to ensure that they themselves do not place any advertisements on the sites listed. In addition there exists, as mentioned above, various commercial content verification software that they can use. Needless to say, if operators discover that advertisements for their services have been placed on illicit websites, they should take immediate action to have them removed. Not only that, but they should ascertain how it was that this came about and keep a record of their investigations, findings and remedial steps taken. Operators should also review their agreements with affiliates before the new licence condition comes into force to make sure that they do include a provision permitting them to terminate the agreement in cases where the affiliate does place an advertisement on a pirate website, and introduce, document and implement a clear policy on how they will deal with breaches. Of course, affiliates should themselves regularly and carefully monitor the IWL and they should be encouraged to do so.

If you have any concerns about compliance with the new condition, please do not hesitate to contact me or one of the team.

Posted on by

Temporary Event Notice – A couple of recent cases

I suppose that one of the more interesting aspects of working with the Licensing Act 2003 is that we regularly get involved in cases in which there is a disagreement over the interpretation of the Licensing Act 2003. This also just goes to show that the best way to fully understand the Act is to be involved in the legislation on a daily basis and we are certainly fortunate to be in that position. We regularly get telephone calls from clients and Local Authority officers alike asking for our interpretation of various sections of the legislation which are not commonly used and which are the subject of a debate.

I don’t think that I personally have been involved in a contested Temporary Event Notice (TEN) for a few years. I have been involved in lots of discussions with clients and Local Authorities with regard to applications for TENs. We submit a large number of TENs in Westminster and work closely with Westminster Police and Westminster Licensing Department on these applications. The police will regularly ask us for a “last entry time” or for confirmation that all existing conditions on the licence will be adhered to with the TEN but very rarely do we actually go to a hearing for a contested TEN.

In one recent case that I was involved in the police (and I will not name the premises or the Local Authority area) visited some premises during a TEN when the TEN had been applied for to start prior to the end of permitted hours on the Premises Licence. If a terminal hour for alcohol is 11pm on the Premises Licence the TEN had been applied for from 8pm to 1am giving the applicant a two hour extension but also the ability to operate under the TEN between 8pm and 11pm. This was for a particular event and the TEN had been applied for with the intention of the existing conditions on the Premises Licence not being complied with during that period from 8pm to 11pm. The police were adamant that as the premises were trading at 8pm then the existing conditions should have been complied with but I am afraid that this is not correct. The premises were operating not under the Premises Licence but under the Temporary Event Licence. The Temporary Event Licence was being displayed on the premises and as the police had not objected to the TEN and no conditions had been placed on the TEN then the premises could operate under the TEN without conditions at all.

We did not submit the aforementioned application and it may be that if we had submitted the application we would have specifically noted on the TEN that the existing conditions on the Premises Licence would not be complied with during this period of time and we would have set out the reasons why this was the case. The applicant had applied in person and not done this but nor had the police raised the question and this just goes to show how important it is for the police and Local Authorities to check that their understanding of the TEN applied for is correct.

In a second case I have recently been involved with the police did object to a TEN and the matter did proceed to a hearing before the Licensing Committee. During the hearing there were submissions as to various conditions which should be considered if the Licensing Authority were prepared to grant the application. There is then a debate as to what conditions the Licensing Authority can impose and this dealt with very clearly in the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 at paragraph 7.37.

The 2003 Act provides that only the Licensing Authority can impose conditions to a TEN from the existing conditions on the Premises Licence and the Licensing Authority can only do so:

  • If the police or EHA have objected to the TEN;
  • If that objection has not been withdrawn;
  • If there is a licence or certificate in relation to at least part of the premises in respect of which the TEN is given; and
  • If the Licensing Authority considers it appropriate for the promotion of the licensing objectives to impose one or more conditions.In this particular case the Licensing Authority did impose all existing conditions on the Premises Licence onto the TEN. The applicant had offered one or two other measures during the course of the hearing and the Licensing Authority and their decision noted this and made it quite clear that they expected the applicant to comply with this additional measures as well even though they were not conditions on the TEN. There is no doubt that the applicant will have to comply with these additional measures or else there is a significant risk of future action being taken against the premises if incidents occurred on the evening of the TEN and the applicant had not been complying with the measures that were promised to the Licensing Committee.
  • The decision is one for the Licensing Authority alone regardless of the premises users views or willingness to accept conditions.

The Licensing Authority is not able to impose conditions on the TEN which are not conditions on the existing Premises Licence.

Posted on by

Problems at Licensed Premises – Do we always need to jump to a review / summary review?

I was asked to advise in a case this week which brought up a much-discussed topic. Is there always a need to jump to formal proceedings when problems occur at a premises or can voluntary action by the operator save a huge amount of time and money?

The main issue was the violent disorder that had taken place at a pub in London where there had been issues on football match days. The specific facts of the particular incident were relayed to me and I was asked to advise whether I thought there was sufficient evidence to bring about a summary review of the premises licence or whether it should be a standard review.

When assessing the track record of the premises and the level of the issues which had brought about the concern, I advised that I did not think a summary review was an appropriate course of action. No one had been arrested and charged as a result of the public disorder and, whilst the flash point had happened within the public house, the main disorder had happened away from the premises. In my view, and this was reflected in my advice, there were insufficient grounds to suggest that the premises were “associated with serious crime or disorder”.

There was clearly evidence of live management issues at the premises and I advised in the circumstances that a standard review would be appropriate to deal with those issues, if the operator was not prepared to make changes voluntarily.

A meeting took place between the relevant police licensing department and the operator and as a result of that meeting, the operator agreed to make a minor variation to the premises licence to change management style and have this recorded on the licence with additional conditions. This was clearly targeted at the issues which had brought about the police concerns in the first place.

In the circumstances the police accepted that there was no need therefore to go to formal review proceedings and the operator moved to lodging the minor variation application immediately and volunteered to make changes prior to those new conditions being endorsed on their licence.

What a fantastically enlightened way of dealing with issues. This has removed the need for detailed and expensive proceedings before the licensing authority which would probably have achieved exactly the same result, but some six weeks further down the line.

It just goes to show that with a positive will on both sides there are real opportunities to solving these issues without the knee-jerk decision to go direct to formal proceedings.

The sum total of work involved for all parties was half a day rather than all of the work and expense that would have been needed to bring about formal review proceedings.

Hopefully this enlightened approach taken by the police and a responsible operator in these circumstances can ripple around to other areas where voluntary interaction can be used to save significant man power and cost.

Posted on by

Paul Holland joins Woods Whur

Andy and I are delighted to be able to announce that Paul Holland has joined Woods Whur. Andy and I have known Paul for twenty five years and we are delighted that he has agreed to join us.

Paul has specialised in licensing for thirty years, as well as heading his previous firm’s private client department. He has thirty years’ advocacy experience and represents clients in all applications, reviews and appeals under the Licensing Act 2003 and the Gambling Act 2005. He has developed particular expertise in dealing with the licensing requirements of everything from a small corner shop to an international sports stadium. Paul has a significant network of contacts within the regulatory authorities of Hull, Humberside, East and North Yorkshire which compliments our practice in West Yorkshire and nationally. It is on that basis that Andy and I were delighted that after a successful career as a partner at Stamp Jackson & Proctor and latterly at Quality Lockings Solicitors in Hull, he has agreed to join Woods Whur as a consultant. We are looking forward to adding value to his loyal client base.

He prides himself in working with operators from the initial planning stages to the final grant of licences, representing his clients’ interests before licensing sub-committees and in the Magistrates’ Court, should the need arise.

We continue to be keen to grow our national reach and will be looking to bring other lawyers into the business in similar situations to Paul.

Posted on by

ASA Admonishes Ladbrokes Over Iron Man Ad

The Advertising Standards Authority hasn’t been putting its feet up during the summer holidays: instead, it spent August flexing its muscles over various advertising campaigns launched by gambling operators, the most significant ruling being against Ladbrokes for targeting, as the ASA sees it, the underage, in contravention of the Committee of Advertising Practice’s Codes of Practice.

The offending advertisement was sent to registered customers only, so only to individuals who had already been verified as being of age – which is something that makes the ASA’s ruling somewhat puzzling.

Added to this, the ASA’s investigation was triggered by a solitary complainant.

The advertisement in question offered 10 free spins plus 90 spins extra. It was emailed to registered customers featuring an image of Iron Man, an iconic character from the Marvel Comic, with the text: “IRON MAN 3 … Enjoy this exclusive Ladbrokes welcome offer with Iron Man 3”.

The complainant alleged that the advertisement breached the CAP because it was likely to be of particular appeal to children, in breach of rule 16.3 covering gambling, and specifically of rule 16.3.12, which states:

“16.3 Marketing communications must not:

16.3.2 exploit the susceptibilities, aspirations, credulity, inexperience or lack of knowledge of children, young persons or other vulnerable persons.”

Ladbrokes sought to argue that the advertisement was adult-themed and was reflective of popular culture, evidence about which established that the fans of Marvel were predominantly adults. In support of this argument, they relied upon data on attendance at Comic Con events and from Facebook, the latter showing that only 6.39% of the Marvel fan-base is aged under 18, with the vast majority being aged between 18 and 37.

The ASA was having none of it. It found fault with the Facebook data on the basis that those under 13 cannot open an account, thereby skewing those results. Whilst accepting that Iron Man is a popular character that appeals to many adults, it concluded that the advertisement was likely to be of particular appeal to children, by virtue of its comic book nature and also because of the widespread availability of toys associated with the character.

It didn’t matter that the advertisement had only been sent to individuals who had already successfully completed the registration process: the ASA concluded that the advertisement breached the relevant provisions of the CAP.

Although the ASA merely ruled that the advertisement must not appear again in its current form, and instructed Ladbrokes not to use images that might be of particular appeal to children or young people in future, without taking any further action, the decision is instructive and points to the high level of vigilance on the ASA’s part.

The Authority is clearly taking a strict line on any advertisements that might be appealing to the underage, regardless of the extremely small likelihood of such advertisements reaching that audience: after all, in this case, the advertisement would have had to be shared by an adult with a child or young person in order for them to become exposed to it, given that it was sent out only to customers who had already registered, and therefore been checked to ensure that they were aged over 18.

Operators should therefore take note.

I have recently been asked, by a major UK charity, to advise on their latest promotional campaign and, in particular, on their use of a cartoon character. Some of you may be aware of the different rules surrounding lotteries, particularly of the fact that the minimum age for participation is 16, rather than 18. Nevertheless, the CAP also has rules governing these. Rule 17 deals with these products, stipulating that marketing communications should not be directed at under 16s, whether through the selection of media or context in which they appear. That said, the rules surrounding lotteries are somewhat more relaxed than those that apply to “harder” gambling products – underage people may be featured to portray the “good cause” beneficiary, as long as they are not associated with gambling or invited to purchase a lottery ticket.

In many cases, not just in the lotteries sector, but across the industry, it is difficult to know where to draw the line – and the ASA has just shown that it will expose operators who get it wrong. If you have any doubts about your latest marketing campaign, please get in touch with me at anna@www.woodswhur.co.uk, or with your usual contact.

Posted on by

Aviation Minister, Lord Ahmad, “examining” airport alcohol sales

Many of you will have noticed reports in the press that the sale of alcohol at airports and on planes is currently being reviewed by Lord Ahmad, the newly appointed Aviation Minister.

I enjoy the first G&T of the holiday at the airport, before boarding – who doesn’t? It helps to ease the process of passage through an airport, which, let’s face it, can be something of an ordeal. The question now, though, is whether the irresponsible few are going to spoil things for the rest of us.

Lord Ahmad has said that “I don’t think that we want to kill merriment altogether”, which is reassuring to a degree, but it will be interesting to see what the outcome of his review is, especially given statements by the Government even relatively recently that it had no specific plans to address the issue of alcohol-related disorder on flights.

Police statistics obtained by the Press Association in response to a Freedom of Information Act request disclose that at least 442 people have been held on suspicion of being drunk on an aircraft or at an airport in the last two years. In one recent incident, a female passenger punched an Easyjet pilot in the face, and a Ryanair flight from Luton to Bratislava had to be diverted to Berlin following a mid-air fracas involving members of a stag party.

However, when one considers that over 251 million passengers passed through UK airports in 2015 and there were over 2.1 million flights, the conclusion that such incidents are very rare indeed is inescapable.

In legal terms, the Licensing Act 2003 does not apply to alcohol sales on aircraft or airside at an airport (once through check in, passport control and security). This means that there is no need for a premises licence, with the attendant restrictions on operating hours or, indeed, age for those purchasing alcohol. This means that, technically speaking, an 11 year old could purchase a pint at 5 in the morning.

It would be open to Lord Ahmad to change this position in relation to sales of alcohol at airports because the relevant section of the Act, s173, gives the Secretary of State a reserved power to remove the exemption that applies to them. However an amendment to the primary legislation would be required to bring about a need for a licence for sales of alcohol on aircraft themselves.

Of course, the fact that the Licensing Act does not apply to these sales of alcohol does not mean that they are taking place without any controls whatsoever. If that were the case, then the number of incidents would doubtless be a lot higher. Airside operators and airlines alike have their own policies and procedures in place to ensure that alcohol is sold responsibly, and certainly would not want to jeopardize their relationship with airport operators such as Heathrow Airport Holdings, formerly BAA. I have seen age verification being carried out at an airside bar and of course those operators will be implementing Challenge 21 or 25 policies in line with their internal procedures for sites elsewhere in their estate.

The Airport Operators Association has recently published the UK Aviation Industry Code of Practice on Disruptive Passengers, in conjunction with UK Airport Police Commanders and organisations such as the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers. Signatories to the Code participate voluntarily. The Code emphasises three core principles: passengers are responsible for their own behaviour, disruptive behaviour cannot and will not be tolerated, and reducing disruptive behaviour is a shared responsibility of all partners on the ground and in the air. However, it also says that, whilst alcohol consumption is a factor contributing to disruptive behaviour, it is not the only factor.

The Code requires signatories to train their staff to ensure that alcohol is sold responsibly, and airports to ensure that their bars, lounges and restaurants implement best practice, including establishing Best Bar None or equivalent schemes. The Code prohibits sales of alcohol to intoxicated persons and limits the consumption of alcohol on flights to that sold there – as opposed to passengers dipping into bottles of spirits that they have bought in Duty Free.

Against the background of what is a comprehensive, if voluntary, Code, it remains to be seen what further measures the Government might introduce. In the meantime, for those of you still to depart on holiday this year, I hope you enjoy your pre-flight G&T. Cheers!

 

Posted on by

Gambling Commission continues to take action and introduce further changes

On the 31st October 2016 a new version of the LCCP comes into force to implement changes which are being brought in on the back of recent consultations. The Gambling Commission is keen to point out on its website that the LCCP are not static but “evolve over time” which I suspect is similar to the way that operational policies evolve and develop at gambling establishments throughout the UK. It is interesting to note on the Gambling Commission’s website that the LCCP evolve so as to take into account developments in the industry, emerging evidence or the most effective means of promoting socially responsible gambling. I am of the firm view that this also applies to operators and their operational policies, which have to continually change to take into account recent developments. I do not subscribe to the argument that just because policies have to change all the time means that they were not fit for purpose prior to the policies being changed. I suspect there will be more on this topic in later articles!!

The Autumn 2016 amendments are based on the recent consultations and relate to the following: the prevention of crime associated with gambling, placing digital adverts responsibly, extending the requirement to assess and manage money laundering risk to non-remote lotteries and controlling where gaming machines may be played in betting, bingo and casino premises.

The Gambling Commission website also reports the results of various cases in which enforcement action has been taken recently. Smart TV Broadcasting Limited had its Operating Licence made the subject of a review under Section 116 of the Gambling Act 2005 and under Section 118 of the Act the Gambling Commission decided to suspend it because it suspected that Smart TV was unsuitable to carry on the licensed activities. At the time of the suspension there were customers who had outstanding balances in their accounts and subsequent to the suspension Smart TV Broadcasting Limited surrendered its licences. The Gambling Commission have confirmed that this does not prevent the settling of outstanding winning bets.

It was also confirmed on the 10th of August 2016 that the Gambling Commission has supported South Wales Police in an operation which led to ten people being arrested as part of an investigation into match fixing. The match fixing related to betting patterns on a match between Port Talbot Town and Rhyl on the 9th of April. No further information is available due to the ongoing nature of the criminal investigation.

The implementation of the new LCCP coupled with the Gambling Commission continuing to take enforcement action, should serve to reinforce the fact that all operators in the UK must keep fully up to date with all changes and be fully aware of exactly what is required in terms of their operational policies.

 

Posted on by

House of Lords Licensing Committee – An Update

As readers will no doubt be aware there has been constituted a House of Lords Committee which has been established to carryout scrutiny of the Licensing Act 2003. The Committee has published it’s call for evidence and invites all interested parties to submit written evidence by the 2nd of September 2016.

The call for evidence is available at :-

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/Licensing-Act-2003/call-for-evidence-licensing-act-2003.pdf

If you wish to respond to the call for evidence this can be achieved by clicking on the following link:-

http://www.parliament.uk/licensing-act-committee-written-submission-form

It is really important to play a role in this consultation.

I have regularly stressed to clients and operators the need to do so. We were hamstrung in some SEV renewals when Leeds City Council put out a consultation document before looking to change their policy and in effect reduce the number of Sexual Entertainment Venues from seven to four. When we challenged the decision making and policy in the High Court we were advised in clear terms through the judgment that we were seeking to close the stable door after the horse had bolted. The High Court was very clear in saying that we should have challenged the legitimacy of the changes in policy much earlier than through the High Court after renewals were refused.

This is a significant lesson and operators and interested parties should not complain about any changes if they do not get involved in consultations when invited to do so.

The key issues to be analysed in the consultation fall under the following headings.

  1. Licensing objectives.
  2. The balance between rights and responsibilities.
  3. Licensing and local strategy.
  4. Crime, disorder and public safety.
  5. Licensing procedure.
  6. Sale of alcohol for consumption at home.
  7. Pricing.
  8. Fees and costs associated with the Licensing Act 2003.
  9. International comparisons.

The parameter of each of those headings is very clearly established in the documents contained in the links above. We will continue to monitor the progress of the House of Lords Committee and publish any findings as and when they become public.

I can only stress again that this is an opportunity to interact in the process and interested parties should not be afraid to do so.

Posted on by

Gambling Commission fines Camelot

On 28 July, the Gambling Commission announced that it had fined Camelot, the operator of the National Lottery, £300,000 for undermining public confidence.

The Commission has been responsible for licensing and regulating the National Lottery since 1 October 2013, when it merged with the National Lottery Commission. No change to the legislation under which the Lottery is regulated occurred, however, and this remains the Lottery Acts of 1993, 1998 and 2006, the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 and various Statutory Instruments made under those pieces of legislation.

The National Lottery’s regulator was initially the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery, or OFLT. However, this changed in 1998, with the dissolution of that body and the establishment of the National Lotteries Commission. It has been the intention, since the drafting of the Gambling Act 2005, that the Gambling Commission would take over its powers and responsibilities.

A full record of all breaches by, and regulatory action taken in respect of, the National Lottery is available to view from a link on the Commission’s website, and makes for an interesting read: http://www.natlotcomm.gov.uk/regulating-the-lottery/enforcement/licence-breaches.html

Records are kept going back to 2002, during the currency of the second licence granted, and are broken down into individual financial years. The current licence is the third, and there have been some eleven breaches since it was awarded: three in 2009/2010, two in 2010/2011, two in 2013/2014, one in 2014/2015 and three so far in 2016/2017. They relate to matters as diverse as numbers on tickets not being consistent with those entered into a draw, prizes being incorrectly attributed to tickets, prizes being miscalculated, failures in updating the Prize Payment Security System, incorrect draw results featuring on the website, errors in scratchcards and interactive instant win games, and inadequate information being given on promotional material.

The Gambling Commission has taken over the same regulatory priorities and imperatives previously applied by the National Lotteries Commission. Protecting players is central. The Commission oversees the procedures used by Camelot to ensure the integrity of games and the security of scratchcards. It conducts independent research to confirm that there is no evidence of non-randomness of games, and monitors the reliability, security and efficiency of the National Lottery’s central computer systems and national network of terminals. The Commission also conducts “fit and proper vetting” of Camelot’s suppliers and oversees the transfer of funds to good causes.

In relation to all licence breaches dating back to 2009, this is only the second time that a financial penalty has been imposed – the other was in respect of a licence breach recorded on 26 August 2014, which arose because Camelot incorrectly calculated the Lotto jackpot prize tier such that the three winners of the jackpot prize in the draw held on Saturday 19 October 2013 shared £4.8m instead of the originally broadcast sum of £6.2m – a significant discrepancy. On that occasion, Camelot was fined £100,000.

In every other case, the Commission has been satisfied that Camelot’s policies, procedures and systems had been updated or fixed so as to prevent any recurrence of the problem, and therefore contented itself with recording a licence breach and taking no further action.

The recent findings relate to three separate incidents. First, following the Lotto draw on 10 October 2015, Camelot published the incorrect Millionaire Maker Raffle results on its website for an hour. This resulted in over 100,00 players who viewed them being misled. Then, on 5 November 2015, an incorrect jackpot advertisement was placed on the EuroMillions results checker page, stating that there were ten prizes of £1 million available, instead of one. Later, on 27 December 2015, the incorrect prize information for the Lotto Raffle top tier prize winners was published on the EuroMillions website, including a reference to “5 prizes at £20,000” which should have read “5 prizes at £1 million”. Again, on both of these occasions, players had been misled.

It would appear from the Commission’s recording and reporting of these breaches that the £300,000 fine has been imposed in respect of the first of them only, the one that occurred on 10 October 2015. For the others, the Commission has merely recorded a breach.

Camelot must now pay the £300,000 to good causes. Both incidences of financial penalties being imposed during the currency of the third licence have occurred since the Gambling Commission took over responsibility for regulating the National Lottery operator, and for breaches that were committed since that date. Only an examination of future years’ data will reveal whether or not this represents a harsher line being taken than was the case previously.