UK Gambling Commission
company, should be taken seriously. Consumer/media/political pressure: Is it possible the Commission is taking its lead from UK society? Every big settlement is announced with some fanfare, and toughness over poor practice in the industry is frequently referenced. This is noteable where one of the UKGC’s criteria for determining penalties is where a licensee adversely affects the reputation of the industry. However, it suggests the Commission feels that it is seen more positively by the public, the media and its political masters when it is taking tough action. Whilst there are loud voices among consumer groups, sections of the media and politicians calling for greater control over the industry, it is by no means clear that a majority of opinion would support a draconian clampdown on an activity enjoyed by millions in the UK. Many have made the point that wall-to-wall advertising does the industry no favours, and it is easy to highlight the examples of individuals harmed by gambling addiction. That makes the case for a regulator to stand back from the fray and balance competing claims rather than give excess weight to the loudest voices. The Gambling Commission has a range of sanctions available to them, from the issuing warnings and imposing license conditions to suspension or revocation of licenses to the disqualification of directors 10 . Fines may and sometimes do go with other enforcement measures but the high profile nature of financial penalties does nothing to enhance the image of the industry overall. The public health lobby: Different from the point above, there is an argument that public health concerns should be given more weight in the debate over regulation and enforcement. Whether it concerns road deaths, victims of a pandemic or suicides among gambling addicts, there are some who argue that one death is one too many. However, those in this camp have a
particularly poor record of balancing the avoidance of harm with personal freedom and responsibility, and their interventions can result in regulation which is more onerous and costly than the problem it is trying to address. A study by Public Health England (PHE), based on the opinions of 38 experts, came up with a punitive list of measures which in the view of those experts would have most impact on reducing gambling harms. These included an outright ban on in-play sports betting, website curfews and limits on the numbers playing at any given time among several other similar measures. 11 The fact that the UKGC included contested data from PHE about the numbers of gambling-related suicides in its recent review of the UK Gambling Act 2005 (which PHE later accepted were erroneous) only adds to the suspicion that it gives undue prominence to public health arguments rather than the other way around. Indeed, some have gone further by suggesting that the UKGC appears to have been very selective in its use of PHE data and presented it in such a way as to overstate the costs of gambling-related harm way beyond what the original PHE authors were comfortable with. REMAINING QUESTIONS This snapshot is inevitably limited in scope, and it raises as many questions as it answers. Are UK operators guilty of more egregious violations than those in other jurisdictions? Is there evidence that high levels of penalties are more effective at preventing violations? And, given the high numbers of enforcement actions and expensive settlements, why is there still a clamour for new and tighter regulations? Would a different sanction regime be more effective? 12 Answer to these questions will have to wait for a future review. Meanwhile, it may be a case of be careful what you wish for when it comes to a White Paper.
Phil Savage is IMGL’s Head of Publications and European Affairs. phil@imgl.org +44 7778 635836
10 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/117. 11 https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpub/PIIS2468-2667(22)00137-2.pdf.
12 There is a large body of academic literature on the link between sanction and behavior suggesting that the size of penalties is not a significant determinant of changes to behavior. Likelihood of being caught is a much bigger determining factor according to the literature.
32 • IMGL Magazine • November 2022
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker