REGULATOR’S REFLECTIONS
activity. Hence, in our view, the natural starting point when it comes to regulating an online business is to recognise that it is not restricted to one jurisdiction alone. Rather it is an advantage that a business can offer its services across borders, whilst always respecting its legal obligations wherever its customers may reside. That said, given that gambling is a business which is often subjected to regulation, we acknowledge that there are limitations to this approach. It is for this reason that our licensees are required to show they have justifiable legal reasons when they offer their services in other jurisdictions. These reasons will naturally vary depending on the jurisdiction. Within the EU, for example, Malta has always defended, and will continue to defend, its licensees’ freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services – essential pillars of the European common market since its inception. Where there are restrictions to those freedoms which are justified in line with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Malta respects those frameworks. Regrettably, there still remain a handful of countries that insist on regulatory models that, in our view, are not compliant with EU law and can push players towards the unregulated black market; a situation which is helpful to no one – least of all, to the players. Malta has always worked to defend its position in relation to these jurisdictions and will continue to protect its long- standing public policy which seeks to protect the status of the Maltese gaming licence, as well as any licensed activity which is lawful in terms of the Gaming Act and other applicable regulatory instruments. In doing so, any challenges to the rights of the licensees and the validity of the licence which are not in line with Malta’s time-honoured policy position will continue to be contested. While every jurisdiction is free to introduce its own regulations and policies within their territory, one must not lose sight of the fact that it remains our principal priority as regulators to ensure that customers are able to play within a regulated market which is subject to strict legal obligations aimed at protecting players and which is overseen by a competent regulator that will take swift enforcement action in cases of non-compliance on the part of the licensee.
Regulators and legislators must recognise that regulation and control should work to the benefit of all relevant stakeholders. In an industry which is so global, we remain hopeful that, eventually, there will be an acknowledgement that, despite their differences, the fundamental aims of every legislative framework are predominantly the same. Working towards cooperation and, as far as possible, alignment, would benefit all parties involved. The MGA has repeatedly encouraged regulators to dedicate effort and resources, time and discussion towards the goals of consumer protection and the prevention and detection of crime and corruption. QM: You have called for operators sign up to a “social license” which would position them as responsible providers of entertainment with safeguards for those who struggle to enjoy it without harm. How would such an approach work? Is it just about industry codes of practice or do you see a role for regulators to get involved? CB: As I said at the start, the MGA strongly believes that evidence-based, self-regulatory measures and industry collaboration serve as a driving force to maintain and improve the sustainability of the industry. The notion of a ‘social licence’ has become a global priority – and not just within the gaming industry – as companies and governments become increasingly aware of the impact they have on society and the environment. Operators should strive for more than just compliance with regulation and mandatory standards, particularly in an industry where their services could potentially have detrimental effects on their consumers. Many operators already go beyond their duty of compliance in this respect and should communicate more what is being done right within the industry. As regulators, I believe our role is to lead by example. Therefore, if we expect our licensees to go beyond the minimum required of them – sometimes at significant financial and opportunity cost – we should also embrace broader sustainability considerations in our own operations. On top of this, we should take our licensees’ sustainability efforts into account when determining their regulatory standing and their associated regulatory risk. We should reward behaviour that aligns
PAGE 12
IMGL MAGAZINE | OCTOBER 2023
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker