reason to do so. We often find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. We of course, need to be compliant with the regulatory regime, but we also need to ensure that we continue servicing our merchants if that’s possible. So that’s an issue that we often find. And in that regard, it’s really important to have a transitional period and for the regulators to be clear who can and cannot be serviced. We don’t have an interest in participating in payments in the context of illegal gambling; we do have an interest in having a good and cooperative relationship with the regulator. But I think those guidelines are extremely important for us to ensure that we know what is and what isn’t permissible and who can and cannot be serviced. MM: So do you find that this is the case currently, do you think that governments and legislators and regulators have an understanding of the need for balance and clarity? VH: I think there still needs to be some sort of a learning curve. Germany was a good example where they tried to ensure there was a transitional regime, where it was clear that certain operators who are applying for a license can be serviced for a period of time, sshowing that that is allowed and setting out the rules like we had in Germany. That is important. MM: What does the Netherlands say about this? Just that KSA expects PSPs like Paysafe to take responsibility and not service the illegal market? PPG: I think they have a moral opinion about this. But legally, it’s debatable whether they can effectively do something about it. If they know a B2B is breaking the law, then they have to have a stick. But when you go into the gray area of having licensed customers and non licensed customers, there it becomes difficult for the KSA. One of the B2B providers that no one is probably thinking of is actually a very large company called Google. And they offer paid advertising or paid search results. And in the Netherlands, if you do a search on a typical Dutch gambling related term on Google search before the ban on targeted advertising came into force, the first six results of that paid search were sponsored. And two out of every six, were leading you to unlicensed casinos. When confronted with ads, Google says, ‘we’re trying to make it impossible for unlicensed casinos to get this service at Google but sometimes they slip through’. Two out of six is not sometimes in my book. But after the ban on targeted advertising, that number has gone up. Almost all the paid advertising is for unlicensed casinos by people who are not signed in with Google so Google doesn’t know who is doing the search and is taking them to unlicensed casinos. So one of the biggest B2B companies in the world and in the gambling industry, could help us fight illegal gambling by not selling to unlicensed operators. MM: I would like to dig a little bit deeper into the reasonable responsibility of B2B providers and the limit on how much research they should do? I’ll start by giving an example. I have a client who is a B2B software supplier, they have a license in the UK, they provide their gambling software to an aggregator and via that aggregator their games ended up on an illegal website and the UKGC came knocking on the door. Is that reasonable? Should they take responsibility for every website in the world that offers their games? SB: It is not uncommon that there is a problem, both for UK licensees and non-UK licensees in the proliferation of commercial contracts. And is it reasonable? I would say ‘yes and no’. The UK doesn’t preclude that services end up on illegal sites they are trying to close and clean up the ecosystem, not just within UK borders, but outside. But is it reasonable? I would ask has the B2B been wise about its choice of aggregator and and what is the aggregator doing with those services? You often have white and gray territories in aggregator contracts, so you can choose territories, choose domains etc. So it’s in the nature of business relationships, so to say commercially. It happens a lot. If they’re not in default of their own licensing requirements with the UK, then I think the UK has to accept that there are commercial relationships that may very well lead to unlicensed contracts with a third party aggregator. What’s the remit that the UK has over them? Well, they want them to be appropriate good actors. They want them to be suitable. They want them to comply with a range of a range of rules, not least license conditions. And even though they are less than an operator set of conditions, they want them to be responsible actors within the jurisdiction. So, I think they’re probably right to be curious. And they’re right to answer explanations.
15
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker