The Gambling Act Review: A Curtain Rise, Not the Final Scene

Britain is encountering unprecedented temperatures this week, and you might notice some shifts.

For example, iGB believes the sector should advocate for the release of the Gambling Act white paper as quickly as feasible.

The demand to “publish the white paper” has become a rallying cry for those who desire a complete prohibition on gambling. Thus, it’s easy to presume that those who support a thriving industry would want the government to postpone it.

However, this isn’t always the reality. Reformers have pushed for advancements in the review, while the industry has been stuck in internal disagreements, hindering the government’s reaction to challenges.

But passively assuming a stance based on your adversaries might not be prudent. The industry needs to propel the Gambling Act review forward and make enhancements.

## Curtain Rise, Not the Final Scene

It’s undeniable that some of the proposed measures – like the £125 financial checks – could be enhanced in their present state.

However, it’s worthwhile to ponder the core of the white paper, and what it doesn’t signify.

Just this weekend, the DCMS released its “additional” white paper on loot boxes. The document provides a multitude of reform proposals, but it’s a considerable distance from concrete law.

We’re informed that the gambling version will contain more specifics, but the loot box version is notable because it’s a long way from becoming law.

The industry will have ample opportunities to express their views in the upcoming process, but the most opportune time to do so might be during the actual legislative process in Westminster, not behind the scenes in Whitehall.

Ultimately, this is where the area – which requires more focused discussion – is where the industry can genuinely express their opinions.

## We Lack Sufficient Experts

Reform advocates can call for general measures to address areas they perceive as high risk, but only those with industry experience can genuinely comprehend what new legislation should resemble. Here, the industry can offer their expertise in customer journeys, aiding in the design of financial checks to prevent harmful gambling without driving customers towards less protected websites.

This entire process can be conducted fairly openly, and ultimately, those with the authority to make decisions will be directly responsible to their supporters. While the discussion remains concealed from public scrutiny, businesses encounter ambiguity, which can be just as detrimental as the review itself. Numerous operators have attempted to be proactive, but they possess limited knowledge regarding the specific areas where they need to be proactive. This uncertainty has undoubtedly instilled fear within the financial sector, as banks grapple with the challenge of selling the debt they hold due to their lack of clarity about the future trajectory of the UK market, which now constitutes their largest market. Within the current financing landscape, numerous other obstacles exist, and providing investors with an additional reason to harbor doubts is far from desirable. As uncertainty persists, the range of potential reforms is also exceptionally broad, and whenever this occurs, those granted the platform to engage in discussions about reforms are primarily those who advocate for the most stringent measures. Perpetuating the legitimacy of concepts such as a complete marketing prohibition is not conducive to the well-being of the industry. Through this transparency, the industry can articulate its stance to the public and prioritize the avoidance of unpopular measures, such as those entailing widespread sharing of bank statements, even if it necessitates making concessions in areas where reforms are welcomed, such as football sponsorships.

In the meantime, certain news sources, drawing on flimsy past ties, are fabricating conspiracy narratives, alleging that the betting and gaming sector is covertly influencing the Cabinet Office.

With each postponement, the industry is perceived as exerting greater sway to attain its objectives, providing ammunition for the radical voices in the reformist discussion. With every delayed document, they gain a media presence.

These radical voices largely maintain that the industry will not tolerate any reforms that could potentially impact short-term profits.

However, the vast majority of the industry acknowledges that some reforms are sensible, and are only concerned about specific proposals that could be detrimental.

The industry can demonstrate its dedication to reasonable reforms by embracing the next phase of examination and taking steps to ensure that the final legislation is genuinely evidence-driven.

Daniel O’Boyle is the Deputy Editor of Clarion Gaming’s B2B brand.

Sign up for the iGaming News newsletter.