Responsible Gambling Scrutinised in Lively Debate at NEXT.io

_{Chris Dalli and Bill Pascrell III. (Image: Alan Evans, Casinos.com)}

One of the most compelling panel discussions at NEXT.io was the exchange between Bill Pascrell III and Chris Dalli. The session was provocatively titled: Let’s Debate: The Industry Is F---ing Up RG.

In the introduction, it was asserted that responsible gambling (RG) has been “shoved down our throats” as a so-called industry priority.

The panel explored whether RG is a genuine focus for online casinos and other operators, or merely a PR tactic to mask deeper issues.

As regulators tighten their grip in some markets while others turn a blind eye, the panel suggested the industry is playing a dangerous game of smoke and mirrors. Can we create meaningful KPIs for RG, or is it just another ESG buzzword? Are regulators overstepping their mandate, and do operators have the right to cherry-pick which laws to follow?

Meet the Speakers

Bill Pascrell III, also known as BPIII, is a prominent lobbyist with the Princeton Public Affairs Group. He specialises in public affairs at state, federal, and international levels, particularly in the gaming and cannabis sectors. Pascrell played a major role in initiatives like the legalisation of sports betting in the U.S. and the development of online gaming regulations in New Jersey.

He has served on various governmental and advisory boards, including as Passaic County counsel for over two decades, and is consistently ranked among New Jersey’s most influential political figures.

Christopher (Chris) Dalli is the current CEO of L&L Europe. He previously worked at Gonzi & Associates, Advocates – Malta Law Firm as a partner. Dalli studied at the University of London.

_{Bill Pascrell III and Chris Dalli exchanged perspectives on responsible gambling and regulation during a panel at NEXT.io. (Image: Alan Evans)}

We caught up with Bill and Chris backstage after the debate. Here’s what they had to say:

Alan: "The panel discussion about responsible gambling and whether regulation or self-regulation is failing the industry was a spirited back-and-forth, as expected between legal and gaming professionals. You both presented compelling sides. I was particularly intrigued by the debate around self-regulation versus political or regulatory intervention.

"There’s also a broader discussion about freedom, the nanny state, upbringing, and societal norms. It’s a huge area for debate. But how much scope is there for that kind of discussion? Can we really just blame bad actors or praise the good guys—things aren’t that simple, are they?"

Chris: "I believe the societal issues you’re highlighting stem from fundamental human needs. These issues aren’t going away; they’ve been with us for generations, like alcohol during Prohibition.

"In my opinion, the best approach is to involve more knowledgeable experts in regulation. We need people who understand not only health and restriction but also the root causes of these behaviours.

"We should be asking, Why is this happening? Why is society failing to address it effectively? Maybe instead of waging a war on gambling, we should consider new strategies—accepting these activities as part of society and finding smarter, more nuanced ways to manage them. Perhaps it’s about shifting from prohibition to understanding and mitigation."

Alan: "Do you see it differently, Bill?"

Bill: "I believe in social responsibility and personal responsibility. Many people don’t realise that the increase in gambling addiction affects a small percentage of people—around 1–2%.

"The real issue is how we support those individuals who fall through the cracks. There are many initiatives happening outside of regulation—like Birch’s health programmes or digital wellness tools—that help people without heavy-handed mandates.

"We should be careful with measures like affordability checks or mandatory time-outs, which can feel intrusive. Who’s to say what someone can afford? Maybe they want to gamble less or more, or just enjoy the lottery for entertainment."

Alan: "So, tackling the real problem—are we looking at technology and AI to identify and curtail problematic behaviour? If someone’s drunk driving, they’re disqualified immediately, no second chances. Can’t we use similar tech to detect problem gambling and prevent harm while allowing others to enjoy gambling as entertainment?"

Bill: "There needs to be a more collaborative relationship between operators, regulators, and politicians. Regulators aren’t politicians—they need to understand the realities of the industry.

"Operators like GDC face huge compliance costs and taxes. Overregulation doesn’t help outcomes. If we want real progress, we need to work together to protect consumers without punishing responsible operators. The real target should be illegal operators and black-market activity.

Alan: "So, if we focus on that, can technology help? Are we not at a point where AI and other tools can identify problematic gambling behaviours early and intervene—like suspending a driver’s licence?

"It seems possible to reduce harm while preserving gambling as a form of entertainment. Regulations are already among the strictest—comparable to banking. Shouldn’t technology help us strike a better balance?"

Bill: "That’s true, but it requires partnership. Regulators and operators need to work together. Regulators often lack industry-specific knowledge, so clear communication is essential.

"Also, the industry bears heavy costs—compliance, taxes, and more. Overregulation can stifle innovation. We need to target the black market instead of constantly tightening the screws on licensed operators."

Chris: "I agree with Bill. Technology is a powerful tool, but its potential is often overlooked due to a lack of understanding.

"Think about airport security: Restrictions on liquids and electronics came from specific incidents. But over time, technology has made travel easier—by allowing exceptions or scanning more efficiently.

"The same logic applies to gambling regulation. We need smart, tech-driven solutions that minimise inconvenience for responsible players while identifying those at risk. It’s about intelligent regulation—not blanket restrictions."