Gambling Commission says 97% of Financial Risk Checks Would Cause no Disruption to Players

_{Latest update from the Gambling Commission. (Image: Alan Evans/Casinos.com)}

The Gambling Commission which regulates arcades, betting, bingo, slot machines, and land based and online casinos  has published new findings from its financial risk assessment pilot, revealing that 97% of assessments carried out on high-spending customers would be completed without any action required from the player, significantly exceeding the 80% frictionless rate the government had originally projected.

The pilot, which tested whether credit reference agency data could be used to identify gamblers in financial difficulty, found that only one in every 1,000 active accounts would both require an assessment and be unable to receive one without friction. The Commission said this figure is well below the 0.6% estimate set out in the 2023 Gambling Act Review White Paper.

The findings are set to go before the Gambling Commission Board as it weighs whether to formally introduce the assessments across licensed UK remote gambling operators. No timeline for a final decision has been confirmed.

Not Affordability Checks, Not Spending Limits

Financial risk assessments, as proposed, would not constitute affordability checks. The Commission has been explicit that the measure would not evaluate how much an individual could afford to spend, and there are no plans to introduce spending limits or caps of any kind.

Instead, the assessments would be triggered automatically when a customer's spending places them in the top 3% of all active account holders. At that point, a check against credit reference agency data would flag indicators of serious financial difficulty, such as multiple arrears, defaults, or bankruptcy. For the vast majority of customers who receive a check, the process would take place entirely in the background.

Helen Rhodes, Director of Major Policy Projects and Evaluation at the Gambling Commission, addressed what she described as inaccurate reporting surrounding the pilot. She said the claim that consumers are being driven toward unlicensed operators because of the assessments was without foundation, noting that 

'not a single consumer has had any action taken based on one, even during the pilot.'

Customers with limited credit histories, sometimes called 'thin file' customers, would not be affected by the assessments. The Commission said these customers are unlikely to hold the financial flags the check is designed to detect, such as arrears or defaults, and so would not be identified as high risk.

What the Pilot Data Showed

The pilot surfaced a practical finding for operators: frictionless assessment rates can be improved by ensuring existing identity and age verification requirements are properly met at the point of registration. The Commission said that allowing customers to register using initials rather than full names, or with commercial rather than residential addresses, undermines the match rate against credit reference data.

Operators raised concerns about consistency of information between different credit reference agencies. The Commission acknowledged these concerns but said it would not expect operators to validate assessment outcomes through document checks such as bank statements, describing this approach as 'largely meaningless and unnecessary friction for consumers.'

Among the pilot cohort, customers were between two and four times more likely to hold a debt management plan, and between two and five times more likely to have a default in the past 12 months, compared to a comparable general population sample.

What Operators Should and Should Not Do

The Commission used the update to warn operators against disproportionate responses when financial risk is identified. Rather than defaulting to account closures or demanding bank statements, operators are expected to consider a range of support options, such as setting deposit limits with or for the customer, or reducing marketing contact.

Rhodes said the intention is to achieve better outcomes for consumers, not to push them out of the licensed market through a risk-averse response to indicators of financial difficulty.

The Commission also confirmed that any future framework would be supported by operator guidance designed to encourage proportionate action, and that ongoing evaluation would be built in so the approach can be adjusted over time.

What Happens Next?

The Commission said it is now approaching the point at which the pilot findings will be presented to the Gambling Commission Board for a decision on next steps. It cautioned that the pilot's positive results should not be taken as a guarantee that the assessments will be introduced, stating that 'no one should pre-judge what comes next.'

NatCen, the Commission's independent evaluation partner on the pilot, is expected to publish its full reports alongside any formal decision on implementation. If the Board approves introduction of the assessments, the Commission said it would work closely with operators and credit reference agencies on a staged and practical implementation plan.