Concerns over affordability checks have resurfaced in the UK gambling sector, with leading industry bodies urging the UK Gambling Commission to reconsider its approach to financial risk assessments (FRAs).
Trade groups argue that the proposed measures could push a significant number of players away from licensed operators and toward unregulated markets.
The FRAs form part of the wider reforms outlined in the Gambling Act Review White Paper 2023, which includes 63 recommendations aimed at maintaining a sustainable and competitive industry.
Among these proposals are stricter affordability checks, designed to curb problem gambling by assessing whether players can reasonably afford their spending. This could involve reviewing financial data to verify a customer’s situation.
Since August 2024, a lighter version of these checks, known as financial vulnerability checks, has already been in place. These are triggered when a player reaches a £150 net deposit within a 30-day period.
The upcoming FRAs go further. While the regulator has stated its intention to minimise friction and avoid requesting documents like bank statements, the system would automatically assess a player’s financial profile if they spend £1,000 in 24 hours or £2,000 over three months.
However, early testing of the system raised concerns. A pilot programme revealed inconsistencies in how credit reference agencies evaluate financial standing, potentially leading to conflicting results for the same individual.
This has led to fears that operators may still need to step in and request additional personal information, undermining the goal of a seamless process.
The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) and the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) have both voiced concerns, warning that the changes could drive customers away from the regulated market.
Speaking to the Racing Post, BGC CEO Grainne Hurst said: “The financial risk assessments proposed by the Gambling Commission risk duplicating existing protections while creating significant friction for customers, which will only push more people to the unsafe, illegal black market.
“The government should therefore ask the Gambling Commission to pause and review FRAs as part of a wider reassessment of the player protection system, ensuring any changes are evidence-led and protect customers without driving them towards the unsafe, unregulated black market.”
The potential impact extends to horse racing. In comments published by The Sun, BHA CEO Brant Dunshea also called for a rethink, particularly given the possibility that the measures could be approved as early as May.
“Horserace betting is proven to be one of the safest forms of betting, but it can only be safe when it is done in the legal, regulated industry,” he said.
“Without a better solution the illegal market will only grow, causing more harm, depriving the government of tens of millions of pounds in lost tax revenue, and sparking widespread job losses across Britain.
“Given the recent regulatory and tax changes, I urge the commission and government to carefully consider whether the timing is right for this additional layer of regulation.”
Responding to questions from the Racing Post, the UK Gambling Commission reiterated its position: “We’re continuing to work on financial risk assessments with one of the key focuses being on removing friction for consumers.”
The renewed debate around affordability checks comes just ahead of a new gambling tax framework set to take effect on 1 April.
Discussions over taxation, particularly in the lead-up to last year’s Autumn Budget, have already created tensions between betting operators and the racing sector, despite their shared concerns about market sustainability.