Gambling Commission CEO blasts “imbalanced stories” on affordability checks
Andrew Rhodes says the British regulator has been denied the right to reply to media reports.
UK.- The British Gambling Commission continues to seek to clarify its proposals on affordability checks amid what it describes as imbalanced media reports on the measures. In its latest intervention, CEO Andrew Rhodes has published an open letter specifically criticising the horseracing media outlet Racing Post.
The regulator claims that Racing Post has “on a daily basis, provided readers with imbalanced stories about the ongoing financial risk consultation and frequently failed to seek a right of reply from the Commission.”
It adds that it had “penned a letter to the Racing Post’s readers page to set out our position on the consultation and clear up misunderstandings about the proposed checks” but that “the Racing Post has refused to publish the letter, despite its content being highly relevant to readers.”
It said: “Considering this blatant lack of balance in a newspaper we have decided to publish the letter on our website.”
The letter, signed by Rhodes, makes some of the same clarifications that the regulator has made previously. Rhodes writes: “Readers might easily assume – based on the volume and nature of the coverage – that under the proposals, a significant proportion of gambling consumers would need to hand over payslips or bank statements when they want to place a bet. This is not true.”
He again stresses that the Gambling Commission expects just three per cent of players to be affected by financial risk assessments of any kind, and that “only a tenth of that 3 per cent” would not have a frictionless check via credit reference agency or open banking data. “This means 99.7 per cent of customers would not be asked to directly provide any information,” Rhodes wrote.
Rhodes’ open letter continues: “The vast majority of financial risk assessments – around 90 per cent – would be carried out through credit reference agencies and open-source banking via a regulated third-party provider under the proposals. These checks will not give gambling companies access to customers’ full bank account data, and any information operators receive must only ever be used for assessing risks of harm, rather than practices like identifying and restricting winners.
“Secondly, little of the commentary specifies that these proposals relate to online gambling only. They would not apply to betting in bookmakers or at the racetrack. High street bookmakers may decide to carry out checks based on social responsibility or anti-money laundering risks but these changes being consulted on apply only to online gambling.
“And thirdly, although there is often the assumption that credit checks impact a credit rating and could damage credit scores, these soft credit checks will not. Credit scores will be unaffected and data on a customer’s gambling behaviour will not be shared with the financial sector under these proposals.”
Concluding the letter, Rhodes invited Racing Post readers to contribute their reviews to ongoing consultation on the financial risk check proposals. He wrote: “There remains another four weeks of the consultation, and we welcome all responses to ensure we strike the right balance between safeguarding individual freedom to gamble and protecting the most vulnerable from gambling-related harm.”
See also: British Gambling Commission creates new Industry Forum
