‘Lanyard class vs working class’ – UK betting gears up for final stand against affordability checks

(AsiaGameHub) –   The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has informed SBC News that it feels it has ‘little choice’ but to consider pursuing a legal challenge against the full rollout of affordability checks for UK gambling.

Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs), the second and most rigorous stage of the Gambling Commission’s affordability check framework, are scheduled to be implemented on Friday 22 May.

FRAs will only be activated in cases involving high levels of betting losses—such as instances of binge gambling—and will utilise credit bureau data to evaluate a customer’s financial situation.

The BGC, along with numerous other betting and gaming stakeholders—including those within horse racing—has consistently opposed these checks since their initial proposal. This opposition dates back to the early phases of the 2005 Gambling Act review, which took place between 2020 and 2023.

“We urge the Gambling Commission to thoroughly review these proposals before proceeding any further,” a BGC spokesperson told SBC News this morning.

“Evidence from the Commission’s own pilot demonstrates that these Financial Risk Assessments are far from frictionless, exhibiting significant inconsistencies in the data and posing a real risk that large numbers of customers will face intrusive financial inquiries.”

The industry’s reservations regarding affordability checks have been widely reported. During the Gambling Act review, repeated estimates suggested a potential annual financial impact on horse racing exceeding £60 million, for example.

In recent years, the focus of concern has shifted toward the possibility that customers may be driven away from the regulated market and into the unregulated sector—a market that, according to Gamstop, some 8% of self-excluded British gamblers admit to using.

“This is yet another clear example of the lanyard class opposing the working class. It must come to an end,” an industry source told SBC News.

Prepare for legal action…

The BGC is now escalating its campaign against affordability checks to a new level.

A letter authored by Grainne Hurst, Chief Executive Officer of the BGC, and obtained by the Racing Post, clearly states that the trade body regards affordability checks as “disproportionate and potentially subject to legal challenge.”

In her letter, Hurst reaffirmed the BGC’s position that the checks will suffer from ‘serious shortcomings’ in accuracy, consistency, and data relevance, and will encounter ‘fundamental implementation challenges’ as more customers are required to provide documentation.

FRAs were one of two major measures proposed by the Commission to address the issue of gambling affordability. The Gambling Act review White Paper published in April 2023 explicitly identified affordability as a central concern requiring government intervention.

In addition to the stricter FRAs, there will also be Financial Vulnerability Checks, triggered whenever a customer deposits over £150 within a rolling 30-day period. The original threshold was set at £500, but this was reduced to £150 following the Commission’s six-month consultation on the checks last year.

The Commission has consistently defended its approach to affordability checks, estimating that only 3% of gamblers will be impacted by the lighter Vulnerability Checks and an even smaller proportion affected by the more comprehensive FRAs.

The BGC remains unconvinced by these figures. According to the trade body, the number of people affected by Vulnerability Checks could actually be closer to 5%, rising to 10% among monthly bettors and up to 20% if customers with an annual net spend of £200 are excluded.

“These measures must function effectively for all customers, but current evidence indicates that the proposals are not fit for purpose and risk pushing individuals out of the regulated market and into the expanding illegal online black market, where no protections or safeguards exist,” the BGC spokesperson told SBC News.

“Given the serious concerns raised by operators, there is a genuine risk that the industry may ultimately be left with little option but to contemplate legal action if these proposals are implemented without further examination.”

Commission: any checks are ‘carefully considered’

The Gambling Commission has maintained for some time that its affordability check solution will be designed to minimise disruption for customers, allowing the vast majority to continue placing bets—including weekly accumulators—without unnecessary intrusion.

The regulator’s strategy relies heavily on Open Banking, which enables data sharing between a customer’s bank and the relevant betting operator to assess their financial status at the point of transaction.

When questioned about the potential legal action by the BGC, a Gambling Commission spokesperson provided SBC News with the following statement:

“We reiterate that we are continuing to refine financial risk assessments, with one key objective being the removal of unnecessary friction for consumers. If introduced, the checks would apply only to a small subset of the highest-spending accounts and would remain frictionless for the vast majority of those assessed.

“No final decisions have yet been made, and we will shortly present our recommendations to the Board regarding next steps. We continue to engage regularly with industry representatives and other stakeholders as the pilot progresses, and will provide further updates as this work advances.

“Any future implementation would be carefully evaluated, based on evidence, and introduced in a measured and proportionate manner.”

For some gamblers, confusion over terminology may pose a challenge. Take Open Banking, for instance—the concept and mechanics of how it operates are not widely understood. When many members of the general public hear ‘open banking,’ they may mistakenly believe it means their personal details and documents are fully accessible to everyone, which is not the case.

However, another persistent obstacle facing industry lobbyists is inevitably resistance from advocates of gambling reform. These groups have long argued that robust affordability measures are essential to prevent individuals from wagering beyond their means.

Despite the best efforts of the racing and betting industries during the Gambling Act review, the government chose to prioritise the views expressed by reform advocates.

The possibility of legal action by the BGC could buy additional time, and the Commission’s own language suggests it is not entirely committed to enforcing these solutions. Nevertheless, the situation may eventually reach a point where the industry must confront the consequences.