- The government has launched a review into British gambling
law to “make sure it is fit for the digital age”.
- Despite claims of a gambling “epidemic”, the number of people
who gamble in Britain has not risen in the last decade, and there
has been no rise in the rate of problem gambling since records
began in 1999.
- Anti-gambling activists have called for an advertising ban,
low stake limits, a monthly spending cap, slower gameplay and a
ban on VIP schemes, bonuses and inducement.
- However, there is very little evidence that an advertising
ban would have any impact on problem gambling.
- There is no evidence that a ban on sponsorship would yield
any benefits.
- A £2 stake limit for online games and artificially long gaps
between online bets would be, in essence, forms of
neo-prohibition designed to deter gambling rather than tackle
problem gambling.
- Limiting the amount people can spend on gambling each month
would be “extraordinarily paternalistic”. There
is no other market where consumer spending is restrained by the
state.
- Over-regulation is likely to push gamblers towards
unregulated websites. 4.5 per cent of UK online gamblers have
used an unlicensed operator in the past twelve months and 44 per
cent are aware of at least one unlicensed gambling website.
- Technology should be seen as the solution, not the problem.
Big data can help identify problem gamblers and prevent harm.
- The current mix of regulation, self-regulation, guidance and
private initiatives aimed at reducing gambling harm could be
consolidated, formalised and made legally binding.
- These practical solutions, not the blunt tools of
anti-gambling activists, could be the focus of the government’s
review.
The government risks introducing “extraordinarily
paternalistic” measures aimed at deterring people from gambling,
warns anew
reportfrom the Institute of Economic
Affairs.
‘A
Safer Bet: Gambling and the risks of
over-regulation’, written by the IEA’s
Head of Lifestyle Economics Christopher Snowdon, sets out how Big
Data and sophisticated algorithms are used by some in the
gambling industry to detect and support problem gamblers without
the need for over-reaching regulation which appears designed
primarily to reduce enjoyment.
Snowdon notes that while these practices are not universal,
they could be made more widespread. He challenges calls from
anti-gambling campaigners for measures such as an advertising
ban, low stake limits, a monthly spending cap, slower gameplay
and a ban on VIP schemes, bonuses and inducement.
Evidence these policies would reduce problem gambling is
limited or non-existent. The number of people who gamble in
Britain has not risen in the last decade and there has been no
rise in the rate of problem gambling since records began in 1999.
But there is plenty of evidence to suggest they would be
detrimental to organisations which rely on gambling sponsorship,
such as lower-league football, professional snooker, and darts
clubs.
Protecting the vulnerable and preventing gambling becoming
a source of crime are two of the three key objectives of British
gambling law. The policies proposed by anti-gambling campaigners
could undermine both of these by stimulating demand for
unregulated websites that can be easily found via internet
forums, search engines and affiliate sites. Many players will be
unwilling to tolerate online content that has been made
deliberately tedious and unexciting by limits on speed of play
and stakes/prizes. Unregulated online casinos closely resemble
their regulated competitors and, if advertising is also banned,
consumers could have great difficulty distinguishing one from
another.
Rather than shoehorn in a raft of ill-conceived,
neo-prohibitionist policies designed to sap pleasure and deter
gambling altogether, the government could address how best
practice could be made standard – and in a way that neither
infringes the rights of the average gambler nor hands a
competitive advantage to the unregulated sector.
Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics
and author of the report, said:
“There has been no shortage of regulation and
self-regulation in the gambling industry in recent years but none
of it has satisfied anti-gambling campaigners. Despite being
sufficient to fulfil the government’s longstanding objectives of
protecting children and vulnerable people, preventing gambling
being a source of crime, and ensuring that gambling is conducted
in a fair and open way, activists and campaigners driven by
anti-gambling sentiment demand yet more restrictions.
“The hard truth is that nothing can stop a pathological
gambler from losing more money than they can afford if they are
so inclined but problem gambling is endemic at low levels in all
societies, and in Britain its prevalence is lower than
average.
“Developments in technology have allowed customers to
self-exclude, set deposit limits, set playing times and opt out
of receiving inducements, such as free bets, as well as help
gambling companies identify and support problem gamblers. Best
practice could be made standard. Regulated online operators use a
range of practical harm reduction measures which advance the
government’s objectives without infringing the rights of the
average punter or handing a competitive advantage to the
unregulated sector. It is these practical solutions, not the
blunt tools of anti-gambling activists, that could be the focus
of the government’s review.”
