Self-exclusion registers are a key foundation of today's gambling industry. They allow players to voluntarily put a halt to their gambling activity, whether that is a blanket ban across all platforms or with a specific operator.
Some platforms allow customers to be even more meticulous and give them the option of self-excluding from particular promotions, slot providers or certain times of the day.
But what happens when the individual experiencing problem gambling is not ready to self-exclude? Some players believe they are in more control than they actually are, while others might feel slighted at having to use responsible gaming tools at all.
In these scenarios, is there a place for loved ones to submit a request for them?
Can I ban someone else from gambling?
From a UK perspective, allowing a loved one to exclude a problem gambler from playing is almost inconceivable. There is very little support for people who are affected by loved ones in this regard, and it is only possible for the problem gambler themselves to apply to a self-exclusion register.
The only way a loved one can forcibly stop gambling behaviour is by installing blocking software on their devices or preventing gambling payments from coming out of a joint bank account. However, any parent will tell you that such measures do not stop this sort of behaviour – these actions will simply get pushed underground and continue through more illicit measures.
Yet there are several other European countries that encourage loved ones to apply on behalf of a problem gambler if they feel the behaviour has gotten out of hand. This raises some interesting questions.
How do gambling bans work?
In Ukraine, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, loved ones can apply for an individual to be banned from gambling through the self-exclusion system – usually with a separate option somewhere in the process to indicate that it is a third party rather than the individual themselves.
The regulator or operator will require some level of proof, such as debt statements or evidence of overspending, that the application is legitimate. They will usually allow the individual to argue their own case if they want to contest the ban, too.
This immediately negates one of the biggest concerns from the outside perspective, that being a third-party exclusion being used as a means to control somebody’s behaviour. Gambling is still a sensitive topic, even when it is enjoyed safely and in moderation, and it would make for an easy target in a domestic setting.
A family member or partner could easily leverage the opportunity to deny an individual access to their accounts if they were jealous of the money being spent elsewhere, or simply because they want to exert control over them. Equally, an individual could sabotage a user from placing a bet, knowing that their favourite team is about to play or something along similar lines. Or, more innocently, they could simply be concerned and believe that any gambling activity is harmful and wish to take action against a hobby enjoyed in moderation.
While this sort of approach may have seen positive results elsewhere, it would have to be carefully introduced to jurisdictions that have historically not allowed it
Should you ban somebody else from gambling?
Those, though, are not the only concerns when it comes to giving one person the chance to exclude another from gambling. Taking this step can worsen the already-strained relationship between the problem gambler and the loved one. This is critical, as recent studies have shown that loneliness and isolation are some of the biggest risks when it comes to exacerbating gambling harm.
It could also worsen the problem gambling behaviour if the individual is not ready to accept accountability, which could result in a cat-and-mouse struggle between the player and their loved one as they try to evade bans. This would likely push the player into illegal online casinos, which have even less regard for player protection measures and can even lead to crimes such as fraud and identity theft.
But all of these are worst-case scenarios. This scheme is already working for many other European countries, with newly launched regulators such as PlayCity in Ukraine offering it as soon as the registers themselves went live.
What are the true practicalities?
It is impossible to deny that a third-party exclusion could be the first step an individual needs to properly address their behaviour. It would lead to some uncomfortable conversations between families, sure, but that is what support systems are for.
As touched upon earlier, there is also very little support available for family members affected by an individual's problem gambling behaviour. Being able to ban them from gambling might be the only direct action they can take to help the situation.
Gambling, like many other industries, can cause damage if the behaviour escalates and becomes uncontrollable. But should player protection come at the cost of removing the autonomy of the individual? After all, you cannot stop someone from drinking alcohol or smoking, so why should such drastic measures be introduced to gambling?
Unlike many other industries, gambling has become increasingly accessible to players, no matter where they are. The acceleration of mobile technology means that as long as somebody has a phone on them, they automatically have access to thousands of gambling platforms at their fingertips. No extra effort is needed.
And while this sort of approach may have seen positive results elsewhere, it would have to be carefully introduced to jurisdictions that have historically not allowed it. It would require a new infrastructure to evaluate the third-party requests, and even perhaps frameworks in place to protect whoever had submitted the application.
The question at the heart of this proposal, for any and every jurisdiction, is where the freedom to make an individual choice ranks against the desire for external intervention.
