The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has published a list of questions that it believes the Gambling Commission should answer before it considers rolling out its financial risk assessments (FRA).
These are “Do these checks actually work? What actions will they trigger? And what will they mean for ordinary punters?”
It was revealed yesterday that, following a meeting, the Gambling Commission was halting the implementation of the FRA until more evidence had been collected.
The BGC has been publicly vocal in its opposition to the FRAs, stating that: "We welcome the Gambling Commission’s confirmation that it is continuing to consider the extensive evidence submitted on FRAs.
“This is an important and constructive step in the process, and recognition that the evidence provided by industry, stakeholders and experts deserves careful consideration.
"However, there is still more work to do to ensure any future proposals are genuinely frictionless, proportionate, and do not drive customers towards the growing unsafe gambling black market. We look forward to continued engagement with the Commission in the weeks ahead."
The FRAs were first introduced in the White Paper, alongside financial vulnerability checks (FVCs).
A recent study into FVCs found that 68% of operators had voluntarily completed FVCs for some time before the policy was introduced, and the vast majority of operators reported positive experiences while conducting them.
This may have given the Gambling Commission confidence that the introduction of FRAs would be as seamless.
In his speech earlier this week, Ian Angus explained that the Commission would work closely with the “Government, operators and credit reference agencies on the best way to implement them.”
The Commission believes that FRAs would be necessary for 3% of accounts and would have no impact on the customer's credit score.
