Too long to read: Over the past few years, the UK Regulator and government have introduced a string of product and marketing level controls, autoplay bans, limits on game speeds, bonus buy features, changes to game sound, and per-spin stake caps (£5 for adults, £2 for 18-24s).
These rules are intended to reduce harm, but tougher rules, fewer features, and lower RTPs could push some customers offshore to other sites. The result: fewer harms for many, as intended by the UKGC, but an increasing number of players taking money that would otherwise have circulated within the regulated UK Gambling Economy, which generates billions in revenue every year, elsewhere.
What’s Changed? A Quick Summary.
- Autoplay, turbo/quick spins, and spin-stop features: The Remote Technical Standards (RTS) were updated to remove or limit functionality that speeds play or automates repeated bets. The point is to slow play down and make interactions more “conscious.”
- Bonus/feature buys: The complete prohibition of bonus buys on licensed UK games. It’s believed that these dramatically increase stake size and spending.
- Stake caps for online slots: Statutory per-spin limits were introduced, £5 for adults over the age of 25, and £2 for 18-24. This change in stake limits illustrated the UKGC’s commitment to improving ‘consumer empowerment and choice’.
- Deposit limits: The commission has moved to define and mandate deposit limits. This change requires casinos to prompt customers to set a limit before deposits are made.
- Sound Effects: Sound effects came under scrutiny, with audio believed to be manipulative into misleading players into thinking they’ve won more than they have. This prompted changes not only in sounds but visuals.
The UKGC’s Logic – Harm Reduction
The UKGC’s logic is straightforward. These are all consumer protection measures. The removed features could indeed accelerate losses, and slower, simpler games and lower stakes should, in theory, reduce impulsive losses. They should give players more time to think and set clearer boundaries due to deposit and affordability tools.
These are all consumer-protection measures, backed by evidence about problem gambling, but what about government overreach? and what are the unintended consequences of these rules?
The Unintended Consequences
The UK Gambling industry is a multi-billion-pound industry. One of the biggest in the entire world, yet we’re somewhat of a laughing stock to casinos and slot developers, with some casinos closing after deciding that the regulatory pressure just isn’t worth it.
Tougher market controls are designed to reduce harm, and this will likely succeed for many players, but if these controls reduce product attractiveness, as they have, lower RTPs, then some customers have and may migrate to offshore casinos that do not follow UK rules.
Some of these sites have weaker protections, no GAMSTOP, feeble affordability checks, and looser restrictions when it comes to stakes. That said, their features and bonuses are undeniably attractive. It’s worth asking the question, Where’s the line?
Is inconveniencing the majority an inevitable price to pay for protecting the vulnerable, or should adults have more freedom?
It’s not just gambling either; it’s food, too. At the beginning of October, England banned multi-buy promotions like ‘Buy one, get one free’ on unhealthy foods and drinks in supermarkets and retailers.
The Cost of “Protection”
Any significant changes have financial impacts, not just for the players, but for the entire industry.
UK operators may notice:
- Fewer Deposits.
- Less engaging games.
- No new providers entering the UK market.
- Players taking their money offshore.
All of this means less money, less tax, and as we’ve already said, the UK gambling sector is a booming industry, and smaller brands may especially struggle.
Absorbing the cost of reformulation or compliance can make operating here just not worth it. Months ago, we posted about this on our LinkedIn.
Another Way?
Many think the answer lies somewhere in between what the UKGC is doing now and another solution, individual or tiered restrictions, based on verified player behaviour, and perhaps better education and clearer communication, not blanket bans.
The technology exists to implement these kinds of measures; we already verify, we send the source of wealth and identity verification.
Is the UK audience being protected or policed? As staunch advocates for responsible gambling with a vested interest in keeping our audience safe, we can’t help but wonder where the boundaries lie.
