The UK Gambling Commission has confirmed it will introduce financial risk assessments in a “careful, staged way,” with higher initial thresholds than originally planned.
In stage one, assessments carried out by the industry’s largest operators will only be triggered when net deposits from over-25s exceed £5,000 during any rolling 24-hour period.
The UKGC expects this threshold to affect less than 0.5% of accounts, meaning the vast majority of players will not be subject to any checks at this stage.
In a move that acting CEO Sarah Gardner admits is “really unusual,” the regulator has stated it will not pursue enforcement action against operators who fail to act following a financial risk assessment during the early stages.
Gardner said: “We are confident that our approach, using high-quality data, will enable support for high-spending customers in financial difficulties, while reducing friction for customers who are not in financial difficulties by removing the need for unnecessary and unpopular document checks to understand financial risk.”
Rather than imposing penalties during stage one, the commission plans to work alongside operators, credit reference agencies, and other stakeholders to refine assessments and develop guidance for identifying at-risk customers.
Full implementation will still eventually introduce thresholds of £1,000 net deposit over 24 hours or £3,000 over a 90-day period, though no clear timeline has been established for reaching that stage.
UKGC policy director Helen Rhodes said: “We have deliberately not set out a timetable for later stages,” with no confirmed start date for stage one either, as implementation groups are to be set up over the summer to work toward a schedule.
When pressed by NEXT.io on whether this staged approach represented a further delay, Rhodes responded that the commission is keen to “move the conversation swiftly on to what happens after a financial risk assessment has identified that there are financial difficulties.”
Gambling Minister Baroness Twycross offered support for the cautious approach, stating: “The right balance must be struck so that assessments protect those in financial difficulties from the risk of gambling-related harm but do not create unnecessary burdens for the industry or consumers.”
The financial risk assessment programme has been in development since the 2023 White Paper, which stipulated that any such checks must be narrowly targeted and frictionless, with only 3% of accounts estimated to undergo assessment.
A Helen Rhodes update in April claimed a pilot study demonstrated that 97% of these checks would be frictionless, though the definition of that term remains a significant point of contention across the industry.
The Betting and Gaming Council has been among the most vocal critics, arguing that friction does not appear during the assessment itself but rather in the steps that follow when a customer is flagged.
The BGC stated: “If a customer is flagged on the basis of inconsistent or incomplete data, the operator must then decide what action to take. In practice, that is where friction appears: further questions, requests for evidence, restrictions or interventions that affect the customer experience in a very real way.”
The UKGC appears to have acknowledged this concern and will now focus more closely on that stage of the customer journey before advancing to full implementation.
Departing UKGC executive Tim Miller, speaking at iGB Live, commented: “For a long time, the only way an operator would get a real understanding of customer would be those financial documents. But we don’t have to rely on that anymore. If financial risk assessments go ahead, rather than being something likely to introduce more document checks, I think it will do the exact opposite if implemented properly.”
Critics also warn that any friction introduced by the scheme risks displacing bettors toward black market gambling operators outside the regulated environment.
Despite the delays and ongoing criticism, the UKGC confirmed the board took the view that “doing nothing wasn’t an option,” signalling the regulator’s commitment to pressing ahead regardless of the complications.
Some participants in the pilot study have expressed frustration with the process, with NEXT.io understanding that operators were reportedly discouraged from commissioning their own third-party evaluations of the proposed model.
