The gambling industry’s rapid adoption of artificial intelligence for compliance functions is raising serious questions about whether governance structures are keeping pace.
Research from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas found that only one in five companies has a dedicated AI governance role within their organisation.
Neil Dillon, founder of Solas Compliance, told NEXT.io this figure aligned with his own anecdotal experience after observing only one of seven top operators at a recent roundtable had integrated such a position.
John Pierce, head of enforcement at the Gambling Commission, has urged caution, warning operators that AI tools deployed for AML purposes are “too often simply not delivering.”
Pierce told operators directly: “We aren’t ideologically against the use of new technology in your processes. But you need to be sure they are doing what is required.”
Mindway AI CEO Rasmus Kjaergaard echoed these concerns, arguing that domain expertise is critical and that operators relying on non-specialist AI solutions frequently find themselves in regulatory trouble.
Kjaergaard said: “It’s not just about being able to build a model; it is also imperative to have the scientific understanding of what that model is looking to detect and continued focus to update and maintain it.”
Dillon cautioned that appointing AI governance roles does not automatically accelerate effective adoption, and can in practice slow progress down considerably.
He told NEXT.io: “One of the things I found in the UK is that they have appointed these people, but actually it hasn’t made them move faster. It’s kind of made them pump the brakes.”
The question of whether to build AI compliance tools in-house or purchase third-party solutions is one area where Dillon believes many operators make costly mistakes.
He said: “The buy-versus-build is actually where that expertise is so important, and where some of them get it wrong.”
Dillon likened the challenge of building sophisticated in-house compliance models to preparing a Michelin-star meal, requiring rare ingredients, mastery of technique, consistent execution, and constant improvement over time.
On the regulatory side, Tim Miller, the departing executive director of policy and research at the UKGC, expressed genuine excitement about technological processes being developed internally at the regulator.
Pierce confirmed the regulator is actively exploring AI adoption, stating it could “enhance our abilities to undertake compliance assessments, identify breaches, target illegal gambling, and improve the efficiency of our regulatory processes.”
The Advertising Standards Authority has partnered with the UKGC on an AI-powered monitoring initiative designed to flag gambling content with strong appeal to under-18s across online platforms.
An ASA spokesperson described AI involvement as “essential to deliver effective and efficient ad regulation,” while stressing that human judgement remains central to final enforcement decisions.
Melanie Ellis, partner at Northridge Law, highlighted that the ASA’s partnership with social media platforms since 2021 now puts operators at risk of both regulatory referral and possible account restrictions.
She said: “Operators should be concerned not only about the possibility of the ASA referring non-compliant ads to the UKGC for regulatory action, but also about referral to the social media platform.”
Ellis also painted a picture of a potential future where AI generates, reviews, and approves advertising content while regulators simultaneously deploy their own AI to detect and adjudicate breaches.
Dillon offered a sobering conclusion, saying: “AI is not at a point where you can leave it alone. It will allow regulators to bring the issues to the fore faster and allow them to review more, but it won’t eliminate the issues.”
