The UK Gambling Commission’s decision to introduce financial risk assessments for high-spending online customers has drawn strong criticism from betting operators, legal experts, racing leaders and opposition politicians.
The regulator confirmed this week that the assessments will be introduced gradually, beginning with customers of the largest operators who record unusually high net deposits. During the first stage, the checks will generally apply when customers aged 25 or over exceed £5,000 in net deposits within a rolling 24-hour period. The initial threshold for customers under 25 will be £2,500.
The Commission said less than 0.5% of customers reach the £5,000 level. A start date has not yet been set, with implementation groups due to meet over the summer before the timetable is confirmed.
Once the system is fully established, the thresholds will fall substantially. Customers aged 25 and over will be assessed after exceeding £1,000 in net deposits over 24 hours or £3,000 over 90 days. For those under 25, the corresponding limits will be £750 and £2,000. Interim stages will be determined following further talks with operators and other stakeholders.
According to the Commission, credit reference agencies will conduct the assessments using financial information that indicates whether a customer may be experiencing serious difficulties. The process is intended to be document-free and will not affect a person’s credit score.
Pilot results showed that 97% of customers above the proposed thresholds could be assessed without supplying documents. Fewer than one in every 1,000 gambling accounts would be unable to receive an assessment, the regulator said. In those cases, an operator may need to use open banking or request supporting financial information. The Commission said the staged model was designed to protect vulnerable customers while limiting unnecessary disruption.
However, industry representatives argue that the figures do not settle concerns about the quality or consistency of the underlying data.
Wiggin partner Chris Elliott described the phased structure as a sensible starting point but questioned whether problems uncovered during the pilot had been resolved. A central concern is that different credit reference agencies may return different results for the same customer.
Northridge Law partner Melanie Ellis raised a similar issue, saying uncertainty remains around the reliability of the information operators will receive. She also suggested that much may depend on how individual businesses interpret the results and respond to identified risks.
The Commission plans to develop further guidance on proportionate action. Possible responses could include reducing marketing, encouraging a customer to set deposit limits or introducing stronger restrictions where the wider evidence indicates a serious risk.
During the early stages, operators will not face enforcement action solely for failing to act on an assessment, provided they continue to meet their existing licensing and customer-interaction obligations. Legal experts nevertheless want clearer assurances that compliance teams will not indirectly impose additional expectations during regulatory inspections.
The Betting and Gaming Council also criticised the decision, arguing that questions about reliability, customer impact and the practical operation of the system remain unanswered. Chief executive Grainne Hurst said the revised timetable and higher starting thresholds showed that earlier industry concerns had merit. The BGC also noted that a full evaluation of the pilot had not yet been published. Its response warned that incorrect classifications or demands for further information could undermine claims that the process is frictionless.
British racing has issued an even stronger warning. British Horseracing Authority chief executive Brant Dunshea described the decision as “self-harm on an immense scale,” arguing that the checks could impose excessive intrusion on bettors and have serious financial consequences for racing and the wider economy.
The BHA fears that customers who do not want to provide documents or connect their banking information could reduce their activity with licensed bookmakers or move to illegal operators. It has called for the inconsistencies between credit reference agencies to be addressed and for operators to receive detailed guidance that prevents overly cautious restrictions.
Racing officials have previously estimated that affordability measures could cost the sport as much as £250 million over five years. The BHA said the new assessments could weaken betting revenue and push customers toward sites offering none of the safeguards required in Britain’s regulated market.
Political criticism has also intensified. Conservative shadow gambling minister Louie French called the introduction of the assessments a dereliction of duty and urged the government to place the policy before Parliament for a cross-party debate. He argued that lawmakers should be given an opportunity to examine its potential effects on consumers, betting and British sport.
The Commission maintains that its approach will offer a more targeted alternative to the bank statements and other documents sometimes requested by operators under existing safer-gambling procedures. Acting chief executive Sarah Gardner said the regulator was confident that high-quality data could help businesses identify high-spending customers in financial difficulty without creating unnecessary barriers for everyone else.
Gambling minister Baroness Twycross welcomed the phased rollout but said implementation would need to balance consumer protection with the impact on operators and the wider gambling ecosystem.