1 01:00:03,766 --> 01:00:05,635 Affordability checks were one of the most 2 01:00:05,635 --> 01:00:06,936 controversial and hotly 3 01:00:06,936 --> 01:00:08,171 debated measures during 4 01:00:08,171 --> 01:00:11,207 the UK's gambling act review in 2022 and 5 01:00:11,207 --> 01:00:13,710 2023, seen by some as a 6 01:00:13,710 --> 01:00:15,211 simple tool to assess financial 7 01:00:15,211 --> 01:00:17,580 risks to a player and by others as a 8 01:00:17,580 --> 01:00:19,482 tyrannical invasion of privacy and 9 01:00:19,482 --> 01:00:21,551 personal data. Nevertheless, 10 01:00:21,851 --> 01:00:23,286 affordability checks were included as 11 01:00:23,286 --> 01:00:24,887 part of the white paper as 12 01:00:24,887 --> 01:00:26,823 suggested by the Social Market 13 01:00:26,990 --> 01:00:29,292 Foundation in a series of reports and 14 01:00:29,292 --> 01:00:32,528 recommendations. But now a senior fellow 15 01:00:32,528 --> 01:00:33,830 of the SMF has rolled 16 01:00:33,830 --> 01:00:35,965 back on his recommendation, asking the 17 01:00:35,965 --> 01:00:38,101 government to pause the implementation of 18 01:00:38,101 --> 01:00:39,135 affordability checks 19 01:00:39,435 --> 01:00:41,471 over concerns they are not frictionless. 20 01:00:42,372 --> 01:00:43,773 So why is there a change of 21 01:00:43,773 --> 01:00:45,041 approach and what does this 22 01:00:45,041 --> 01:00:47,410 tell us about the debate over gambling 23 01:00:47,410 --> 01:00:50,747 reform? Welcome back to iGaming Daily 24 01:00:50,747 --> 01:00:52,148 supported by OptiMove, 25 01:00:52,148 --> 01:00:54,650 the creator of positionless marketing and 26 01:00:54,650 --> 01:00:55,585 the number one player 27 01:00:55,585 --> 01:00:57,153 engagement solution for sports 28 01:00:57,153 --> 01:00:59,756 betting and iGaming operators. I'm 29 01:00:59,756 --> 01:01:01,691 Charlie Horner and today I'm joined by 30 01:01:01,691 --> 01:01:03,826 SBC Media's editor-at-large 31 01:01:03,826 --> 01:01:07,263 Ted Mamure and SBC news editor Ted Orm 32 01:01:07,263 --> 01:01:09,098 Clay. Ted M, how's 33 01:01:09,098 --> 01:01:11,267 things? Very well Charlie, 34 01:01:12,101 --> 01:01:15,104 glad to be back on our podline. Very 35 01:01:15,104 --> 01:01:16,439 good, no it's good to have 36 01:01:16,439 --> 01:01:18,074 you back and talking of good 37 01:01:18,074 --> 01:01:20,443 to have you back Ted Oc, welcome back to 38 01:01:20,443 --> 01:01:22,612 the show, how's things? Yeah 39 01:01:22,612 --> 01:01:23,680 pretty good, thank you Charlie, 40 01:01:24,547 --> 01:01:25,982 good to be back in the studio again 41 01:01:25,982 --> 01:01:27,116 feeling refreshed after a 42 01:01:27,116 --> 01:01:28,551 couple of days of annual leave 43 01:01:28,951 --> 01:01:31,187 and yeah it's always good to come back to 44 01:01:31,187 --> 01:01:33,056 a big news story to get stuck into. 45 01:01:35,925 --> 01:01:38,628 Yeah a big news story it is as well and I 46 01:01:38,628 --> 01:01:40,463 thought we'd left affordability checks 47 01:01:41,431 --> 01:01:43,566 behind us a good couple of years ago Ted, 48 01:01:43,966 --> 01:01:46,769 but it's back on the news agenda. 49 01:01:48,237 --> 01:01:50,006 Let's have another history lesson Ted 50 01:01:50,006 --> 01:01:51,474 because we all know that 51 01:01:51,474 --> 01:01:54,110 you're a history professor here at 52 01:01:54,110 --> 01:01:56,312 iGaming Daily, how did the idea of 53 01:01:56,312 --> 01:01:57,613 affordability checks come 54 01:01:57,613 --> 01:01:59,649 about in the UK and what has the 55 01:01:59,649 --> 01:02:01,517 industry reaction been like over the last 56 01:02:01,517 --> 01:02:03,986 few years? Okay I'm 57 01:02:03,986 --> 01:02:05,221 going to try and summarize 58 01:02:05,221 --> 01:02:07,290 affordability checks or kind of the 59 01:02:07,290 --> 01:02:08,224 journey of affordability 60 01:02:08,224 --> 01:02:10,393 checks as best as possible. 61 01:02:11,127 --> 01:02:13,830 So the idea was seeded from the first set 62 01:02:13,830 --> 01:02:14,363 of technical 63 01:02:14,363 --> 01:02:16,132 concentrations of the Gaming Act Review 64 01:02:16,466 --> 01:02:19,836 back in 2022 and in that kind of initial 65 01:02:19,836 --> 01:02:21,170 consultation phase 66 01:02:21,170 --> 01:02:23,272 DCMS asked stakeholders 67 01:02:23,272 --> 01:02:26,008 for feedback on protection layers needed 68 01:02:26,008 --> 01:02:27,076 to improve intervention 69 01:02:27,076 --> 01:02:28,845 and to minimize the risks 70 01:02:28,945 --> 01:02:31,514 of general consumers and gambling harms. 71 01:02:32,915 --> 01:02:34,684 So on a technical level 72 01:02:34,684 --> 01:02:36,185 what the UK Gambling Commission 73 01:02:36,252 --> 01:02:38,988 put forward was its case to go forth with 74 01:02:38,988 --> 01:02:40,156 affordability checks 75 01:02:40,156 --> 01:02:42,225 right and this was viewed 76 01:02:42,258 --> 01:02:44,393 as a measure that it had already begun to 77 01:02:44,393 --> 01:02:45,895 revise under its wider 78 01:02:45,895 --> 01:02:47,497 and kind of long-term policy 79 01:02:48,064 --> 01:02:50,032 of creating a single view of gambling, 80 01:02:50,032 --> 01:02:51,367 prevalence and activities 81 01:02:52,068 --> 01:02:54,403 that's been kind of its long-term mandate 82 01:02:54,403 --> 01:02:55,104 or its long-term 83 01:02:55,104 --> 01:02:58,808 strategy during the 2020s. 84 01:02:59,909 --> 01:03:02,411 Initially and straight from the off the 85 01:03:02,411 --> 01:03:04,313 kind of technical mandate of 86 01:03:04,313 --> 01:03:06,749 affordability checks 87 01:03:06,749 --> 01:03:08,551 was opposed by numerous stakeholders that 88 01:03:08,551 --> 01:03:10,119 we're going to get to, but 89 01:03:10,119 --> 01:03:11,888 DCMS backed the idea as a 90 01:03:11,921 --> 01:03:14,023 much-needed measure to modernize gambling 91 01:03:14,023 --> 01:03:15,291 protections in the 92 01:03:15,291 --> 01:03:17,827 smartphone era and gave the 93 01:03:17,827 --> 01:03:19,796 Commission regulatory clearance to 94 01:03:19,796 --> 01:03:22,665 proceed in 2023. So once they kind of 95 01:03:22,665 --> 01:03:24,133 published its blueprints 96 01:03:26,736 --> 01:03:30,106 there was kind of much lots of concerns 97 01:03:30,106 --> 01:03:32,008 on the design and the 98 01:03:32,008 --> 01:03:34,210 implementation but come August 99 01:03:34,243 --> 01:03:38,414 2024 the UKGC launched its initial pilot 100 01:03:38,414 --> 01:03:40,149 program which began on 101 01:03:40,149 --> 01:03:44,187 checking customers on the threshold 102 01:03:44,187 --> 01:03:46,522 of 500 pounds in that deposit, that was 103 01:03:46,522 --> 01:03:49,091 phase one. Six months later in February 104 01:03:49,091 --> 01:03:51,427 2025 it began phase two 105 01:03:51,761 --> 01:03:54,530 in which it would really put its kind of 106 01:03:54,530 --> 01:03:56,032 system in place of light 107 01:03:56,032 --> 01:03:58,668 checks at an affordability level 108 01:03:58,835 --> 01:04:03,172 of 150 pounds. Yet since then feedback 109 01:04:03,172 --> 01:04:04,407 has been limited on the 110 01:04:04,407 --> 01:04:08,644 measure and how the pilot has 111 01:04:08,644 --> 01:04:12,582 progressed. Come to it in kind of 2026 112 01:04:12,582 --> 01:04:13,950 and where we stand now there are many 113 01:04:13,950 --> 01:04:15,084 points of concerns on 114 01:04:15,084 --> 01:04:17,286 the technical application with pushback 115 01:04:17,286 --> 01:04:21,023 focused on privacy, false 116 01:04:21,023 --> 01:04:23,259 positives and actually the 117 01:04:23,292 --> 01:04:26,128 overall practicality and there's a fear 118 01:04:26,128 --> 01:04:28,130 now that we're leading the 119 01:04:28,130 --> 01:04:29,865 consumers to share kind of 120 01:04:29,865 --> 01:04:34,470 unwilling to share their data who might 121 01:04:34,470 --> 01:04:35,471 kind of migrate towards 122 01:04:35,471 --> 01:04:38,107 the unlicensed market. 123 01:04:39,976 --> 01:04:43,613 And from the developments this week that 124 01:04:43,613 --> 01:04:44,513 resistance appears to 125 01:04:44,513 --> 01:04:46,549 have been hard as the 126 01:04:46,549 --> 01:04:48,951 UKGC is told to put a pause on the 127 01:04:48,951 --> 01:04:50,386 affordability checks experiments. 128 01:04:50,887 --> 01:04:54,290 Yeah and we knew that this would have a 129 01:04:54,290 --> 01:04:56,259 lot of detractors as I said 130 01:04:56,259 --> 01:04:57,693 at the top of the show it's 131 01:04:57,693 --> 01:05:00,863 quite a controversial measure. You can 132 01:05:00,863 --> 01:05:02,198 see why certain 133 01:05:02,198 --> 01:05:04,667 stakeholders within the industry and 134 01:05:04,667 --> 01:05:08,604 from consumer groups might uphold was 135 01:05:08,604 --> 01:05:11,107 affordability checks but it said OC. It 136 01:05:11,107 --> 01:05:11,807 was quite surprising 137 01:05:11,807 --> 01:05:14,143 that this week the issue of affordability 138 01:05:14,143 --> 01:05:15,177 checks came back into the news this week, 139 01:05:15,211 --> 01:05:18,481 particularly because of who it was who 140 01:05:18,481 --> 01:05:20,016 was now voiced their 141 01:05:20,016 --> 01:05:22,485 opposition to the measures. Could 142 01:05:22,485 --> 01:05:24,754 you give a bit of background as to the 143 01:05:24,754 --> 01:05:26,722 latest update and why 144 01:05:26,722 --> 01:05:27,857 essentially we're talking about 145 01:05:27,857 --> 01:05:31,027 this today? Right so as you as you 146 01:05:31,027 --> 01:05:32,795 instead have just discussed Charlie the 147 01:05:32,795 --> 01:05:33,963 topic of affordability 148 01:05:34,163 --> 01:05:36,666 is quite a historic one in the UK. I mean 149 01:05:36,666 --> 01:05:37,266 if anything it 150 01:05:37,266 --> 01:05:38,668 predates the whole topic of 151 01:05:38,668 --> 01:05:40,703 affordability checks you know when we had 152 01:05:40,703 --> 01:05:41,370 the conversations 153 01:05:41,370 --> 01:05:43,506 about banning credit card 154 01:05:43,539 --> 01:05:45,441 transactions for gambling in the UK a 155 01:05:45,441 --> 01:05:46,309 number of years ago. 156 01:05:46,909 --> 01:05:48,344 Obviously it was a huge talking point 157 01:05:48,344 --> 01:05:50,479 throughout the gambling ad review between 158 01:05:50,479 --> 01:05:53,816 2020 and 2023. The reason 159 01:05:53,816 --> 01:05:54,984 it's come back in the news 160 01:05:54,984 --> 01:05:57,186 this week and as you mentioned why it's 161 01:05:57,186 --> 01:05:58,688 quite interesting you 162 01:05:58,688 --> 01:05:59,488 know that it has done the 163 01:05:59,488 --> 01:06:01,791 circumstances around it is that the 164 01:06:01,791 --> 01:06:04,093 person whose statement has re-raised it 165 01:06:04,093 --> 01:06:05,795 is is James Noyes who 166 01:06:05,928 --> 01:06:08,531 is from the Social Market Foundation the 167 01:06:08,531 --> 01:06:11,067 SMF. The SMF is a think 168 01:06:11,067 --> 01:06:13,269 tank which has been a very big 169 01:06:13,269 --> 01:06:16,572 proponent of gambling law reform, of 170 01:06:16,572 --> 01:06:17,940 regulatory reform in the 171 01:06:17,940 --> 01:06:19,308 UK over a number of years. 172 01:06:20,109 --> 01:06:23,012 As Ted mentioned it was a very active 173 01:06:23,012 --> 01:06:25,281 voice during the gambling 174 01:06:25,281 --> 01:06:28,217 ad review, a big proponent of 175 01:06:28,217 --> 01:06:30,386 affordability checks which materializes 176 01:06:30,386 --> 01:06:31,654 in the review is finance 177 01:06:31,654 --> 01:06:32,955 risk checks, the government kind 178 01:06:32,989 --> 01:06:35,725 of did a bit of a rebranding there. They 179 01:06:35,725 --> 01:06:36,892 wanted to put it across as 180 01:06:36,892 --> 01:06:38,394 something that would be very 181 01:06:38,394 --> 01:06:41,397 frictionless and light touch. I believe 182 01:06:41,397 --> 01:06:43,065 that the commission estimates 183 01:06:43,065 --> 01:06:46,102 only about 0.1% of UK betters 184 01:06:46,102 --> 01:06:47,703 will ever come up against these financial 185 01:06:47,703 --> 01:06:51,707 risk checks. James Noyes 186 01:06:51,707 --> 01:06:55,077 has now called for a pause 187 01:06:55,111 --> 01:06:56,979 of them and a review as to how they're 188 01:06:56,979 --> 01:06:58,547 working, the suitability of 189 01:06:58,547 --> 01:07:00,783 them. It's you know given that 190 01:07:00,816 --> 01:07:03,419 the SMF is a big proponent of these and 191 01:07:03,419 --> 01:07:05,221 last year was a big proponent of 192 01:07:05,221 --> 01:07:07,523 increasing UK gambling tax 193 01:07:07,923 --> 01:07:10,059 they wanted to see the highest threshold 194 01:07:10,059 --> 01:07:11,494 out of all the 195 01:07:11,494 --> 01:07:13,229 proposed thresholds last year. 196 01:07:14,063 --> 01:07:16,966 Given this this organisation's prominence 197 01:07:16,966 --> 01:07:17,967 in these debates it's 198 01:07:17,967 --> 01:07:19,235 quite interesting that he has 199 01:07:19,235 --> 01:07:24,573 joined the various voices calling for a 200 01:07:24,573 --> 01:07:25,775 review of them and a 201 01:07:25,775 --> 01:07:26,876 potential pause of them. 202 01:07:27,510 --> 01:07:29,045 This includes the likes of the British 203 01:07:29,045 --> 01:07:30,713 Horse Racing Authority which 204 01:07:30,713 --> 01:07:33,315 penned an open letter to DCMS 205 01:07:33,349 --> 01:07:35,651 earlier this month co-signed by a number 206 01:07:35,651 --> 01:07:37,386 of other stakeholders. Horse 207 01:07:37,386 --> 01:07:38,988 racing was also one of the big 208 01:07:38,988 --> 01:07:41,290 opponents of affordability checks during 209 01:07:41,290 --> 01:07:42,858 the gambling ad review. I 210 01:07:42,858 --> 01:07:44,160 think they were estimating 211 01:07:44,794 --> 01:07:47,129 losses of something like 60 million a 212 01:07:47,129 --> 01:07:48,631 year is what comes to mind from 213 01:07:48,631 --> 01:07:49,498 affordability checks. 214 01:07:50,066 --> 01:07:52,234 That was a figure that was often chucked 215 01:07:52,234 --> 01:07:55,571 around around 2021-2022. So 216 01:07:55,571 --> 01:07:56,772 yeah that's the reason it's 217 01:07:56,772 --> 01:07:59,008 really interesting that it's come back to 218 01:07:59,008 --> 01:08:00,142 the news this week as you mentioned 219 01:08:00,142 --> 01:08:01,377 Charlie it's because of 220 01:08:01,777 --> 01:08:03,846 who it is who has raised them. Although 221 01:08:03,846 --> 01:08:05,448 we should also add that as 222 01:08:05,448 --> 01:08:07,016 James Noyes pointed out in his 223 01:08:07,016 --> 01:08:09,952 letter to the government this was his own 224 01:08:09,952 --> 01:08:11,287 opinion not that of the 225 01:08:11,287 --> 01:08:13,155 Social Market Foundation. He did 226 01:08:13,155 --> 01:08:15,458 emphasise that in the letter. Yeah Ted M 227 01:08:15,458 --> 01:08:16,892 I'll just throw it back over 228 01:08:16,892 --> 01:08:18,194 to you now because that is a 229 01:08:18,327 --> 01:08:22,531 significant voice to be vocalising their 230 01:08:22,531 --> 01:08:23,299 opposition to 231 01:08:23,299 --> 01:08:24,867 affordability checks isn't it? 232 01:08:25,401 --> 01:08:29,505 It is it certainly is and I think here 233 01:08:29,505 --> 01:08:30,306 we've got to kind of step 234 01:08:30,306 --> 01:08:32,074 back and look at who the Social 235 01:08:32,074 --> 01:08:35,711 Market Foundation are and how they brand 236 01:08:35,711 --> 01:08:37,880 themselves and this is 237 01:08:37,880 --> 01:08:40,149 a cross-party think tank 238 01:08:41,283 --> 01:08:43,252 and in its mandate it looks through UK 239 01:08:43,252 --> 01:08:45,054 policies in which it feels 240 01:08:45,054 --> 01:08:47,389 that it can have an unbiased 241 01:08:47,690 --> 01:08:50,593 impact and it can get kind of cross-party 242 01:08:50,593 --> 01:08:52,228 consensus and move 243 01:08:52,228 --> 01:08:54,363 forward and that was what 244 01:08:54,363 --> 01:08:58,234 it believed on the Gavin review that it 245 01:08:58,234 --> 01:09:01,403 should be toughened significantly 246 01:09:01,403 --> 01:09:03,806 tightened in the interest 247 01:09:04,073 --> 01:09:07,443 of the public and its protection the 248 01:09:07,443 --> 01:09:08,444 protection of consumers. 249 01:09:09,612 --> 01:09:11,747 Also that UK Gavin should face a 250 01:09:11,747 --> 01:09:15,551 polluter charge and it actually supported 251 01:09:15,551 --> 01:09:18,754 Gordon Brown or pitched 252 01:09:18,754 --> 01:09:20,089 to Gordon Brown to support 253 01:09:20,723 --> 01:09:27,062 the position of 50% tax on gambling. In 254 01:09:27,062 --> 01:09:30,099 terms of James Noyes himself 255 01:09:30,099 --> 01:09:31,233 I think he's kind of viewed 256 01:09:31,233 --> 01:09:35,004 as kind of the intellectual kind of 257 01:09:35,004 --> 01:09:37,907 figureheads in the reformist camp of how 258 01:09:38,874 --> 01:09:42,211 gambling legislation should be reshaped. 259 01:09:43,078 --> 01:09:44,914 He's not a prohibitionist, 260 01:09:44,914 --> 01:09:46,315 he doesn't support a blanket 261 01:09:46,315 --> 01:09:49,018 ban on advertising but what he does want 262 01:09:49,018 --> 01:09:51,186 is much stricter 263 01:09:51,186 --> 01:09:52,855 protections at the consumer level. 264 01:09:53,222 --> 01:09:57,059 He wants to advocate for consumer redress 265 01:09:57,059 --> 01:09:58,794 in terms of a gambling 266 01:09:58,794 --> 01:10:02,765 ombudsman and not and I think part 267 01:10:02,831 --> 01:10:05,734 of the reason why they backed the 268 01:10:05,734 --> 01:10:07,870 affordability checks is because it's 269 01:10:07,870 --> 01:10:09,371 going to kind of plug in 270 01:10:09,905 --> 01:10:12,641 with what the SMF think should be the 271 01:10:12,641 --> 01:10:16,011 wider scheme for UK gambling to get data 272 01:10:16,011 --> 01:10:17,212 sharing practices or 273 01:10:17,212 --> 01:10:19,448 a data shared scheme between the 274 01:10:19,448 --> 01:10:24,987 operators and the UKGC as the big 275 01:10:24,987 --> 01:10:27,656 technical goal of the review. 276 01:10:27,690 --> 01:10:34,263 And Noyes wrote this, he aired his 277 01:10:34,263 --> 01:10:36,498 opinion in an open letter to Lisa Nandy 278 01:10:37,533 --> 01:10:41,237 who is the Secretary of State for Culture 279 01:10:41,237 --> 01:10:43,005 Media and Sport which has 280 01:10:43,005 --> 01:10:45,441 oversight of gambling in the UK. 281 01:10:46,775 --> 01:10:48,444 What's the government stance on this? 282 01:10:48,677 --> 01:10:50,212 Have we heard anything from 283 01:10:50,212 --> 01:10:51,847 DCMS or the Gambling Commission 284 01:10:52,014 --> 01:10:55,084 in response to Noyes' communications? Ted 285 01:10:55,084 --> 01:10:56,218 O'See have you heard anything? 286 01:10:57,186 --> 01:10:59,288 Not yet, no I don't think anything has 287 01:10:59,288 --> 01:11:01,890 come out. I think we can 288 01:11:01,890 --> 01:11:03,492 probably expect the government to 289 01:11:04,093 --> 01:11:05,995 continue toeing the line that it has done 290 01:11:05,995 --> 01:11:06,929 for a while. They wanted to 291 01:11:06,929 --> 01:11:09,565 see the recommendations of 292 01:11:09,565 --> 01:11:11,166 the Gambling Act review seen out. 293 01:11:11,533 --> 01:11:13,435 Obviously that review was a really 294 01:11:13,435 --> 01:11:14,937 lengthy process as we mentioned 295 01:11:14,937 --> 01:11:17,439 earlier. It started in December 2020, 296 01:11:17,840 --> 01:11:19,208 ended with the publication of 297 01:11:19,208 --> 01:11:21,343 the white paper in April 2023 298 01:11:21,677 --> 01:11:23,345 and the recommendations are still being 299 01:11:23,345 --> 01:11:25,214 adopted. I don't really think the 300 01:11:25,214 --> 01:11:26,048 government has much of an 301 01:11:26,148 --> 01:11:28,851 appetite, especially with loads of other 302 01:11:28,851 --> 01:11:30,853 considerations and priorities right now, 303 01:11:31,120 --> 01:11:35,324 to really get stuck back into things like 304 01:11:35,324 --> 01:11:37,860 that. The Gambling Commission has 305 01:11:37,860 --> 01:11:39,128 reiterated a lot over 306 01:11:39,128 --> 01:11:41,030 the past year or so that these financial 307 01:11:41,030 --> 01:11:42,564 risk checks shouldn't be 308 01:11:42,564 --> 01:11:43,699 considered affordability 309 01:11:43,999 --> 01:11:45,834 checks in the same sense. They're meant 310 01:11:45,834 --> 01:11:49,004 to be very light touch. I 311 01:11:49,004 --> 01:11:50,306 think it's quite confident 312 01:11:50,406 --> 01:11:52,975 that they are frictionless. However, it 313 01:11:52,975 --> 01:11:58,213 did issue a statement sometime last year, 314 01:11:59,915 --> 01:12:03,652 in September last year, where this was 315 01:12:03,652 --> 01:12:04,987 part of a wider assessment it 316 01:12:04,987 --> 01:12:06,255 was doing of looking at what 317 01:12:06,255 --> 01:12:08,357 regulatory practices and what operator 318 01:12:08,357 --> 01:12:11,994 practices might be causing the most 319 01:12:11,994 --> 01:12:14,430 customer grievances. 320 01:12:14,797 --> 01:12:17,466 And one of the things they did mention in 321 01:12:17,466 --> 01:12:19,968 there was that financial 322 01:12:19,968 --> 01:12:22,171 vulnerability checks could be 323 01:12:22,171 --> 01:12:24,673 a regulatory practice that could drive 324 01:12:24,673 --> 01:12:26,909 customers to unregulated 325 01:12:26,909 --> 01:12:29,645 platforms perhaps, which was 326 01:12:29,645 --> 01:12:30,946 something obviously the industry has been 327 01:12:30,946 --> 01:12:32,448 arguing for some time. I 328 01:12:32,448 --> 01:12:33,349 think the commission has 329 01:12:33,749 --> 01:12:35,451 kind of recognized in the past the 330 01:12:35,451 --> 01:12:37,219 potential drawbacks of 331 01:12:37,219 --> 01:12:38,387 this measure, but overall 332 01:12:39,054 --> 01:12:41,123 is quite confident in what they're doing 333 01:12:41,123 --> 01:12:42,558 with it as one of the 334 01:12:42,558 --> 01:12:44,059 flagship measures of the 335 01:12:44,226 --> 01:12:47,229 Gambling Act review. I think you're going 336 01:12:47,229 --> 01:12:48,630 to look at DCMS's 337 01:12:48,630 --> 01:12:50,466 treatment and oversight of the 338 01:12:50,466 --> 01:12:52,801 Gambling review and anytime it's asked a 339 01:12:52,801 --> 01:12:54,169 direct question, especially in 340 01:12:54,169 --> 01:12:55,170 affordability checks, 341 01:12:56,071 --> 01:13:00,876 it just reverts back to its script of we 342 01:13:00,876 --> 01:13:01,710 believe that the check 343 01:13:01,710 --> 01:13:03,011 should be proportionate 344 01:13:03,278 --> 01:13:07,216 and frictionless. And I think we're given 345 01:13:07,216 --> 01:13:10,352 any cap. We could be 346 01:13:10,352 --> 01:13:12,087 getting to an end of year where 347 01:13:12,387 --> 01:13:14,556 we were told 2026 was the year of 348 01:13:14,556 --> 01:13:18,060 application and implementation. And we've 349 01:13:18,060 --> 01:13:19,094 now reviewed the levy 350 01:13:19,695 --> 01:13:23,565 and affordability checks. I don't think 351 01:13:23,565 --> 01:13:26,568 this department's filling its mandate. 352 01:13:28,737 --> 01:13:30,506 Yeah, we don't want to open up old wounds 353 01:13:30,506 --> 01:13:32,908 of the white paper or the 354 01:13:32,908 --> 01:13:34,009 Gambling Act review, because 355 01:13:34,476 --> 01:13:36,745 I think I can speak for all of us in the 356 01:13:36,745 --> 01:13:38,046 entire industry when I say 357 01:13:38,046 --> 01:13:39,748 we spent a little bit too long 358 01:13:40,182 --> 01:13:43,352 reporting on that storyline. But Ted, 359 01:13:43,585 --> 01:13:44,887 Ted, let's go to a quick 360 01:13:44,887 --> 01:13:46,422 break and then we'll analyze 361 01:13:47,055 --> 01:13:50,426 what this means and what we can glean 362 01:13:50,426 --> 01:13:52,027 about the future. So 363 01:13:52,027 --> 01:13:52,928 join us after the break. 364 01:13:54,196 --> 01:13:58,066 Welcome back to iGaming Daily. Now, you 365 01:13:58,066 --> 01:14:01,036 know I like to sort of exaggerate a 366 01:14:01,036 --> 01:14:02,671 little bit when I write 367 01:14:02,671 --> 01:14:04,807 the scripts for these things. So I like 368 01:14:04,807 --> 01:14:05,607 to take two polar 369 01:14:05,607 --> 01:14:07,176 opposites and then invite my 370 01:14:07,676 --> 01:14:09,344 esteemed colleagues to add a little bit 371 01:14:09,344 --> 01:14:11,980 of nuance. So I guess to 372 01:14:11,980 --> 01:14:13,415 kick us off for this debate, 373 01:14:14,349 --> 01:14:16,618 Ted M, what can we read into this 374 01:14:16,618 --> 01:14:19,888 situation? Does this sort of damage the 375 01:14:19,888 --> 01:14:22,157 credibility of those 376 01:14:22,157 --> 01:14:26,128 reformists who wanted to implement these 377 01:14:26,128 --> 01:14:27,229 affordability checks 378 01:14:27,229 --> 01:14:28,864 only for them to roll 379 01:14:28,864 --> 01:14:31,967 back on their ideas a few years later? Or 380 01:14:31,967 --> 01:14:33,035 on the other hand, does it 381 01:14:33,035 --> 01:14:34,002 show that they're sort of 382 01:14:34,203 --> 01:14:36,572 empirical and data-led and follow the 383 01:14:36,572 --> 01:14:39,208 evidence? No, I agree with 384 01:14:39,208 --> 01:14:40,275 you. I think there is a bit of 385 01:14:40,275 --> 01:14:44,179 damage there. And I think if you look at 386 01:14:44,179 --> 01:14:47,950 the the SMF and the way 387 01:14:47,950 --> 01:14:50,252 that they kind of pigeonholed 388 01:14:50,252 --> 01:14:53,622 gambling and what they wanted and kind of 389 01:14:53,622 --> 01:14:55,190 did lobby out the very 390 01:14:55,190 --> 01:14:56,425 senior figures in parliament 391 01:14:56,658 --> 01:14:59,628 to support their mandates. Now to have 392 01:14:59,628 --> 01:15:04,132 that kind of, you know, to go back and 393 01:15:04,132 --> 01:15:05,434 then we're now at the 394 01:15:05,434 --> 01:15:07,603 kind of the technical phase of the 395 01:15:07,603 --> 01:15:11,206 implementation of the key 396 01:15:11,206 --> 01:15:12,708 measures of the gambling review. 397 01:15:13,308 --> 01:15:14,943 And those of them seem to be progressing 398 01:15:14,943 --> 01:15:16,111 and I don't necessarily 399 01:15:16,111 --> 01:15:17,980 think that this is just the 400 01:15:18,013 --> 01:15:22,417 fault of the UKGC. The pilot is there to, 401 01:15:22,417 --> 01:15:25,254 you know, draft out or to 402 01:15:25,254 --> 01:15:27,322 highlight the practicality 403 01:15:27,523 --> 01:15:31,260 of putting this system in place. I think 404 01:15:31,260 --> 01:15:32,294 part of the problem is that 405 01:15:32,294 --> 01:15:33,729 affordability checks sounded 406 01:15:33,762 --> 01:15:36,732 great on paper and we're now finding out 407 01:15:36,732 --> 01:15:37,833 that the practicality is much 408 01:15:37,833 --> 01:15:41,670 harder. And also that if you 409 01:15:41,904 --> 01:15:45,240 we go back to consultation is that I 410 01:15:45,240 --> 01:15:47,276 think that affordability 411 01:15:47,276 --> 01:15:48,377 checks what kind of view there's 412 01:15:48,377 --> 01:15:51,413 this kind of panacea to every issue on 413 01:15:51,413 --> 01:15:53,148 the protection of the 414 01:15:53,148 --> 01:15:55,384 general consumer. The focus 415 01:15:55,384 --> 01:15:56,752 here should have been in a much bigger 416 01:15:56,752 --> 01:15:58,353 kind of big data play, 417 01:15:58,987 --> 01:16:00,689 data sharing, or just saying, 418 01:16:00,689 --> 01:16:02,691 look, who do we think are the vulnerable 419 01:16:02,691 --> 01:16:04,226 players? What are their 420 01:16:04,226 --> 01:16:06,395 triggers? What are kind of like 421 01:16:07,296 --> 01:16:10,332 the trends that we can see in play and 422 01:16:10,332 --> 01:16:11,767 improve kind of oversight 423 01:16:11,767 --> 01:16:14,336 there? I don't think that the 424 01:16:14,336 --> 01:16:16,605 SMF presented kind of any alternatives 425 01:16:16,605 --> 01:16:19,274 other than it's affordability checks or 426 01:16:19,274 --> 01:16:20,909 the the gamma review 427 01:16:21,043 --> 01:16:26,348 is trashed. Ted or C, come jump in here 428 01:16:26,348 --> 01:16:28,450 if you want. Yeah, I think 429 01:16:28,450 --> 01:16:30,085 it's hard to disagree with 430 01:16:30,319 --> 01:16:31,954 Ted's point there, given the 431 01:16:31,954 --> 01:16:34,056 affordability checks or financial risk 432 01:16:34,056 --> 01:16:35,724 checks as they became in the 433 01:16:35,757 --> 01:16:41,663 white paper were really the main thing 434 01:16:41,663 --> 01:16:42,631 that the SMF was 435 01:16:42,631 --> 01:16:44,833 calling for all those years. 436 01:16:45,767 --> 01:16:47,169 Again, I guess it is important to 437 01:16:47,169 --> 01:16:51,106 reiterate that James Noyes has stated 438 01:16:51,106 --> 01:16:52,407 this is his opinion and 439 01:16:52,407 --> 01:16:56,011 not that of SMF. Although, I mean, to a 440 01:16:56,011 --> 01:16:56,812 lot of people it will be 441 01:16:56,812 --> 01:16:59,715 hard to separate the two, 442 01:17:00,882 --> 01:17:03,385 given his role in the think tank over the 443 01:17:03,385 --> 01:17:04,653 past few years as well. 444 01:17:05,787 --> 01:17:09,458 Yeah, it is a bit damaging to their 445 01:17:09,458 --> 01:17:10,325 arguments. Obviously, it does 446 01:17:10,325 --> 01:17:13,128 also come after not that long 447 01:17:13,128 --> 01:17:15,530 after the whole debate about taxes last 448 01:17:15,530 --> 01:17:16,398 year that I was mentioning 449 01:17:16,398 --> 01:17:18,133 earlier in the SMF's role in that. 450 01:17:18,500 --> 01:17:22,104 So I think a lot of gambling stakeholders 451 01:17:22,104 --> 01:17:24,206 might be rolling 452 01:17:24,206 --> 01:17:25,374 their eyes a bit at this. 453 01:17:27,175 --> 01:17:30,312 Yeah, absolutely. Here's another point 454 01:17:30,312 --> 01:17:32,180 that I guess would have 455 01:17:32,180 --> 01:17:33,115 been brought up by many in 456 01:17:33,115 --> 01:17:35,250 the industry during the consultation 457 01:17:35,250 --> 01:17:37,152 periods and things like that. 458 01:17:37,552 --> 01:17:39,354 This idea that affordability 459 01:17:39,588 --> 01:17:42,524 checks would be fantastic if they were 460 01:17:42,524 --> 01:17:44,826 non-intrusive, was that 461 01:17:44,826 --> 01:17:46,094 always a little bit fanciful? 462 01:17:47,462 --> 01:17:49,331 By the nature of these checks, there has 463 01:17:49,331 --> 01:17:50,332 to be some friction, 464 01:17:50,599 --> 01:17:51,933 right? Can they always be, 465 01:17:51,933 --> 01:17:54,636 or can they ever be truly frictionless? 466 01:17:55,203 --> 01:17:57,339 How can they not be intrusive, Ted or C? 467 01:17:57,372 --> 01:18:05,747 Okay. So in the white paper, the main 468 01:18:05,747 --> 01:18:07,049 thing that the Gambling 469 01:18:07,049 --> 01:18:09,484 Commission was banking on, 470 01:18:09,484 --> 01:18:12,154 no pun intended, apologies, was open 471 01:18:12,154 --> 01:18:13,689 banking and the use of that 472 01:18:13,689 --> 01:18:15,123 technology of those practices 473 01:18:15,590 --> 01:18:20,395 as a way to seamlessly share data from a 474 01:18:20,395 --> 01:18:21,663 customer, their banking 475 01:18:21,663 --> 01:18:22,964 provider and the operator 476 01:18:24,066 --> 01:18:26,935 without the need for customers to then be 477 01:18:26,935 --> 01:18:29,371 directly handing over pay 478 01:18:29,371 --> 01:18:31,273 slips and bank statements and 479 01:18:32,007 --> 01:18:34,476 proof of income and things like that, 480 01:18:34,476 --> 01:18:35,610 which a lot of personal 481 01:18:35,610 --> 01:18:36,912 information that people wouldn't be 482 01:18:36,912 --> 01:18:39,281 happy sharing with an operator or any 483 01:18:39,281 --> 01:18:43,752 other third party really. I think they 484 01:18:43,752 --> 01:18:44,753 really need to prove 485 01:18:44,753 --> 01:18:47,722 that that can work properly to prove that 486 01:18:47,722 --> 01:18:49,291 these are non-intrusive. 487 01:18:49,891 --> 01:18:51,126 But again, to many people, 488 01:18:51,393 --> 01:18:52,828 a bit like what you've just mentioned, 489 01:18:53,095 --> 01:18:57,065 Charlie, to a lot of people, the notion 490 01:18:57,065 --> 01:18:57,933 of sharing something 491 01:18:57,933 --> 01:18:59,468 via open banking is still going to come 492 01:18:59,468 --> 01:19:00,268 across as intrusive. 493 01:19:00,535 --> 01:19:02,504 People are understandably very 494 01:19:02,504 --> 01:19:04,673 protective and very cagey about sharing 495 01:19:04,673 --> 01:19:06,675 financial information, personal 496 01:19:06,675 --> 01:19:08,376 information, those sort of 497 01:19:08,376 --> 01:19:13,949 details with anyone, whether it's a major 498 01:19:13,949 --> 01:19:18,587 operator or not. It's a very 499 01:19:18,587 --> 01:19:20,455 hard thing to prove, I think, 500 01:19:20,489 --> 01:19:21,823 that they are going to be non-intrusive. 501 01:19:22,224 --> 01:19:23,125 I guess the figure though 502 01:19:23,125 --> 01:19:24,693 that the UK Gambling Commission 503 01:19:25,360 --> 01:19:28,063 will hinge on quite a lot is the fact 504 01:19:28,063 --> 01:19:30,966 that it only applies to a very, very 505 01:19:30,966 --> 01:19:32,367 small fraction of people 506 01:19:32,734 --> 01:19:35,871 who meet these thresholds. The battle 507 01:19:35,871 --> 01:19:37,072 then is just this minority 508 01:19:37,072 --> 01:19:38,206 of people whose thresholds, 509 01:19:38,406 --> 01:19:40,809 who do meet the thresholds, how can you 510 01:19:40,809 --> 01:19:41,676 prove to them that it's 511 01:19:41,676 --> 01:19:42,677 going to be non-intrusive? 512 01:19:43,178 --> 01:19:45,747 That's the big question here and it's a 513 01:19:45,747 --> 01:19:46,715 really, really difficult one. 514 01:19:47,682 --> 01:19:49,718 There's always been so many liabilities 515 01:19:49,718 --> 01:19:54,156 on that transparency of who are that, 516 01:19:54,156 --> 01:19:56,892 kind of 0.05% of people that are going to 517 01:19:56,892 --> 01:19:58,326 be chased. The 518 01:19:58,326 --> 01:20:00,829 Commission even with the pilot 519 01:20:00,829 --> 01:20:03,598 program is yet to answer that. So we 520 01:20:03,598 --> 01:20:04,399 haven't even seen it 521 01:20:04,399 --> 01:20:05,901 transferred to a live environment. 522 01:20:06,801 --> 01:20:12,741 Again, going back to that mistake where I 523 01:20:12,741 --> 01:20:16,545 think what the 524 01:20:16,545 --> 01:20:18,446 Commission fundamentally got wrong 525 01:20:19,281 --> 01:20:22,484 was that it put all its basket, put a 526 01:20:22,484 --> 01:20:23,919 significant amount of eggs 527 01:20:23,919 --> 01:20:26,555 in the basket of affordability 528 01:20:26,655 --> 01:20:29,391 shakes. That was a measure that was 529 01:20:29,391 --> 01:20:31,226 transferred from its view 530 01:20:31,226 --> 01:20:33,595 that it wanted this mandate to 531 01:20:33,695 --> 01:20:37,599 create a single view of the player in 532 01:20:37,599 --> 01:20:40,969 this decade. I think how it 533 01:20:40,969 --> 01:20:41,870 just stepped up to that program 534 01:20:41,870 --> 01:20:43,438 and said the affordability checks are 535 01:20:43,438 --> 01:20:45,674 part of that remit, not of 536 01:20:45,674 --> 01:20:47,275 the Gambling Review. I think 537 01:20:47,275 --> 01:20:50,478 that there would have been better grounds 538 01:20:50,478 --> 01:20:53,815 to test the long-term viability of 539 01:20:53,815 --> 01:20:54,850 affordability checks 540 01:20:55,183 --> 01:20:57,652 and how can you roll it out, how it's 541 01:20:57,652 --> 01:20:59,287 going to be implemented over not 542 01:20:59,287 --> 01:21:00,589 necessarily a period of 543 01:21:00,722 --> 01:21:03,024 six months, but over a period of however 544 01:21:03,024 --> 01:21:05,627 long it needed, two years, three years, 545 01:21:05,627 --> 01:21:07,395 how to get it in by the end of the decade 546 01:21:07,395 --> 01:21:09,030 and how to actually work 547 01:21:09,030 --> 01:21:12,234 with UK finance on applying the 548 01:21:12,234 --> 01:21:16,071 best checks. I think what we're learning 549 01:21:16,071 --> 01:21:17,272 here and particularly over the 550 01:21:17,272 --> 01:21:18,406 conversations that we've had 551 01:21:18,406 --> 01:21:20,342 over the last week or so, Ted, is that 552 01:21:20,342 --> 01:21:22,844 organisations just need 553 01:21:22,844 --> 01:21:24,012 to talk to each other more. 554 01:21:24,246 --> 01:21:27,215 But it seems like a very difficult task 555 01:21:27,215 --> 01:21:29,784 bringing people into a consensus. 556 01:21:33,588 --> 01:21:36,725 One outcome of this that I have thought 557 01:21:36,725 --> 01:21:40,595 about is, is this a big win for the 558 01:21:40,595 --> 01:21:42,430 industry and in particular 559 01:21:43,031 --> 01:21:45,066 the BGC, the Better New Gaming Council? 560 01:21:45,634 --> 01:21:47,335 Because over the last six 561 01:21:47,335 --> 01:21:50,138 months on the show, we've maybe 562 01:21:50,171 --> 01:21:54,776 taken a little bit of a not critical view 563 01:21:54,776 --> 01:21:56,544 of some of the BGC's 564 01:21:56,544 --> 01:21:58,313 actions, but we've questioned 565 01:21:58,880 --> 01:22:00,615 their approach sometimes. But do you 566 01:22:00,615 --> 01:22:02,717 think this is a win for the 567 01:22:02,717 --> 01:22:04,019 industry and those who have long 568 01:22:04,019 --> 01:22:05,921 argued that stringent measures would 569 01:22:05,921 --> 01:22:08,056 ultimately send players to the black 570 01:22:08,056 --> 01:22:10,358 market? Ted M, you're 571 01:22:10,358 --> 01:22:12,594 looking a little bit curious on this one. 572 01:22:12,594 --> 01:22:13,361 Do you want to take this 573 01:22:13,361 --> 01:22:14,696 one first? Well, I mean, you 574 01:22:14,729 --> 01:22:18,233 could say it's nice to say I told you so, 575 01:22:18,233 --> 01:22:20,468 but it doesn't feel like a 576 01:22:20,468 --> 01:22:24,205 win. And again, we're doing 577 01:22:24,205 --> 01:22:26,708 about the BGC and that's another 578 01:22:26,708 --> 01:22:28,843 organisation that's going through a 579 01:22:28,843 --> 01:22:30,111 transition phase at the 580 01:22:30,111 --> 01:22:33,815 moment, post gambling review, and that 581 01:22:33,815 --> 01:22:35,550 it's kind of looking at the 582 01:22:35,550 --> 01:22:38,953 next era of UK online gambling 583 01:22:39,120 --> 01:22:42,657 and what part it plays in there. And I 584 01:22:42,657 --> 01:22:43,258 think it's where 585 01:22:43,258 --> 01:22:45,093 political sensitivities like, yes, 586 01:22:45,961 --> 01:22:48,430 look, affordability checks might not work 587 01:22:48,430 --> 01:22:50,966 out, but I think that 588 01:22:50,966 --> 01:22:52,567 the BGC has to kind of 589 01:22:53,735 --> 01:22:55,837 live in these political circles and isn't 590 01:22:55,837 --> 01:22:57,572 going to rock the boat. I 591 01:22:57,572 --> 01:22:58,473 don't think there'll be kind 592 01:22:58,473 --> 01:23:03,511 of any cheers from their side. Ted or C, 593 01:23:03,511 --> 01:23:04,612 do you think that this 594 01:23:04,612 --> 01:23:07,749 whole story really is a case of 595 01:23:08,550 --> 01:23:12,487 be careful what you wish for on the side 596 01:23:12,487 --> 01:23:15,323 of the reformist side of the debate? 597 01:23:16,791 --> 01:23:18,793 Perhaps, yeah. I mean, kind of relating 598 01:23:18,793 --> 01:23:19,828 it to the question you just 599 01:23:19,828 --> 01:23:22,330 asked that Ted has mentioned, 600 01:23:23,231 --> 01:23:27,168 sorry, I'd imagine a few people in the 601 01:23:27,168 --> 01:23:27,969 industry are feeling 602 01:23:27,969 --> 01:23:29,471 vindicated, even though they won't 603 01:23:29,471 --> 01:23:31,873 be very happy to be vindicated about 604 01:23:31,873 --> 01:23:35,443 something like this as Ted alluded to. 605 01:23:37,779 --> 01:23:40,081 There's always, the industry makes this 606 01:23:40,081 --> 01:23:42,050 argument a lot and people 607 01:23:42,050 --> 01:23:43,952 often talk down of it. And we 608 01:23:43,952 --> 01:23:45,787 have said on the podcast before that we 609 01:23:45,787 --> 01:23:46,521 think sometimes the 610 01:23:46,521 --> 01:23:47,922 industry relies too heavily on 611 01:23:47,922 --> 01:23:51,860 the black market argument against over 612 01:23:51,860 --> 01:23:54,062 regulation, over taxation and stuff. But 613 01:23:54,062 --> 01:23:54,929 yeah, there is always 614 01:23:54,929 --> 01:23:56,931 that to consider the idea that if 615 01:23:56,931 --> 01:23:58,700 something has brought in the 616 01:23:58,700 --> 01:24:00,268 customers' reality badly too, 617 01:24:00,268 --> 01:24:01,803 they will look elsewhere to find the 618 01:24:01,803 --> 01:24:02,804 products that they want, 619 01:24:02,804 --> 01:24:03,805 find the betting markets that 620 01:24:03,872 --> 01:24:05,673 they want and so on. And those might be 621 01:24:05,673 --> 01:24:07,976 provided by someone that is 622 01:24:07,976 --> 01:24:10,045 unlicensed, isn't paying taxes, 623 01:24:10,045 --> 01:24:11,379 isn't subject to the same player 624 01:24:11,379 --> 01:24:13,548 protection standards and things like 625 01:24:13,548 --> 01:24:14,449 that. And ultimately 626 01:24:14,449 --> 01:24:16,217 that is more detriment of the customer 627 01:24:16,217 --> 01:24:17,685 and the market. That argument 628 01:24:17,685 --> 01:24:19,354 does have some merits to it. 629 01:24:19,788 --> 01:24:21,389 And yeah, I think some people will 630 01:24:21,389 --> 01:24:22,290 probably be feeling 631 01:24:22,290 --> 01:24:26,694 vindicated by this. But ultimately, 632 01:24:26,995 --> 01:24:29,064 this is just a statement from James 633 01:24:29,064 --> 01:24:30,732 Noyes, just this is one 634 01:24:30,732 --> 01:24:31,566 individual, this isn't 635 01:24:32,167 --> 01:24:35,703 the the Gamba reform lobby at large. 636 01:24:36,504 --> 01:24:37,338 There'll be a lot of 637 01:24:37,338 --> 01:24:38,506 people who still have arguments 638 01:24:40,074 --> 01:24:43,545 in favor of these checks. This and 639 01:24:43,545 --> 01:24:44,946 coupled with some of the 640 01:24:44,946 --> 01:24:46,848 feedback we've heard about the 641 01:24:47,115 --> 01:24:49,284 new research education and treatment levy 642 01:24:49,284 --> 01:24:51,386 and some of the 643 01:24:51,386 --> 01:24:53,121 difficult transitions that have 644 01:24:53,354 --> 01:24:56,658 come about through that. Yeah, there's 645 01:24:56,658 --> 01:24:58,393 probably a few people who like Ted said, 646 01:24:58,393 --> 01:25:02,063 will be thinking, we told you so. I think 647 01:25:02,063 --> 01:25:04,799 it just really reflects 648 01:25:04,799 --> 01:25:05,967 the complexities of some 649 01:25:05,967 --> 01:25:08,470 of these things and some of the drastic 650 01:25:08,470 --> 01:25:09,471 changes that we're seeing 651 01:25:09,471 --> 01:25:10,271 in the industry throughout 652 01:25:10,271 --> 01:25:12,707 this decade. I'm just wary that we're 653 01:25:12,707 --> 01:25:13,842 running out of time, but Ted 654 01:25:13,842 --> 01:25:16,010 M, I'll give the final word to 655 01:25:16,010 --> 01:25:19,848 you. How do you think this whole debate, 656 01:25:20,215 --> 01:25:21,449 because it is a debate and 657 01:25:21,449 --> 01:25:23,251 as Ted also says, it's just 658 01:25:23,852 --> 01:25:26,521 the voice of one person involved in this 659 01:25:26,521 --> 01:25:28,089 debate, but it is something that's 660 01:25:28,089 --> 01:25:29,224 rumbled on for a while. 661 01:25:29,924 --> 01:25:31,793 How does this reflect on the governments 662 01:25:31,793 --> 01:25:34,095 and multiple governments gambling 663 01:25:34,095 --> 01:25:35,263 regulation strategy, 664 01:25:35,597 --> 01:25:38,066 because this is an amalgamation of 665 01:25:38,066 --> 01:25:39,033 stories that we've been 666 01:25:39,033 --> 01:25:41,302 talking about over the period of, 667 01:25:42,003 --> 01:25:43,271 I mean, you could say six months, you 668 01:25:43,271 --> 01:25:43,972 could say five years. 669 01:25:44,639 --> 01:25:49,444 It's a hard question to close today's 670 01:25:49,444 --> 01:25:53,381 podcast on. I can only reflect on, and 671 01:25:53,381 --> 01:25:55,016 I'll put this back to 672 01:25:55,016 --> 01:25:57,585 Ted OC here. You can only reflect on what 673 01:25:57,585 --> 01:26:00,021 you see. And again, this is 674 01:26:00,021 --> 01:26:02,891 going back to how does DCMS 675 01:26:02,891 --> 01:26:06,127 reply anytime it gets asked the question 676 01:26:06,127 --> 01:26:06,761 about UK gambling 677 01:26:06,761 --> 01:26:09,264 regulations, it just points back to the 678 01:26:09,264 --> 01:26:11,032 gambling review and says that they're 679 01:26:11,032 --> 01:26:12,066 waiting for the measures to be 680 01:26:12,066 --> 01:26:13,835 implemented. And then they can 681 01:26:13,835 --> 01:26:16,304 just point the UK, GC and say, Hey guys, 682 01:26:16,304 --> 01:26:19,274 it's on you. And we're only 683 01:26:19,274 --> 01:26:20,441 implementing the measures that 684 01:26:20,441 --> 01:26:26,581 they wanted. It's reflective of other 685 01:26:26,581 --> 01:26:29,384 markets. And I was actually 686 01:26:29,384 --> 01:26:30,385 thinking about this today, 687 01:26:30,852 --> 01:26:33,188 and following the levy, following the tax 688 01:26:33,188 --> 01:26:35,957 fees that I think UK 689 01:26:35,957 --> 01:26:38,927 gambling is on the platform and 690 01:26:38,993 --> 01:26:42,197 it's waiting for a very, very slow train. 691 01:26:43,731 --> 01:26:46,334 And all the poor times are saying 692 01:26:46,334 --> 01:26:47,769 everything's delayed. 693 01:26:51,072 --> 01:26:53,107 Not only delayed, but destination 694 01:26:53,107 --> 01:26:55,743 unknown. You said it. 695 01:26:56,377 --> 01:27:00,014 Yeah, I think that's a great place to 696 01:27:00,014 --> 01:27:01,816 leave it. So thanks a lot, 697 01:27:01,816 --> 01:27:03,451 Ted and Ted here in the studio 698 01:27:03,518 --> 01:27:05,587 for joining me on this one today. And 699 01:27:05,587 --> 01:27:08,156 thank you to OptiMove, our sponsor for 700 01:27:08,156 --> 01:27:09,090 supporting the show. 701 01:27:09,524 --> 01:27:11,826 And thank you to our audience for tuning 702 01:27:11,826 --> 01:27:13,928 into today's episode of iGaming Daily. 703 01:27:14,529 --> 01:27:16,164 And join us again tomorrow to keep up to 704 01:27:16,164 --> 01:27:16,664 date with all the 705 01:27:16,664 --> 01:27:18,433 latest global gambling news.