In the last June's issue of GiocoNews magazine, I had already written about the subject of "Responsible Design", that is the one that is able to promote responsible gaming, both in the online and land-based environments. I wrote back then about the working group established in 2020 by the British regulator, the Gambling Commission, to analyze gaming design, which led to the ban on using Ldws (or "losses disguised as win") and automatic spins, as well as the introduction of a code of conduct dedicated to the design of the offer by the Betting and Gaming Council.
But apparently the interference in the gaming itself to limit its negative impact did not end there. After a long wait and multiple postponements of its publication for purely political reasons, the anticipated White Paper on gaming law reform has finally been released in Great Britain, introducing a number of proposals, many of which have been submitted for further consultation. The measures included in the white paper deal with various controls, limitations and restrictions (affordability, stake limits, Vip programmes), the introduction of a dedicated gambling ombudsman and new methods of sector funding for research, education and care (Ret); also forcing the regulator to carry out a review of the rules of gaming design, especially of its features that exacerbate the risks of unhealthy gaming.
We still know very little about the possible reform in terms of design interventions and whether the proposed changes will extend beyond the way gaming is served and controlled (for example with check-in or cool-down messages during the game, which already represent the rule in the offers of the majority of operators) and on the intervention towards the gaming mechanic itself, which would certainly have significant impacts.
Meanwhile, the White Paper offers us more specific information on the other points of the reform, which, even if it affects only British license holders, has global impacts and is being observed by regulators in other countries, even if some are now more advanced in the introduction of restrictive measures. Whether these measures are effective in achieving their goals remains to be proven, as industry representatives frequently point out.
A week after the release of the document, we gathered the Ampersand group to hear the first reactions and discuss possible impacts. Ampersand discussions follow Chatham House rules, which means that participants are not publicly identified and the content of discussions remains confidential. But without compromising this confidentiality, it does not surprise us that the reactions shared during the online meeting were different, from support for the ombudsman's office, for new rules for funding third sector organizations and even the relaxation of the limit number of slots in land-based establishments; on the other hand, other control and limitation measures have been met with skepticism, above all due to the lack of data showing their effectiveness. In addition to the lack of data to give us more confidence that the reform proposals will work well and produce a desired result, the group also hinted at the politicization of the regulatory process where decision makers - i.e. politicians, and sometimes even regulators - have a limited knowledge of the sector and its technical capabilities. Political targets, or in any case others of a public nature, such as gaming integrity and consumer protection, often prevail, as often happens in gaming, which is now a politically difficult, if not "toxic", topic. The ever more urgent issue then is to produce an evidence and data base that will help formulate the most informed and objective debate on such a divisive issue.
The risk is to cause unintended consequences, which are already occurring. For example, land-based betting agencies, which are subject to affordability checks, according to an Ampersand participant, have recently seen an increase in players and one interpretation may in fact be linked to the need for more verifications in the online space. The unintended, but more often mentioned, consequence is obviously that of migration to the illegal market, which works outside the rules, but which in no way respects consumer protection principles. No doubt we will hear this topic more and more, even when the conversation turns to gaming design, an area that has been rather protected until now.