Q&A: How GAMSTOP can be perfected

GAMSTOP, the UK’s first national self-exclusion scheme for gambling was unveiled in April 2018 to much fanfare and pomp. Since then over 50,000 individuals have registered for the scheme, choosing to self-exclude themselves from some of the UK’s biggest licensed gambling firms.

However, a BBC investigation recently revealed that individuals who had previously chosen to self-exclude could re-register for UK licensed gambling sites just by changing a few details in the registration process, throwing the efficacy of the scheme into doubt.

As GAMSTOP and the Gambling Commission scramble to plug the identified holes in the scheme with a combination of technological changes and regulatory changes, what will happen to the self-exclusion scheme in the long-term? Peter Murray, head of gaming at Alexem Services, speaks to EGR Compliance about the future.

EGR Compliance: If GAMSTOP continues to fail, what are the alternatives?

Peter Murray (PM): I think it is a little early to say GAMSTOP doesn’t work. Yes, clearly GAMSTOP has issues, however the idea and the intent are admirable and the people behind the project care greatly about what they are doing. OK so good intentions make no difference if the system is fatally flawed, but I don’t think this is. I think any alternative would just be re hashed version of this. So, let’s take what we have and make it fit for purpose.

The scope of the GAMSTOP project was originally to tie into the bulk of online operators but has ended up with it being a standalone system with operators still running their own independently. In this environment a gambler can exclude from one site but not others and not the main national one if they choose not to. There are issues around privacy and data protection to deal with, but this would seem to be an area that could be improved upon.

Self-exclusion is a hot topic in most jurisdictions around the world, with the likes of Sweden and Australia looking to implement their programmes and Malta has ambitious plans to launch a system that addresses the entire gaming sector in their jurisdiction and beyond and whilst this is  a much smaller project it will be interesting to see how those develop. However, one area I would agree with everyone yesterday is that this is a complex project and we know they never run smoothly! But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

EGR Compliance: Are you surprised that the scheme has had issues?

PM: I am certainly not surprised that the system showed flaws. We must be honest and admit there is no system in the world, no matter how sophisticated or technologically advanced that will be 100% foolproof. What was concerning, by everyone’s admission, was the ease with which it could be circumnavigated. I know the data market well and it has an inbuilt flexibility when it comes to matching names.

Often referred to as fuzzy matching (i.e. matching Rob to Robert or Pete to Peter) and sometimes allowing for slightly misspelt names as long as other data sources corroborate it, it is always going to have to allow for these unless it is tightened to only allow exact matches. That creates issues and barriers for anyone wanting to register and making it harder for people to sign up for self-exclusion is definitely not something we want to see happen.

Equally we don’t want to find genuine customers blocked because we have made the ID verification too wide which was one of the suggestions made in the investigation. So, it is a balance, and someone must decide how tight they want to make it. As mentioned earlier tying in the payment method (which is often the same for all an individual’s accounts) and restricting the use of credit cards are also options.

EGR Compliance: Should the GC go back to the drawing board with its proposals to amend the LCCP codes on ID verification?

PM: Difficult to say as we don’t know what they are yet! Neil McArthur said yesterday they are due to be released soon. Firstly, let’s find out what they are but they will no doubt involve some form of enhanced data checking with an affordability element. Source of wealth is something that simply has no one solution, so a reliable way of assessing affordability should be the goal. This is the route the payday loan sector went down, and I think it will be the natural step for gambling.

Then there is also the element of live data analysis and the wealth of data held by operators. There is a definite drive to trying to identify problem gambling traits, but it is trying to see the wood from the trees. However, there are traits problem gamblers display (chasing losses, loading accounts whilst in play, changing payment methods) that are already identifiable and once we have other reliable indicators of problem gambling behaviour operators should be able to monitor it in real time so that it can be picked up as it happens. Ensuring the use of emerging and existing technology that can support this should definitely be part of the Commissions approach.

One of my own personal problems with the sector is their failure to share meaningful data. This must be addressed. The industry has had long enough to embrace data sharing. Financial institutions do it, insurance companies do it, I can’t see any plausible reason why gambling is still resisting it. If other industries can do it for fraud, then surely the gambling sector can follow suit and try to adapt it to address problem gambling and protect the vulnerable.

So whilst the news over the weekend disappointed everyone, talk of failure or of scrapping it or trying a different route is not the way forward. Take what they have and build on it. Find the gaps and plug them. It will never be perfect, but it is far better than the system we have used since the advent of online gambling. Nothing.