UKGC Can't Track FOBT 'Loophole' Complaints
Regulator cites excessive cost to retrieve data on complaints about virtual sports and bingo being used to bypass stake limits.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused a Freedom of Information request for data on complaints about operators using alternative games to bypass FOBT stake limits. The regulator stated that retrieving the information would exceed cost limits, highlighting a potential gap in its data monitoring capabilities.
Article Content
UKGC Unable to Provide Data on FOBT Stake Limit Bypass Complaints
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has stated it is unable to provide information on complaints regarding the use of alternative betting formats to bypass historic stake limits, according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) response. The regulator refused the request, which sought data on potential regulatory loopholes, on the grounds that the cost of retrieving the information would be too high.
Context: The £2 Stake Limit
The request, dated 24 October 2024, sought to understand if the UKGC was aware of, or investigating, bookmakers using products like virtual sports and rapid-play bingo to circumvent the £2 per spin stake limit placed on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) in 2019. The FOBT stake reduction was a landmark consumer protection measure designed to reduce the potential for rapid, high-stakes losses in betting shops.
The inquiry asked four key questions:
- Are you aware of complaints or investigations into bookmakers using bingo and virtual sports to bypass the £2 spin limit?
- What measures are in place to monitor these alternative formats?
- Do you consider this a regulatory loophole and are restrictions being discussed?
- Has betting activity in these formats increased since the limit was enforced?
Details: Information Withheld Under Section 12
The Gambling Commission refused to provide the specific data requested, invoking Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. This section allows public bodies to deny requests where the cost of complying would exceed an £450 limit, which equates to approximately 18 hours of staff time.
In its response, the UKGC explained that while it records all consumer complaints, the specific details are logged in a 'free text' field. It stated there is "no general categorisation which would encompass the type of complaint" described in the request.
Therefore, to find the relevant information, the Commission would need to conduct a manual review of every individual complaint record, a task it estimates would take "in excess of 18 hours".
The regulator also noted that the FOIA does not require it to provide views or opinions, and therefore it could not answer whether it considers the practice an exploitation of a loophole.
Significance: A Gap in Regulatory Oversight?
The response highlights a potential limitation in the UKGC's data analysis capabilities. The inability to easily search for and categorise specific types of complaints could make it difficult for the regulator to identify and react to emerging trends or potential harms in the market.
For consumers, this means there is no publicly available data from the regulator on whether operators are using alternative high-frequency products to sidestep the spirit of the FOBT stake limit. While the UKGC confirmed it requires all remote operators to be licenced and adhere to its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), the lack of specific data on this issue creates a blind spot for the public and policymakers.
The refusal does not confirm or deny that such practices are occurring, but it reveals that the system for logging complaints is not structured to easily flag this specific concern.