UKGC Withholds Copybet Complaint Data
Regulator cites law enforcement exemption in response to a Freedom of Information request about the betting operator.
The UK Gambling Commission has declined to confirm or deny holding complaint data on Copybet, citing rules designed to protect its law enforcement functions. The response to a Freedom of Information request highlights the regulator's policy of not commenting on specific operators outside of formal public sanctions.
Article Content
Regulator Cites Enforcement Powers to Withhold Information
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to confirm or deny whether it holds complaint information about the operator Copybet, according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) response dated 3 January 2023. The regulator cited a law enforcement exemption, stating that releasing such details could prejudice its regulatory functions.
The request sought all information regarding complaints made to the Commission about Copybet UK Limited, as well as all information held on the company.
Why the Information Was Withheld
In its response, the UKGC explained its position on both parts of the request.
On Complaints: The Commission invoked Section 31(3) of the FOIA, which relates to law enforcement. It allows a public body to neither confirm nor deny holding information if doing so would likely prejudice its ability to investigate and regulate.
The UKGC argued that confirming or denying the existence of complaints could:
- Alert an operator to a potential investigation, allowing them to alter behaviour or evade detection.
- Discourage stakeholders from sharing sensitive information with the regulator in the future.
- Unfairly associate an operator with unsubstantiated allegations.
After conducting a public interest test, the Commission concluded that the public interest in protecting the integrity of its regulatory processes outweighed the interest in immediate disclosure.
On Company Information: The UKGC confirmed that it holds information on Copybet as part of its standard licensing and compliance procedures. However, it refused to release any non-public details, again citing the Section 31 law enforcement exemption. The regulator stated that disclosing its specific assessment techniques and discussions with a licensee could undermine its ability to effectively ascertain an operator's fitness to hold a licence.
What This Means for Consumers
This response highlights the UKGC's standard operating procedure. The Commission acts as an industry regulator, not a consumer ombudsman, and uses complaint data to inform its oversight and identify potential licence breaches rather than resolving individual disputes.
The regulator's refusal to comment on specific operators is a common practice designed to protect the integrity of potential or ongoing investigations. The UKGC will only release details about an operator's failings if and when it takes formal regulatory action, which is then published as a public statement or sanction.
For consumers researching an operator, this means that the absence of public information about complaints does not necessarily mean none exist. The most reliable source for an operator's regulatory track record remains the UKGC's public register of sanctions and fines, not FOI requests about complaints.