UKGC Withholds Emails on Failed Operator Footstock
Regulator confirms it holds correspondence from the year before the platform's collapse but cites law enforcement exemptions to prevent disclosure.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed the UK Gambling Commission holds emails concerning the collapsed operator Footstock from the year prior to its failure. The regulator has refused to release the correspondence, citing exemptions related to its law enforcement and compliance functions.
Article Content
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed that the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) holds emails concerning the collapsed operator Footstock from the crucial 12-month period leading up to its failure. However, the regulator has refused to release the documents, citing exemptions designed to protect its regulatory and law enforcement functions.
The request, dated 15 August 2023, asked for all emails containing the word "Footstock" between 1 February 2020 and 31 January 2021. Footstock, a platform that blended fantasy football with a stock market-style mechanic, suspended its operations and surrendered its licence in March 2021, leaving many customers unable to access their funds.
The Commission's Response
In its official response, the UKGC confirmed that information falling within the scope of the request is held. This confirms that the regulator was discussing the operator internally for at least a year before it ceased trading.
Despite holding the information, the Commission has withheld it under section 31(1)g of the Freedom of Information Act, which relates to 'law enforcement'. The UKGC argued that disclosure would likely prejudice its ability to carry out its functions, specifically:
- Ascertaining if a person has failed to comply with the law.
- Investigating improper conduct.
- Determining if regulatory action is justified.
- Assessing an operator's fitness and competence to hold a licence.
Balancing Public Interest
The UKGC conducted a public interest test, acknowledging the need for transparency and accountability. It noted that disclosure could assure the public that it is carrying out its functions effectively.
However, the regulator ultimately argued that the public interest was better served by withholding the information. It stated that releasing details of its compliance and assessment processes could allow non-compliant operators to "alter their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes." This, it claimed, would undermine its ability to conduct effective regulation and protect consumers in the future.
An internal review requested by the applicant upheld the original decision, reiterating that protecting the integrity of its regulatory processes was paramount.
Significance for Consumers
The response confirms that Footstock was on the UKGC's radar during a critical period before its collapse. For consumers who lost money, the refusal to release the emails prevents public scrutiny of what the regulator knew about the operator's issues and what, if any, action was being considered. While the UKGC's position is to protect its ongoing regulatory methods, this case highlights the tension between operational confidentiality and public accountability following a significant operator failure.