UKGC Withholds Operator Assessment Criteria
Regulator refuses to release internal definitions for 'good' or 'adequate' operator ratings, citing risk to its regulatory functions.
The UK Gambling Commission has denied a Freedom of Information request for its internal guidance on assessing gambling licence applicants. The regulator argued that releasing its definitions for terms like 'good' or 'adequate' would allow operators to game the system. This decision limits public scrutiny of the Commission's due diligence process, a topic of interest following the collapse of BetIndex.
Article Content
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to release its internal guidance for assessing the suitability of gambling licence applicants, according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) response. The decision means the specific definitions the regulator uses for terms like 'good' or 'adequate' during due diligence will remain confidential.
The Request for Transparency
On 21 December 2021, a request was made for copies of any internal guidance or definitions the Commission holds regarding the 'outcomes' used in its assessment tables. The request specifically referenced a previous case concerning the collapsed operator BetIndex, indicating a public interest in understanding the rigour of the UKGC's due diligence process that led to the company being granted a licence in 2015.
For consumers, these definitions are crucial as they form the basis of the Commission's judgement on whether an operator is fit to offer gambling services safely and fairly in the UK. Understanding these benchmarks would provide insight into the standards operators are expected to meet to protect players.
The Commission's Refusal
The UKGC confirmed that it holds the requested information in the form of "internal guidance notes to aid staff in the assessment of applicants." However, it withheld the documents, citing section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
This exemption allows public authorities to withhold information if its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise of their functions. The Commission argued that releasing the detailed assessment criteria would reveal its methods and techniques.
In its response, the UKGC stated: "The amount of information released relating to our specific regulatory techniques is limited as this could lead to potentially non-compliant operators altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission standards purely for assessment purposes."
Essentially, the regulator fears that providing a detailed 'checklist' would allow bad actors to game the system, appearing compliant for their application without genuinely upholding the licensing objectives long-term.
Significance for Consumers
The Commission's decision highlights a fundamental tension between regulatory transparency and effectiveness. While the UKGC acknowledged a legitimate public interest in accountability, it concluded that this was outweighed by the need to protect its assessment process from being undermined.
For consumers, this means the precise standards used to vet gambling companies remain behind a curtain. While the UKGC maintains this secrecy ultimately protects players by making its checks more robust, it also limits public scrutiny of the Commission's own performance and decision-making, particularly in the context of major operator failures like BetIndex.
The individual who made the request has asked for an internal review of the decision, arguing that disclosure is in the public interest. The outcome of that review is currently pending.