UKGC Withholds Operator Phone Numbers
Regulator cites risk to its functions in refusal to release a central list of gambling firm contact details.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused a Freedom of Information request for a central list of office phone numbers for all licensed operators. The regulator argued that releasing the data could harm its ability to regulate the industry effectively, though it confirmed other details like names and addresses are on its public register.
Article Content
UKGC Refuses to Release Central List of Operator Phone Numbers
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has withheld a central list of office phone numbers for all licensed online gambling companies, arguing that its disclosure would likely prejudice its ability to regulate the industry. The decision was revealed in the regulator's response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 24 April 2023.
Why This Matters for Consumers
For consumers, having a direct phone number for a gambling operator's registered office can be a vital tool for escalating serious complaints or for conducting due diligence, particularly when standard customer service channels are exhausted. The UKGC's decision means that a simple, centrally-verified list of these numbers will not be made available, leaving consumers to find this information through other means.
Breakdown of the FOI Response
The request asked for a complete list of online gambling companies, including their registered name, approved websites, office phone number, and registered business address.
In its response, the Commission explained that most of the requested information is already available to the public. It directed the requester to its public Register of gambling businesses, where anyone can find:
- The names of all licensed companies
- Registered head office addresses
- Approved domain names (websites)
However, the UKGC refused to provide the office phone numbers, citing an exemption under Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act. This section protects information if its release would be likely to prejudice a public authority's ability to carry out its functions.
The regulator stated that it relies on operators working in an "open and cooperative way" and providing detailed information with an expectation of confidence. The UKGC argued that operators might be less forthcoming if they believed this information would be released publicly, which would "impact on the ability of the Commission to effectively regulate."
The Public Interest Test
The Commission acknowledged a legitimate public interest in transparency and helping consumers make informed choices. However, it concluded that the potential damage to its regulatory relationships and functions outweighed the benefits of disclosure.
In its reasoning, the UKGC stated: "Disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest."
Significance for the Industry
This decision highlights the delicate balance the UKGC must strike between public transparency and its operational need for cooperation from the industry it oversees. While the Commission champions transparency, it has drawn a line where it believes disclosure could compromise its core mandate of protecting consumers by undermining its enforcement capabilities.
For consumers, the outcome reinforces the current process: key operator details are available on the public register, but for direct contact beyond standard customer support, individuals must rely on the information provided by the operators themselves.