UKGC Can't Track Sportsbook Complaint Data
Regulator cites cost and lack of data categorisation in response to a Freedom of Information request for detailed sportsbook complaint statistics.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed the UK Gambling Commission does not categorise customer complaints by specific sportsbook issues like 'cash out' or 'refusal to payout'. The regulator withheld the data, stating it would be too costly to manually review records, highlighting a significant gap in public data on betting disputes.
Article Content
Data on Specific Sportsbook Complaints Unavailable, Regulator Confirms
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) is unable to provide a detailed breakdown of customer complaints specific to sportsbook operations, a Freedom of Information (FOI) response has revealed. The regulator withheld the information, stating that its data systems do not categorise complaints in the manner requested, making retrieval too costly and time-consuming.
The request, dated 12 August 2024, asked for the number of customer complaints against sportsbook operators for each year since 2010. Crucially, it sought a breakdown by specific complaint types, such as 'Cash Out', 'Refusal to payout', and 'System failures'.
Why This Data Matters
For consumers, access to detailed complaint data provides vital insight into the most common issues faced by fellow bettors. Understanding whether problems with cash-out features, bet settlements, or payout refusals are on the rise helps customers make more informed decisions and highlights potential areas of concern within the industry. Without this data, it is difficult for the public and consumer protection organisations to identify trends or scrutinise the performance of the sportsbook sector.
Details of the FOI Response
The UKGC refused the request by invoking Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows public bodies to withhold information if the cost of providing it exceeds £450, equivalent to 18 hours of staff time.
In its response, the Commission explained that while it records details of complaints, its system has "no categorisation which would encompass the type of specific information you have described in your request."
To fulfil the request, the regulator would have to conduct a "manual review of each record" to identify and extract the relevant details. This process was estimated to take "in excess of 18 hours," thereby exceeding the cost limit.
The UKGC clarified its role as an industry regulator, not an ombudsman, stating it does not resolve individual complaints. Instead, it uses information from customers "to inform our work to raise gambling industry standards and make gambling fairer and safer."
Significance for the Industry
The response highlights a significant gap in the public availability of granular data on gambling complaints. While the UKGC collects this information to inform its regulatory approach, its inability to easily search and analyse it by specific complaint type raises questions about its capacity to proactively monitor emerging issues at a product-specific level.
For consumers and advocacy groups, this lack of structured, accessible data means that a key tool for holding the industry to account is unavailable. It prevents independent analysis of whether certain types of bets or platform features are generating a disproportionate number of disputes, limiting transparency in the UK's sports betting market.