For a considerable time, discussions surrounding gambling regulation have followed a predictable pattern. Operators often express frustration that politicians introduce laws based on popular headlines, while regulators argue that the industry resists necessary oversight. Public health advocates maintain that commercial interests consistently undermine player safety.
In Prague, an innovative approach is taking shape with an aim to alter this dynamic. Recent findings indicate that illegal gambling is costing the Czech Republic approximately $15.9 million in lost tax revenues, exacerbated by estimated losses of around CZK14.5 billion per year from unlicensed operators.
The Institute for Gambling Regulation (IPRH) is presented as an industry association representing roughly 95% of the regulated gambling market in the Czech Republic. However, its director, Jan Řehola, emphasizes that it should be viewed as more than a traditional lobbying group. Instead, IPRH aspires to be a consistent platform for collaboration among operators, addiction specialists, behavioral economists, regulators, and government officials, aimed at developing evidence-based policies.
The success of this collaborative framework is yet to be determined, but it mirrors a notable trend unfolding in European gambling regulation: the understanding that neither governments nor operators have sufficient information independently to tackle complex issues such as illegal gambling, online harm, and cross-border player behavior.
At the center of IPRH’s efforts is its flagship initiative, known as IRIS, which encapsulates this philosophy effectively.
IRIS aims to create observable change.
Today's online gamblers rarely limit themselves to a single platform; many maintain multiple accounts, switching between sites and responding to various offers. However, operators only see a fragment of this activity, lacking visibility into the overall behavior of the same player across different platforms.
"The essence of IRIS is simple," says Řehola. "We approach gambling from the player’s perspective rather than that of the operator."
When a customer’s actions are viewed by just one operator, their behavior may seem entirely routine. Yet, when evaluated across multiple operators, the same customer could indicate emerging risk through increased stakes and prolonged play sessions. "One operator warning a player while another incentivizes them with bonuses doesn’t add up," Řehola explains.
IRIS looks to mitigate this challenge without falling into the trap of establishing a central database that tracks personal gambling histories. Instead, it utilizes pseudonymized identifiers bestowed by the Czech state's licensing system, ensuring operators do not share customer names or account details. The platform assesses behavioral indicators across participating operators, categorizes risks using a common protocol, and relays only the risk category back to each operator in real time.
This model's effectiveness—time will tell.
Řehola openly discusses the model's limitations, stating, "I wouldn’t present IRIS as an infallible solution that addresses every situation. In prevention and addiction risk reduction, nothing functions that way." The innovation, he posits, lies in its ability to evaluate risk at a market level: "We can monitor changes in overall risk scores over time and determine whether specific interventions lead to behavior changes."
Success is not merely quantified by the number of notifications sent to players. Instead, it will hinge on tangible changes in gambling behavior: reduced risk scores, less escalation in gambling practices, improved limit use, and fewer individuals moving into high-risk categories.
He also recognizes that if certain messages or interventions fail to alter behavior, the model must adapt: "One of IRIS’s biggest advantages is its capacity for real-time evaluation of interventions."
Are operators truly ready to forgo profit?
This raises a critical question that Řehola does not avoid: gambling operators are commercial entities accountable to shareholders, and high-stakes players often generate significant revenue. Why would skeptics believe that business motivations have suddenly aligned with the goal of ensuring player safety?
“I completely understand the skepticism,” he admits. “It wouldn’t be credible to claim that financial motivations simply vanish when we discuss responsibility.”
Without a collaborative approach to responsible gambling, individual operators risk unintentional consequences: one may curtail bonuses and initiate interventions while players simply shift to competitors who impose looser standards. "In such a scenario, the responsible operator could face revenue loss without actually reducing harm," he argues.
IRIS, he suggests, alters this equation. If the leading operators cooperate under the same framework, acting responsibly becomes a market-wide standard instead of a competitive burden.
Moreover, there is a long-term financial incentive at play: revenue stemming from players who are losing control is not sustainable. Such revenues can lead to regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage, prompting calls for stricter regulations. Retaining players over the long term in a responsible manner may ultimately prove more advantageous than short-term profits that compromise trust.
Whether this logic holds true under financial pressure remains an unanswered question.
Is IRIS tackling the underlying issue?
Another significant concern is displacement: if players respond to IRIS's interventions by migrating to offshore or cryptocurrency casinos, has the problem merely been transferred rather than addressed?
“There is indeed a valid risk,” Řehola acknowledges. “If responsible gambling tools in the regulated market merely push vulnerable players toward riskier offshore or crypto casinos, we have not truly solved the issue.” He asserts that IRIS must be viewed in the broader context, as over 240,000 individuals are already registered in the Czech Republic’s Register of Excluded Persons, with many still gambling illegally.
"People won’t stop gambling simply because their names are on a list," he explains. This is why IPRH collaborates with the Ministry of Finance and the Customs Administration on a national task force aimed at combating illegal gambling. Effective player protection within the licensed market needs to be complemented by strong enforcement against the illegal market, he argues.
IRIS opts for a proportional approach instead of a punitive one. Its goal is not to outright ban players but to reduce their exposure to harmful marketing practices—such as aggressive bonuses—specifically targeting those in the highest-risk brackets, while allowing ordinary players to continue unimpeded. "Our aim is to assist players in returning to a more sustainable level of gambling without exiting the regulated environment."
Who defines risky gambling behaviors?
A further hurdle lies with the algorithm itself: behavior that appears harmful to a psychologist may simply be indicative of a wealthy customer spending within their financial means. How does IRIS distinguish between atypical gambling and problematic behavior?
Řehola offers a candid response: "This issue highlights one of the fundamental limitations of any system like IRIS. No simple or objective standard can definitively classify someone as addicted."
IRIS should not be seen as a black box that determines final outcomes for individuals, he insists. "It does not diagnose players nor should it restrict their legal rights. It generates risk signals, which can facilitate tailored interventions: a reality check, safer gambling communication, or referrals to voluntary professional assistance."
Importantly, IRIS does not simply measure frequency of gambling. A wealthy player might spend more than an average gambler while remaining in control. Conversely, another player might wager less yet display evident signs of escalation, such as chasing losses or disregarding limits. The methodology integrates academic research, international harm indicators—including the emerging CEN standard—as well as data from operators and insights from addiction specialists and behavioral economists.
Acknowledging perfection is unattainable, Řehola states: "If the system flags too many players who are merely unusual instead of at risk, adjustments are necessary. If it fails to identify players who later exhibit harmful behavior, those adjustments are equally critical." Ultimately, the integrity of the system relies on transparency and acknowledgment of its limitations.
Collaborative efforts under Czech gambling law
The legal framework supporting IRIS is unique. Instead of developing the technology first and then seeking legal approval, IPRH followed the opposite route. Recent legislative changes, effective from October 1, 2025, explicitly allow licensed Czech gambling operators to share pseudonymized data for player protection under strictly defined conditions.
"Data usage is restricted to responsible gambling and player protection, not for marketing, commercial profiling, or competitive gain," Řehola clarifies.
The legislative amendment passed without any dissenting votes in parliament—a notable occurrence given the often contentious nature of gambling policy.
A shift in regulatory dialogues
Current gambling regulations frequently oscillate between two flawed approaches. One posits that commercial incentives inherently hinder meaningful self-regulation, while the other suggests that more stringent legislation alone can address challenges posed by rapidly evolving digital landscapes.
The Czech initiative diverges from both views. It is premised on a simpler understanding: effective regulation requires information, which is dispersed across governments, operators, healthcare professionals, and academics. No single entity possesses the complete picture.
Řehola characterizes this philosophy as "smart regulation rather than symbolic regulation." While he is cautious not to exaggerate the model’s potential for adaptation to other jurisdictions—each with its unique legal frameworks and market structures—he believes the core principles are transferable: cooperation among the legal market, public authorities, and independent experts; a focus on data; and a commitment to measurable results.
The effectiveness of IRIS in reducing gambling-related harm remains to be evaluated, and Řehola is the first to admit this reality. The model must evolve if the data fails to substantiate its effectiveness. This level of caution may well be one of its most credible attributes.
