Debates surrounding gambling regulation have often followed a predictable path. Operators routinely express concerns that politicians favor attention-grabbing legislation. Regulators counter by saying the industry resists necessary oversight, while public health experts contend that commercial interests inherently compromise player safety.
In Prague, a novel initiative is underway aimed at altering this cycle. Recent figures indicate that illegal gambling in the Czech Republic is costing the market approximately $15.9 million annually in lost tax revenue, with estimated player losses reaching around CZK14.5 billion from unlicensed operators each year.
The Institute for Gambling Regulation (IPRH) seeks to redefine its role. Officially, it represents about 95% of the regulated Czech gambling market, but its director, Jan Řehola, emphasizes that it is more than just a lobbying entity. IPRH aims to create a collaborative platform where operators, addiction specialists, behavioral economists, regulators, and government representatives can come together to formulate evidence-based policies.
The success of this collaborative effort remains uncertain, yet it signifies a broader transformation in European gambling regulation. There is a growing recognition that neither governments nor operators can rely solely on their own information to tackle the increasingly intricate challenges of illegal gambling, online harm, and cross-border player behavior.
A key initiative of IPRH, dubbed IRIS, embodies this collaborative spirit.
IRIS centers on the insight that modern online gamblers typically do not limit their activities to a single bookmaker or casino; they often manage several accounts and switch between platforms in response to various promotions. Operators, however, have visibility only of their individual customer interactions.
"At the core of IRIS is a simple idea," Řehola explains. "We look at gambling from the perspective of the player, not the operator." An individual player's behavior might seem innocuous to one operator, while across multiple accounts, they could exhibit patterns indicative of developing harm, such as escalating stakes or extended gaming sessions. "It makes no sense for one operator to warn a player while another rewards them with bonuses," Řehola argues.
IRIS addresses this collective-action dilemma without developing what many opponents fear: a centralized database of personal gambling histories. Instead, it utilizes pseudonymized identifiers supplied by the Czech state licensing framework, ensuring that operators do not share customer names or account information. The platform assesses behavioral indicators across all participating operators, categorizing risk through a common methodology and only returning the risk categorization to each operator.
The infrastructure is set, but its effectiveness remains to be determined. Řehola is frank about limitations, stating, "I would not present IRIS as a magic solution that works in 100% of cases. Nothing in prevention or addiction risk reduction works like that." However, he asserts that the system enables testing at the market level, as it continuously tracks player risk scores across all operators and assesses whether overall risk increases or decreases over time.
Success metrics, according to Řehola, will focus on behavioral changes rather than the number of alerts sent to players. "Success means measurable changes in players' behavior: lower risk scores over time, reduced escalation, better use of limits, and fewer players transitioning into high-risk categories."
Yet this raises an important question: will operators genuinely sacrifice revenue in the name of responsible gambling? Řehola acknowledges the skepticism towards whether commercial motivations would genuinely align with the goal of player protection. "It would not be credible to pretend that commercial incentives suddenly disappear because we are discussing responsibility," he concedes.
If operators act independently, responsible gambling efforts could backfire; one operator may cut bonuses and initiate an intervention while another may attract the same player by applying lower standards. "In that scenario, the responsible operator might lose revenue without reducing harm," Řehola points out.
IRIS aims to change this dynamic. If operators collaborate under a shared methodology, responsible behavior becomes a standard practice within the market rather than a competitive disadvantage. Moreover, approaching responsible gambling as a long-term business strategy presents a compelling case. "Revenue generated from players losing control is not sustainable and brings regulatory, reputational, and political risks," Řehola emphasizes. Retaining players in a sustainable manner may hold more value than maximizing short-term profits at the cost of trust.
Another significant concern is whether IRIS might inadvertently push at-risk players to offshore or crypto casinos, thereby shifting rather than resolving the problem. Řehola recognizes this risk, stating, "If a responsible-gambling tool in the legal market merely drives vulnerable players to unregulated options, it hasn't solved the issue; it has only transferred the player into a more hazardous environment."
In this context, IPRH works closely with the Ministry of Finance and the Customs Administration on a task force focusing on illegal gambling. Řehola advocates that player protection in the regulated market must be coupled with enforcement against illegal operations.
IRIS functions as a proportionate and preventative framework, targeting harmful stimuli such as aggressive marketing towards individuals in high-risk groups while leaving ordinary players generally unaffected. "The goal is to guide players back to a healthier level of gambling while keeping them within the regulated market," he clarifies.
Nevertheless, the challenge remains: how does IRIS accurately determine what constitutes risky gambling? What seems harmful to a psychologist might simply represent a high-rolling customer acting within their financial means. Řehola acknowledges this complexity, stating, "There is no straightforward objective truth that allows a system to conclusively identify an addiction."
He insists that IRIS should not operate as a black box capable of issuing definitive judgments about individuals. Instead, it generates risk signals used to inform proportionate interventions, such as reality checks or access to professional assistance.
Importantly, IRIS will consider both gambling frequency and the context of a player's behavior. A wealthy spender may bet more than the average player yet retain control, while another individual could wager less but show worsening signs of gambling problematics over time. The methodology incorporates academic research, harm markers, operator data, and expert input from addiction specialists and behavioral economists.
Recognizing that perfection is unattainable, Řehola states, "If it flags too many players who are merely unique rather than at risk, we should adjust it. If it fails to identify players who exhibit clear signs of harm later on, we must also revise it." The system's credibility hinges on an honest acknowledgment of its limitations.
Interestingly, the legal framework supporting IRIS is distinct. Rather than developing the technology first and seeking legal approval later, IPRH pursued the reverse strategy. Amendments to legislation that came into effect on 1 October 2025 now explicitly allow licensed Czech gambling operators to exchange pseudonymized data for player protection purposes, within strict guidelines. "The data cannot be used for marketing, commercial profiling, or competitive intelligence; it serves solely responsible gambling and player protection," Řehola states.
This legal change was passed in parliament with unanimous support, a rarity in the often-contentious realm of gambling policy.
The Czech Republic's approach signifies a departure from traditional regulatory methods, which typically oscillate between assuming that commercial incentives inhibit self-regulation and believing that restrictive legislation can solve issues created by digital market advancements. This experiment adopts a straightforward premise: effective regulation relies on information, which is distributed among various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, healthcare professionals, and researchers. No singular entity has the complete picture.
Řehola describes the philosophy behind this initiative as "smart regulation instead of symbolic regulation." While cautious about overstating its applicability to other jurisdictions due to varying legal frameworks, he believes the underlying principles—cooperation among the regulated market, public agencies, and independent experts; emphasis on data; and commitment to measurable outcomes—could be beneficial elsewhere.
The efficacy of IRIS in reducing gambling-related harm is still uncertain; Řehola is quick to acknowledge that the model must evolve if the data fails to support its effectiveness. This cautious approach may ultimately be one of its most credible aspects.
