Debates surrounding gambling regulation often follow predictable paths. Operators voice their frustrations about politicians crafting laws based on headlines, while regulators claim that the industry resists necessary oversight. Public health advocates contend that commercial interests hinder meaningful player protection.
In Prague, a new approach is emerging, addressing these challenges head-on. Recent figures indicate that illegal gambling is costing the Czech Republic $15.9 million in lost tax revenue, with players estimated to have lost around CZK14.5 billion annually to unlicensed operators.
The Institute for Gambling Regulation (IPRH) is an industry association that claims to represent approximately 95% of the country’s regulated gambling market. However, Jan Řehola, the institute's director, emphasizes its unique mission. IPRH aims not just to lobby but to create a permanent collaborative platform that includes operators, addiction specialists, behavioral economists, regulators, and government officials to develop policy grounded in empirical evidence.
The success of this collaborative model remains to be seen, but it reflects a shift in European gambling regulation. There’s a growing recognition that neither governments nor operators have sufficient information to tackle increasingly intricate issues such as illegal gambling, online harm, and cross-border player behavior.
IPRH's flagship initiative, known as IRIS, encapsulates this philosophy.
At the heart of IRIS lies a simple yet profound idea: understanding gambling from the player’s perspective. Modern gamblers often engage with multiple bookmakers or casinos simultaneously, making it challenging for individual operators to see the broader picture. “At the core of IRIS is a simple idea,” Řehola says. “We look at gambling from the perspective of the player, not the operator.”
When viewed through the lens of a single operator, a customer's behavior may seem normal. However, aggregated data across multiple platforms may reveal concerning patterns such as increased stakes and prolonged betting sessions that indicate the potential for harm. Řehola argues, “It makes no sense for one operator to warn a player while another rewards him with a bonus.”
IRIS attempts to address this issue without creating a centralized database of personal gambling histories. Instead, it uses pseudonymized identifiers provided by the state licensing framework, ensuring operators do not exchange customer names or account details. The platform can analyze behavioral indicators across various operators, classify risk levels using standardized methodologies, and simultaneously provide each operator with the corresponding risk category.
While the system's framework is established, its effectiveness remains a topic of scrutiny. Řehola is honest about its limitations: “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.” He believes the strength of IRIS lies in its ability to test interventions on a market-wide scale. “The system continuously evaluates the risk scores of players across all participating operators. We can see whether the overall risk level is rising or falling over time, and whether specific interventions achieve changes in behavior.”
Success for Řehola is not merely about the number of messages sent to players. “Success means measurable changes in players’ behavior: lower risk scores over time, reduced escalation, better use of limits, and fewer players moving into high-risk categories.”
However, he also recognizes that if certain messages do not lead to behavior changes, the model will need to adapt. “One of the biggest advantages of IRIS is that interventions can be evaluated almost in real time.”
This framework raises a critical question: Do gambling companies genuinely prioritize player protection, considering their commercial nature? High-intensity players often generate significant revenue, prompting skepticism about the alignment of commercial incentives with responsible practices. “I understand the skepticism,” he admits. “It would not be credible to pretend that commercial incentives suddenly disappear because we talk about responsibility.”
When responsible gambling measures are left to individual operators, an adverse incentive arises. One operator may reduce bonuses and trigger an intervention, while the affected player can easily switch to a competitor with lower standards. “In that situation, the responsible operator may lose revenue without actually reducing harm.”
IPRH argues that IRIS alters this dynamic. If the leading operators adopt a unified methodology, responsible behavior can become a market-wide standard rather than a competitive disadvantage.
There is also an underlying business rationale: revenue derived from players losing control is not sustainable. It leads to regulatory scrutiny, reputational damage, and political pressure for stricter regulations. From a commercial viewpoint, retaining players over the long term in sustainable patterns may prove more beneficial than short-term gains that erode trust.
Whether this rationale remains viable under financial stress poses a significant question that IRIS has yet to answer.
Another concern is displacement. If players respond to IRIS interventions by moving to offshore or cryptocurrency casinos, one could argue that the system merely shifts the problem rather than resolving it. “There is a real risk,” Řehola acknowledges. “If a responsible-gambling tool in the legal market simply pushes vulnerable players to offshore or crypto casinos, then it has not solved the problem. It has only moved the player into an even more dangerous environment.”
His solution, however, is that IRIS should not operate in isolation. With over 240,000 individuals currently registered in the country’s Register of Excluded Persons, research indicates many of them continue to gamble on the black market. “People do not stop gambling simply because the state writes their name on a list.” Thus, IPRH collaborates with the Ministry of Finance and the Customs Administration to establish a national task force against illegal gambling. Effective player protection within the regulated market must coincide with enforcement actions against illegal operations, he asserts.
IRIS is designed to intervene proportionately, aiming not to ban players but to reduce harmful stimuli, such as aggressive bonuses and targeted marketing, for those in the highest risk categories while allowing ordinary players to continue with minimal disruption. “The aim is to help the player return to a more sustainable level of play while still remaining inside the regulated environment.”
An issue that may arise pertains to the algorithm’s design. Behaviors that appear harmful to a psychologist may be interpreted as normal by a player with sufficient financial means. How will IRIS distinguish between problematic and non-problematic gambling? Řehola is transparent about the challenges: “This question touches one of the biggest limits of any system like IRIS. There is no simple objective truth where a system can say: this person is addicted.”
He insists that IRIS should not function as a definitive decision-maker about individuals. “It does not diagnose a player and should not restrict the player’s legal rights. It produces risk signals.” Those signals facilitate proportionate interventions such as reality checks, safer gambling communications, or voluntary professional support resources.
Importantly, IRIS aims to assess not simply the volume of gambling. “A wealthy player may spend more than a typical player and still remain in control. Another player might spend less overall but display clearer signs of escalation, such as chasing losses or ignoring limits.” The methodology incorporates academic research, international harm indicators, data from operators, and insights from addiction specialists and behavioral economists.
Řehola acknowledges that perfect accuracy is unattainable. “If it flags too many players who are simply unusual but not at risk, we must adjust it. If it misses players showing signs of harm, we must adjust it as well.” Ultimately, the system's credibility hinges on its honesty about its limitations.
The legal foundation underpinning IRIS is noteworthy. In contrast to conventional approaches where technology precedes legal authorization, IPRH sought legislative approval first. New amendments enacted on October 1, 2025, explicitly permit licensed Czech gambling operators to exchange pseudonymized data for player protection purposes under defined conditions. “The data cannot be used for marketing or competitive intelligence. It is used solely for responsible gambling and player protection,” Řehola clarifies.
This change passed with unanimous support in parliament, a rarity given the often divisive nature of gambling policy.
The Czech Republic's approach contrasts with common regulatory practices that often oscillate between two insufficient strategies. One tends to assume that commercial motives will always obstruct genuine self-regulation, while the other believes that increasingly restrictive regulations can suffice to mitigate problems in rapidly changing digital markets.
This Czech initiative rejects both extremes, favoring a more straightforward principle: effective regulation relies on comprehensive information, which is dispersed across governments, operators, medical professionals, and researchers. No single entity holds the complete picture.
Řehola frames the philosophy as "smart regulation instead of symbolic regulation." While cautious not to overstate the model’s transferability, he suggests that its foundational principles—collaboration amongst legal markets, public authorities, and independent experts, a strong emphasis on data, and a dedication to measurable outcomes—could be applicable elsewhere.
As for whether IRIS will ultimately succeed in reducing gambling-related harm, only time will tell. Řehola readily acknowledges that the model must adapt based on data findings. This cautious approach could be its most credible aspect.
