The Gambling Commission's recent announcement regarding the rollout of Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs) for select high-spending online gamblers has drawn significant criticism from various industry stakeholders. This phased approach, aimed at individuals who exceed a net deposit of £5,000 within a rolling 24-hour period, has raised concerns about data inconsistencies that were identified during earlier pilot tests.
Credit reference agencies (CRAs) will be responsible for conducting these assessments, which the Commission insists will be "frictionless" with no impact on customers' credit scores. However, doubts linger about the accuracy of data from different CRAs, despite the Commission acknowledging this issue last year.
Chris Elliott, a partner at Wiggin, praised the phased rollout as "pragmatic and sensible" but questioned the Commission’s ability to resolve data discrepancies found in FRA testing. He highlighted that varying outputs from credit reference agencies for the same customer remain problematic.
Echoing these concerns, Melanie Ellis, a partner at Northridge Law, remarked on the unreliability of credit data, noting that discrepancies among agencies' results still need addressing. Elliott further stressed the industry's worries that a decrease in gross gambling yield (GGY) might not only affect distressed gamblers but also those hesitant to provide financial documents.
He remarked, "The Commission’s announcement does nothing to assuage that concern," suggesting a lack of clarity in regulatory expectations for operators. He called on the Commission to clarify guidance on what constitutes appropriate action from operators during compliance assessments.
