What’s the Issue with GAMSTOP and Self-exclusion?

Posted by Harry Kane on Saturday, June 30, 2018

Given the UK Gambling Commission’s (UKGC’s) commitment to safeguarding vulnerable gamblers, the establishment of the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) should have been one of it’s most seminal achievements.

After all, the RGA is responsible for the innovative GAMSTOP software, which is established as a national, online self-exclusion scheme that has been designed to empower vulnerable gamblers in their quest to regulate their own gameplay.

However, recent reports suggest that this software is falling well short of expectations, despite the fact that 12 months have passed since its inception. As a result of this, private sector developers are looking to create their own self-exclusion software, while the regulator has also suggested that it may issue a blanket ban that prevents operators from distributing marketing information.

In this article, we’ll look at the issues with GAMSTOP, while asking whether the industry needs to resort to more drastic measures in the drive to protect vulnerable gamblers.

What Аre the Issues with GAMSTOP?

The most recent criticisms of GAMSTOP have come from UKGC Executive Director Tim Miller, who has identified two main areas of concerns surrounding the self-exclusion software.

The first of these relates to a seemingly fundamental flaw, particularly if we accept the simple premise that vulnerable gamblers remain perennially susceptible to real-time promotions and marketing material.

While the current software serves as a one-stop self-exclusion app that blocks users from accessing all registered online casino platforms and games, for example, it does not prevent them from receiving branded marketing materials directly in their inbox.

Even by itself, this design flaw would be enough to undermine the effectiveness of GAMSTOP in the virtual gambling market. It’s been compounded by a second, serious failing, however, and one that has recently been borne out by extensive testing.

More specifically, extensive investigations into the software’s performance have revealed that self-excluded players can still register with online operators simply by changing their surname and associated username. As a result, it’s relatively easy for vulnerable gamblers to circumnavigate the software and act on the marketing data that they receive from operators, all within a relatively short period of time.

Of course, the RGA has responded by claiming that the software continues to be developed, while suggesting that future tweaks will tackle these issues. This should not disguise the fact that the current failings are completely undermining the purpose of the software, as the entire point of GAMSTOP is to protect vulnerable and problem gamblers from their own compulsive behaviour by minimising their exposure to operators.

So, while we must accept that individuals need to take at least some responsibility for their actions, those categorised as being vulnerable must be provided with considerable assistance in their attempts to operate responsibly.

If GAMSTOP Isn’t the Answer, What Is?

While these issues are concerning, it’s unfair to write-off GAMSTOP at this stage of its development. Even Miller himself has suggested that the software is not at the heart of the issue within the marketplace, as he claims that both the RGA and independent operators must do more and collaborate to guarantee self-exclusion for users.

What’s clear, however, is that GAMSTOP alone cannot provide adequate self-exclusion measures for gamblers in the current climate, and there’s no doubt that the industry’s key stakeholders must work together to identify a short-term solution that benefits all parties involved.

We’ve also seen a number of private sector firms enter this marketplace in a bid to offer a solution, with the Gamban application offering a relevant case in point. As we discussed in a previous post, this tool is based on the simple and universal premise of banning access to all registered online gambling sites, including that offer casino games, sports betting and slots.

This independent software can also be quickly installed on all computers, tablets smartphones, providing an effective method of blocking user access to any virtual gambling sites. So, while this app does not prevent users from receiving marketing or promotional emails, it creates a barrier which ensures that they cannot act on the information that they receive.

This instantly provides a more effective safeguard for vulnerable gamblers, albeit one that will require them to pay a monthly subscription fee for the privilege.

The presence of a monthly subscription fee may prove to be a major stumbling block, as players may not be able to prepared to pay for such a service. If this is the case, and GAMSTOP fails to benefit from sustained software improvements, vulnerable gamblers will remain at the mercy of an accessible and popularised marketplace.

This would create a concerning impasse, and one that according to Miller could cause regulators in the UK to take drastic measures. More specifically, it has been proposed that the UKGC is ready to demand that firms do not send marketing messages to players who have signed up to GAMSTOP or an alternative self-exclusion scheme, while pledging that operators who fail to comply with this measure will be stripped of their license.

However, we’ve already confirmed that GAMSTOP does not have the capability do prevent marketing materials from being received by users, while operators would not be able to determine which of their customers have signed up for self-exclusion. This would mean that Miller’s proposal would essentially by a de-facto ban on direct marketing, and one that struck a significant blow to online operators throughout the UK.

The Last Word – Is a Direct Marketing Ban Viable?

Even in an age where the UKGC is committed to protecting vulnerable gamblers and the industry’s reputation, the notion of placing a de-facto ban on direct marketing seems a little extreme.

There remain some question marks as to whether such a measure would even be enforceable, particularly given that operators would most likely protest any attempts to restrict their marketing efforts. The UKGC and the government also need to strike a delicate balance when trying to regulate the market and protect vulnerable customers, as it’s also important that the industry’s ability to grow and create jobs is not compromised too adversely.

This is especially true in the current climate, which has seen regulators impose a £2 maximum stake on FOBTs and potentially threaten thousands of UK workers within the industry.

A preferable course is for the RGA to invest heavily in developing the GAMSTOP software, so that it can provide more robust safeguards against direct marketing and casino access. This would ultimately ensure that the need of problem gamers were effectively met without compromising on the experience of others or the ability of operators to market themselves.