December 10, 2013
After starting discussions eighteen months ago in mid 2011, the UK
Department for Culture, Media and Sports has published
a draft of proposed new online gambling legislation, the
Gambling Licensing and Advertising Act 2013,
the purpose of which is to tighten up regulatory control.
Under the current arrangements set out in the Gambling Act 2005, only operators with key equipment in Britain are required to
be licenced by the Gambling Commission, whilst operators in EEA member states, Gibraltar and white listed jurisdictions may advertise their services in
Britain in reliance on the licence held in their home jurisdiction. The Government believes that the current system is flawed and can no longer adequately
ensure the continued protections for British consumers the Act envisaged in a changing European and International landscape.
The Government therefore believes that it is essential, now more than ever, for the protections envisaged in the Gambling Act 2005 to be afforded to all
British consumers, regardless with whom they choose to gamble.
The essential changes are explained thus:
This draft Bill proposes fundamental change to the basis on which the system of remote gambling is regulated in Britain from
the current ‘place of supply’ basis to a ‘place of consumption’ basis. This will mean the British consumer becoming the pivot around which the system is
based, rather than the location of the gambling operator.
The main change will be a requirement for all operators selling into the British market being required to hold a Gambling Commission licence and therefore
subject to the provisions of the Act, its regulations and the Gambling Commission’s social responsibility and technical standard requirements.
However, a whole host of operations licensed in jurisdictions the UK considers trustworthy, including Alderney, Gibraltar, Malta and even Antigua and
Barbuda, will not, it appears, face any particularly onerous changes, and will even be granted "provisional" licences at the outset:
Operators in well-regulated jurisdictions whose regulators can provide, for example, the necessary compliance information,
will not face significant increases in licensing costs – those whose regulators cannot provide such information will need to pay the compliance costs
associated with being subject to the same requirements as other Gambling Commission licensees.
The Government is clear that the proposals are not designed to duplicate the work of other regulators or to unnecessarily increase burdens imposed on
operators. Rather, the system will be light-touch, avoiding duplication by relying on the work of other regulators, subject to sufficient on-going
assurance of quality and rigour.
To ensure the minimum of disruption for operators already active in the British market, we intend to put in place a period of transition which will see
operators already licensed in EEA countries and the existing white listed jurisdictions awarded an automatic provisional licence to prevent them having to
cease trading.
At the end of the day, notwithstanding the almost total lack of effort that operators in what are in reality the worst regulatory areas, such as Malta,
will have to put in, a UK licence in some form is going to be required. Whether or not this will benefit the player is questionable. I have some experience
of seeing the Commission in spectacular non-action - see my
UK Gambling Commission: refusal to implement its own inadequate player dispute procedure article.
I'm not clear at this moment whether casinos are going to have to locate any actual equipment in the UK, or whether or not a UKGC licence will put them
within the jurisdiction of the UK legal system. If so, this probably would be the only benefit to the consumer, the ability to bring relatively inexpensive
legal action against any casino dealing to UK consumers.
In any event: watch this space.
0 Previous Comments
Post a Comment