Šimon Vincze, Head of Sustainable & Safer Gambling for CasinoGuru, writes his monthly column for iGaming Expert, as he reveals insights from a recent trip to New York and explores a surge in standardisation efforts across global markets.
I don’t often travel to North America, as my work is mostly focused on Europe. And since most major events tend to attract high-level representatives from the US and Canada, I manage to stay in touch with what’s happening across the pond. However, after receiving an invitation to the Better Gambling Forum, supported by the UN General Assembly in New York, I realised I couldn’t miss this opportunity.
Still, I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. As it turned out, the Forum centres on an initiative to develop an international framework for responsible gambling practices and policies. In other words, working towards standardisation, or rather, harmonisation of practices aimed at reducing gambling-related harm.
I know what you’re thinking: that’s a really ambitious idea. And even though I consider myself a realist, I have to admit it’s very exciting to see major assemblies of intergovernmental organisations supporting such activities. The fact that online gambling regulations across the region are still relatively young makes this initiative feel even more encouraging.
Other standardisation efforts in the world
It might be a coincidence, but there has been a recent surge in standardisation activities worldwide. One of the most significant achievements was the approval of the markers of harm standard by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), proposed by the European Gaming and Betting Association. It’s the first formal European standard of its kind and has been referred to as “an essential building block for effective harm prevention in Europe.”
The African region is also becoming more active in this area. The Association of Gaming Regulators in Africa (AGRA) has announced the upcoming International Gambling Standards Summit, scheduled for March next year. By gathering various industry stakeholders, they seek to harmonise regulation and practice beyond the region.
My own work as part of Dr Margaret Carran’s group on self-exclusion standards also aligns with these efforts. Through broader consultations and recent initiatives, we’ve garnered significant attention on best practices in self-exclusion.
Finally, the International Player Safety Index initiative, developed by SBC and 1xBet, contributes to this momentum by measuring player protection and regulation across gambling markets.
Let’s break down the benefits of harmonising markets
The amount of activity coming from different regions sends a clear signal that the gambling industry is moving toward standardisation. The problem is that regulation still happens only within national borders. So, how can activities like this be truly advantageous?
First of all, harmonisation across jurisdictions can create a stronger and more consistent baseline for player protection. This can be done by implementing (minimum) safeguards such as player verification, setting limits, or enabling self-exclusion. It can be especially beneficial in online gambling, which remains a relatively new phenomenon. Some individual jurisdictions might lack experience in this area, so having common standards can give regulators a solid starting point.
Furthermore, creating a shared framework demands cooperation among different stakeholders, which strengthens their relationship and helps them achieve tangible results in other areas. For example, efforts like fighting illegal gambling or encouraging innovation become more effective when there are common definitions, enforcement protocols, or data standards.
The methodology for measuring problem gambling prevalence varies considerably across states. This prevents the use of comparable data for evidence-based harm reduction. Harmonised metrics for responsible gambling tools and problem gambling prevalence will allow us to compare effectiveness and improve what works.
Lastly, a common standard for regulatory requirements simplifies matters for international operators. The money currently spent on individual training, technical implementation, or repetitive paperwork could be better spent on strategies that genuinely prevent harm.
When drawing conclusions, don’t forget the downsides
As they say, there’s no rose without a thorn. Despite standardisation being quite beneficial, some reasonable risks should be addressed.
We all know that getting multiple parties to agree on something is challenging. Not only does it require a significant time investment, but formalising results can also involve considerable bureaucracy. For example, CEN has a very robust process before anything can be established as a standard.
Some negotiation experts argue that compromise can be counterproductive. This is particularly true when aiming for consensus on a harmonised framework. In the process, the framework can end up being watered down if parties compromise too much, which can hold back more ambitious national policies. Another concern is the loss of national and cultural flexibility. Uniform rules might overlook cultural or economic differences, limiting regulators’ ability to innovate or adapt requirements to local conditions.
All in all, standardisation offers powerful advantages. However, there are possible downsides that shouldn’t be overlooked. Implementing a flexible minimum standard, combined with transparent communication and regular evaluation, seems like a meaningful way forward.
