The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) is threatening to launch legal action against the Gambling Commission (GC) if it presses ahead with the implementation of the next phase of affordability checks for players, as it believes one in five customers would be required to provide financial information.
A Commission board meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday, 21 May 2026, when Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs) could be given the green light as a means of identifying high-spending online gambling players who may be experiencing financial problems and offer them support.
The GC says these assessments would be automatically triggered if certain spending amounts are hit by a customer and would utilise data from credit reference agencies. However, many industry stakeholders believe customers could be reluctant to share their data and may instead wager with black market operators to avoid FRAs entirely.
FRAs are different from Financial Vulnerability Checks (FVCs), which use information that is already publicly available to spot customers that may be financially vulnerable. They are applied when a customer’s net deposit threshold of £500 is reached with an operator during a rolling 30-day period, with a lower threshold of £150 net deposits over 30 days now coming into effect.
BGC takes its gloves off over affordability checks
BGC Chief Executive Grainne Hurst wrote a letter last month to the GC’s interim Chair Charles Counsell, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Gambling Minister Baroness Twycross and the GC’s acting Chief Executive Sarah Gardner, explaining the trade body’s frustration with the FRAs.
Hurst said that implementing the assessments would be “disproportionate and potentially open to legal challenge” and that it should be considered whether there is a valid reason for their introduction.
The BGC also stated that operators claimed “serious failings” were spotted from the FRAs, including data from credit reference agencies being inconsistent, as well as potential black market growth as customers migrate to illegal operators to avoid assessments.
“The evidence from the pilot is that financial risk assessments are not fit for purpose.”
Grainne Hurst, Chief Executive of the Betting and Gaming Council
Due to “significant problems with data relevance, accuracy and consistency” and “fundamental implementation issues”, the trade body doesn’t believe the assessments meet the criteria asked for in the 2023 Gambling Act Review White Paper.
Hurst wrote: “The evidence from the pilot is that financial risk assessments are not fit for purpose.
“Accordingly, the BGC and its members would have to consider all available options should the Gambling Commission implement them without taking into account those findings.
“Such an approach would harm consumers, harm the regulated industry, harm the taxpayer, boost the illegal market, and, most likely, be irrational.”
Disagreement over GC’s data
Recent data released by the Commission has stated that only 3% of customers would be subject to FRAs. However, the BGC argues that the percentage would actually be 5%, rising to 10% if only customers who wager every month are included and increasing again to 20% if customers with a net annual spend of £200 per annum or less are removed.
Hurst stated: “Government ministers and Gambling Commission officials have consistently stated that the pilot is a testing and evaluation phase.
“If FRAs are not effective and would result in more customers playing with illegal operators to evade checks, or alternative approaches are available that meet the purpose set out in the white paper (including where such approaches are already in place), they should not be implemented.”
‘Left with little choice but to consider legal challenge’
Although the BGC told SBC that the letter hadn’t been shared with any journalist, a spokesperson said: “We want the Gambling Commission to properly review these proposals before taking any further steps.
“Evidence from the Commission’s own pilot shows these Financial Risk Assessments are simply not frictionless, with serious inconsistencies in the data and a real risk that large numbers of customers will face intrusive financial checks.
“This has to work for all customers, but the evidence so far suggests these proposals are not fit for purpose and risk driving people away from the regulated market towards the growing illegal online black market, where there are no protections and no safeguards.
“Given the serious concerns raised by operators there is a real risk the industry could ultimately be left with little choice but to consider legal challenge if these proposals proceed without further scrutiny.”
‘Frictionless for the vast majority’
A Gambling Commission spokesperson reiterated to SBC that the checks would be frictionless for the vast majority of customers if introduced.
The GC spokesperson said: “We reiterate that we are continuing to work on financial risk assessments, with one of the key focuses being on removing unnecessary friction for consumers. If introduced, the checks would apply only to a small proportion of the highest-spending accounts and would be frictionless for the vast majority of those assessed.
“No decisions have yet been made and we will shortly be putting recommendations to our Board on next steps. We are continuing to engage regularly with industry and other stakeholders as the pilot progresses, and will continue to provide updates as this work develops.
“Any future implementation would be carefully considered, evidence-led and introduced in a measured and proportionate way.”
