iGaming stakeholders have continued to criticise the player protection proposals for the upcoming Finnish commercial gambling market, with Jari Vähänen of the Finnish Gambling Consultants Oy (FGC) arguing that the current suggestions “undermine” the government’s gambling act.
These comments were made as part of a consultation by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’s Gambling Harm Risk and Harm Assessment Group on several player protection regulations pitched by Finland’s new gambling act to prevent and reduce gambling harm.
Submissions can still be made to the consultation until 24 February, with the FGC, Vana Lauri OÜ (VL) and Sininauhaliitto ry (Blue Ribbon Association) being the latest stakeholders to voice their opinions, following on from the viewpoints of Wildz Group and SkillOnNet.
Channelisation decline
Vähänen believes that the proposals laid out wouldn’t have the desired impact on player protection in the market, stating they would lead to a decline in channelisation, with more customers who may be suffering from gambling harm playing on the black market.
“The proposal under comment in its current form would mean that problem gambling would move to, or in fact remain in, gaming companies outside the gambling system. Therefore, it is clear that the law’s goal of reducing problem gambling could not be achieved.
“Responsibility measures built into the official gambling system do not affect and are not effective in gambling that takes place outside the system.”
The FGC is calling for the proposals to be reevaluated and for experts to be consulted to determine the best way to tackle channelisation.
“The recommendations in the proposal would undermine the basis for the implementation of the objectives of the Gambling Act as defined in the Government Programme.
“In the short term, they would lead to a rapid decline in the channelling capacity and the displacement of problem gambling outside the system and the consumer protection it offers. In the longer term, this would at least lead to an increase in gambling problems and possibly even their spread.
“The FGC believes that the proposal should be returned to preparation and should be prepared in such a way that improving the channelling capacity of the gambling system is also taken into account. The FGC believes that the working group should be supplemented so that the expertise in the gambling business in the group is strengthened.”
Reforms and game types
Vähänen also referenced the 2018 reforms made in Finland, noting that the channelisation rate has “dropped to approximately 50%” in less than 10 years, previously at 90%.
“Due to Veikkaus’ responsibility practices, active and problem gamblers had switched to playing with the services of gaming companies outside the system. If the unauthorised offering is able to offer a clearly better customer experience than the authorised offering, such a development is inevitable in the future licensing system as well.”
Vähänen added that the proposals do not take into account the different game types available on the market.
He highlighted that casino and betting tend to have varying transaction timings, with casino money transfers taking place in a single session, whereas betting money transfers may be held in a player’s account for longer and have larger stakes.
“Currently, customers playing Toto games are disturbed by a mandatory time reminder in Veikkaus’s operations. The nature of toto game formats is such that the normal practice is to follow the races and place bets in a continuous session of up to hours, where the length of the game session still does not have a significant impact on the harmfulness of the game.
“The nature of different games should also be taken into account when assessing and limiting the number of games. In the above-mentioned toto games, it is normal for a customer to play three to seven different games during the day. This still cannot be considered to mean an increased risk of gambling problems, as evidenced by the low number of gambling problems caused by toto games.”
Duty of care definition too vague
Sininauhaliitto believes the proposals made do not “define the duty of care with sufficient precision, which leaves the definition too much up to individual companies”, and as such, they are a good starting point, but more precision is needed.
The proposed model was said to be “justified from the perspective of preventing gambling harm”, but it intervenes too late, so loss limits should link to “how many companies within the system it is possible to play at”, not company-specific. Arguments were also made for stricter gaming restrictions since they have a higher concentration of problem gamblers.
“The Blue Ribbon Association expresses its concern that the recommendations are not sufficiently binding and that companies are not implementing them. The Blue Ribbon Association believes that their binding nature should be strengthened.
“The Blue Ribbon Association believes that a mandatory and centralised system should be introduced in Finland regarding both consumption limits and the duty of care.”
Unlevel playing field
Estonian operator Vana Lauri OÜ is interested in applying for a Finnish licence, but finds the proposals surprising as the operator determines they are “in conflict with both the newly enacted Gambling Act and the objectives set for the entire reform”.
VL stated that if the restrictions are too strict, players will migrate to black market operators, citing Germany and Belgium as examples where channelisation has declined.
“When the goals of the gambling system are the prevention of gambling problems and high channelling capacity, it is important to understand that the latter is a prerequisite for the former to be achieved.
“If the system’s channelling rate is low, in practice, the most problematic gambling will always flow outside the system. That is, the very gambling that is being tried to be curbed by the safety net built into the system. The system’s built-in safety net is naturally of no use to players, especially problem gamblers, who play games outside the system.”
VL also believes operators who abide by the rules would be in a “significantly worse competitive position in the market than those who would not follow them, at least to a significant extent”, thus creating an unlevel playing field.
“VL believes that there is no reason to issue recommendations such as the one proposed at this stage, but rather to ensure the creation of a licensing system capable of channelling within the limits set out in the legislation in the first stage.
“As was often emphasised during the parliamentary debate on the law, it is important that the effects of the system change on the amount and quality of gambling problems are actively monitored and that there is a low threshold for being prepared to make changes at least at the regulation level if the development does not meet the goals set for the system reform.”
