Key Strategies for Streamlining Identity Verification in iGaming

The Importance of Early Verification and Regulatory Compliance

Effective identity verification is vital for streamlining compliance with multiple legislative and regulatory requirements, such as preventing underage gambling, identifying self-excluded customers, and supporting anti-money laundering controls. Importantly, it also has a significant direct impact on the consumer experience.

Currently, over a quarter of complaints received by the Commission's Contact Centre stem from consumers expressing frustration at being asked to provide identity information only when attempting to withdraw funds. To avoid this unnecessary friction and improve the overall experience, streamlining verification checks should be undertaken as early as practicable in the customer journey.

Licence Condition 17 has long established the rules for verifying customer identity. These processes must provide assurance that a customer exists and that their name, address, and date of birth all match the same individual before they are permitted to gamble. Requesting additional information as a condition of withdrawal—when it could have been reasonably requested earlier—undermines these basic standards, creates disruption, and damages consumer trust.

Findings: Common Errors and Unmatched Data

Data from the financial risk assessment pilot helped clarify why a small proportion of customers could not receive a frictionless assessment (referred to as "unmatched" accounts). Analysis indicated that flawed identity verification is a key factor contributing to this issue.

When reviewing these unmatched cases, it was discovered that previous customer identification was sometimes based on incomplete or inaccurate information collected during registration. These process gaps reduce the likelihood of successfully matching data with third-party sources. Common examples included:

• Recording only an initial instead of a full name.
• Using a nickname rather than the legal name.
• Providing a commercial address instead of a residential one.
• Onboarding a customer using a middle name instead of a forename (which weakens self-exclusion tools like GAMSTOP).
• Despite previous warnings, there are still cases where risk flags or uncertainties regarding a customer's identity are only investigated at the point of withdrawal, ignoring ample opportunities to address them earlier.

Call to Action: Strengthening the Process from Registration

The pilot findings make it clear that unmatched records often originate from weaknesses in the information collected at registration. While many operators rely on third-party providers, the varying levels of data sensitivity and differing operator tolerances often result in the use of 'fuzzy matching'. Onboarding customers based on partial or equivocal verification introduces significant regulatory risk.

Therefore, accepting initials, nicknames, or commercial addresses is not sufficient to meet existing identity verification requirements. Operators must ensure they are capturing complete and accurate customer information right from the start.

While the equivalent of Enhanced Due Diligence (EDD) is not expected for all new customers at onboarding, operators should be as robust as possible at registration to verify a unique individual. Addressing unresolved identity concerns promptly, rather than deferring them until a withdrawal request, is the most effective way to reduce customer friction and strengthen compliance with wider regulatory obligations.