Legal Threats Emerge Over Gambling Affordability Checks in the UK

BGC and BHA to work together

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), the industry trade body whose members include Entain, Bet365 and Flutter Entertainment, is weighing a legal challenge after the Gambling Commission confirmed this week it would press ahead with financial risk assessments for online gamblers who spend more than £1,000 within 24 hours.

The British Horseracing Authority (BHA), which represents Britain’s racecourses and racing industry, is working closely with the BGC as the sector weighs its options, although neither organisation has yet decided whether to seek a judicial review.

Industry sources said lawyers were examining whether the commission’s announcement could be challenged in the courts, although any legal action is not expected immediately.

The row centres on plans requiring bookmakers to use credit reference data to identify customers showing signs of serious financial vulnerability after heavy gambling losses. The checks were first set out in a 2023 consultation linked to the Conservative government’s Gambling Act review, which Labour pledged to enforce after coming to power in 2024.

Frictionless Protection or Financial Disaster? The Bitter Divide Over New Gambling Checks

The Gambling Commission insisted the checks will be “frictionless” for punters and are designed to protect vulnerable gamblers without imposing spending caps.

But bookmakers and racing leaders argue the checks are based on flawed evidence, will drive punters towards the black market and threaten the horseracing industry’s finances. The BHA estimates the checks could cost British racing £250m over five years by reducing betting turnover.

Greg Swift, of the BHA, said: “You just think of how many communities are going to be really badly disrupted by this, and not just rural communities. Doncaster, Aintree, Newcastle – we’ve got 59 racecourses spread across Britain.”

The BGC warned the commission earlier this year that the proposals were potentially open to legal challenge if they were introduced without properly taking account of the regulator’s own pilot scheme.

Racing leaders have also accused ministers of handing the decision to an unelected regulator.

Mr Swift said: “I can’t recall a situation quite like this where a government department has entirely abdicated responsibility for what ultimately is a political decision to a quango.

“It simply beggars belief that a decision affecting two multi-billion-pound industries employing more than 200,000 people across Britain could be taken without any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.”

Bosses also questioned why only the largest licensed bookmakers would initially be required to carry out the checks, while smaller operators and offshore prediction markets would escape the new regime.

One senior industry source said the plans risked creating a “two-tier” gambling market, with Britain’s biggest bookmakers facing tighter rules while rivals operating outside the regime gained a competitive advantage.

The clash comes as bookmakers grapple with higher taxes and mounting red tape, while also warning about the rapid growth of black-market operators and offshore prediction markets beyond the Commission’s reach.

A BGC spokesman said: “We are considering the commission’s latest announcement and all options available to us. No decisions have been taken at this stage.”

A Gambling Commission spokesman said: “Only 3pc of customers will need an assessment and where they do take place, they will be frictionless for the vast majority. We consider that our careful, staged approach to implementation is sensible and supportive of consumers and gambling businesses.”