Lots of detail in the press release here:
and the response to last year's consultation here - that was finally published yesterday
They have been working on this for several years.
This is a new approach to Internet taxation and it looks very much like it will stick and be enforceable.
Providing gambling services remotely to any UK resident without a UKGC will be an offence, as will advertising such services even online. The advertisers would be guilty so good luck getting any press, billboard or online ad for an illegal unlicenced site. The UKGC also claim that they already have IP blocking and financial transaction blocking powers if they want to use them.
As for the tax man pretending that it is consumer protection to get the cash, well maybe but there are big potential consumer protection advantages to having a regulator with the power to dictate the terms rather than just having those that set up shop to attract sites.
Immediate consumer gains include
- a third party arbitrator being appointed to handle customer disputes
- a legal requirement to report any cheating or suspicious betting patterns
- software providers like PlayTech, Microgaming will be brought in to the regulatory regime, they will become jointly and severally liable for their skins tax bill as well so they will want to keep them straight. All software providers to remote gambling sites licenced by the UKGC will need to be licenced and the software will need to be produced to the UKGC technical standards.
- The UKGC are also about to do a consultation on ring fencing player funds and one on regulating poker.
Not dealing with Malta and the LGA if like me you live in the UK
- it will really annoy Phillip Brear of the GRA who again will become completely irrelevant to any UK based players.
The UKGC will have the power to require the publication of RTP information (as they do for FOBTs) and to make sure that games are described in such a way that the optimum play is accessible/explained.
The finsoft Hi/lo fiasco alone shows the need for software firms to be brought into regulation and for a regulator that stands up for consumers unlike Phillip Brear who sees us as whinging loser gits*
This step - the first time sites and the big software firms could be forced to accept a regulator (fortunately a pretty light touch one that welcomes innovation) rather than cherry picking whatever regulator lets them do what they want has the potential to be a big step forward in consumer protection.
The UKGC consultation on player funds allows us to say
- we want jackpots paid in full not restricted by monthly cash out limits
- we want the real providers (the software firms) to be jointly and severally liable for player funds as well as for their marketing agents potential tax bill to HMRC.
The idea that regulation today is so good that the UKGC imposing itself on providers cannot offer far better consumer protection is risible. The sites may want to sue in the EU courts but all that means is that the UKGC will have to play hardball to justify itself, the fees they will charge, the HMRC tax bill and the insistence on help for problem gamblers and research from the online firms. Frankly pretending Malta and Gibraltar are good enough as regultors is comical.
* I paraphrase slightly but with threats on here and his comments to the DCMS Select Committe re this legislation I am if any thing being soft on Mr Brear.