IRRESPONSIBLE gaming issue

[FourTeller]

Slightly O/T

Aside from being a responsible gaming tool, there is another important function of having deposit/spend limits at gambling sites: reducing exposure to online fraud. One of the tactics used by hackers is to log in using a victim's details, deposit from his/her card/ewallet and then chip dump/transfer funds to another player who withdraws the ill-gotten gains. Granted, online thieves these days seem to prefer hacking into MB/Skrill or Neteller directly and doing a P2P transfer - or stealing funds already on a gambling site - but it's still very possible for them to make unauthorized deposits themselves, especially if the relevant details are saved in the account.

If I was the sort of person to keep a large amount of money in any of my ewallet accounts (which I am not), one of the security measures I would take is to ensure I had appropriate transaction limits at each of the many gaming sites I belong to that allow me to determine how much I want to deposit in a given time frame. So if I had $100K sitting in Skrill, for example, I might set up my Betfair account to allow deposits not exceeding $2K a day and limited to $10K in a week. A hacker could therefore make away with $2K in short order but would not be able to drain all my online funds at once through a single avenue and I'd stand a better chance of retaining/recovering most/all of my money.

While the use of deposit/spend limits is obviously not the sole or best way of keeping online funds safe, I believe it does represent an additional layer of security... if it actually works as intended. I would be highly unimpressed by a site that offered the feature yet failed to activate it when required, allowing amounts higher than the set limits to be deposited or played at any given time. Nevertheless, I know better than to imagine for a second that an online gambling operator would refund losses arising from unauthorized deposits whose sum was higher than what I'd set in my account (unless perhaps the fraud itself could be directly attributed to the site's own fault/negligence).

Bottom line is, I think that allowing customers to set their own deposit/spend limits is an important account feature, both in terms of encouraging responsible gaming/spending and securing finances online, and if a site offers it then it should also be responsible for enforcing the specified limits.

 

[onkel]

Erm what? If a hacker has access to your Moneybookers, what's stopping them from creating a new account at any random site and deposit as much as they please?

 

[Richas]

The current UKGC consultation regarding the Licencing Conditions and Code of Practice has a couple of questions relevant to this. Please remember that all sites accepting UK players will have to sign up to these codes and apply them to all their customers.

Identification of individual customers
7.42 In 2008, the Commission introduced a provision that requires remote licensees to implement policies and procedures to identify separate accounts held by the same individual. The purpose of this provision was to ensure operators complied with LCCP including requirements in respect of customer interaction, self-exclusion and financial limits.

7.43 The provision is currently split between a social responsibility code and an ordinary code provision. The social responsibility code makes it a requirement for licensees to implement the provision across all accounts held by the Commission licensee. The ordinary code sets the Commission’s expectation that licensees ‘take all reasonable steps’ to apply the provisions of the social responsibility code to activities of group companies including activities licensed in another country. The Commission at that time accepted the industry’s 37
view that it would be a challenge to require as a social responsibility provision, adherence with this code for group companies (includes those licensed overseas).

7.44In the light of case work the Commission has been considering whether the current ordinary code provision provides suitable incentives for operators to apply social responsibility measures across account activity. There is some learning that is emerging from recent case work by the Commission that relates to the ability of operators to link accounts. In some cases there have been serious flaws in operators’ capability to link customer activity that hindered their capability fulfil their obligations under the licensing objectives.

7.45 Therefore the Commission intends to strengthen the current provision so that remote licensees are required as a social responsibility code provision to link customer account activity with any group company of theirs. To clarify, this provision while applying to remote licensees places an obligation on that licensee to link all relevant accounts from any group company (whether remote or non-remote).

7.46 The Commission acknowledges that this requirement may be challenging for some and has retained the wording that requires remote licensees to ‘take all reasonable steps’ to apply this provision to group companies. But the Commission is also aware of developments by licensees to attempt to provide common wallets and account based gambling across their remote and non-remote products.

7.47 The amended provision is set out below.

Proposed amendment to existing social responsibility code provision
Identification of individual customers
All remote licences (including ancillary remote betting licences), except gaming machine technical, gambling software, ancillary remote bingo, ancillary remote casino and remote betting intermediary (trading rooms only) licences
1 Licensees must have and put into effect policies and procedures designed to identify separate accounts which are held by the same individual.
2 Where licensees allow customers to hold more than one account with them, the licensee must link all of a customer’s such accounts to that customer and ensure that:
• if a customer opts to self-exclude from one account they are excluded from all accounts they hold with the licensee
• all of a customer’s accounts are monitored and decisions that trigger customer interaction are based on the observed behaviour and transactions across all the accounts
• where credit is offered or allowed the maximum credit limit is applied on an aggregate basis across all accounts
• individual financial limits can be implemented across all of a customer’s accounts.
3 Licensees which are companies or other bodies corporate must take all reasonable steps to comply with the above provision as if reference to a customer holding more than one account with them included a reference to a customer holding one or more accounts with them and one or more accounts with a group company of theirs.
4 A company is a ‘group company’ in relation to a licensee if it is the holding company of, subsidiary of, or shares a common holding company with, the licensee. For these purposes ‘holding company’ and ‘subsidiary’ have the meanings ascribed to them by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof.

38
Proposed deletion of existing ordinary code provision

Identification of individual customers All remote licences (including ancillary remote betting licences), except gaming machine technical, gambling software, ancillary remote bingo, ancillary remote casino and remote betting intermediary (trading rooms only) licences Ordinary code provision Where a licensee: i) is a company, the licensee should take all reasonable steps to comply with the above social responsibility code provision as if it also applied to accounts held in respect of gambling carried on in reliance on a remote operating licence held by any Group Company; ii) also holds a licence in another jurisdiction permitting it to provide facilities for remote gambling (a ‘foreign licence’) or is a company one or more of whose Group Companies holds one or more foreign licences, the licensee should take all reasonable steps to comply with the above social responsibility code provision as if it applied also to accounts held in respect of gambling carried on in reliance on a foreign licence held by the licensee or any Group Company. A company is a Group Company in relation to a licensee if it is the holding company of, subsidiary of, or shares a common holding company with, the licensee. For these purposes ‘holding company’ and ‘subsidiary’ respectively have the meanings ascribed to them by section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof.

7.48 The Commission is interested in views on this proposed amendment to these provisions. Although as a social responsibility provision this carries the same weight as breach of a condition, such provisions can only extend to matters of social responsibility. However, there is considerable overlap between the pattern of play that may indicate potential problem gambling and those that indicate potential criminal activity/money laundering.

7.49 As such the Commission would like views on whether it would be helpful to replace this provision with a licence condition that expressly requires remote licensees to link accounts for the prevention of crime as well as the social responsibility aspects of LCCP.
Consultation questions

Q23. Do you have any views on the Commission’s proposal to elevate the requirement to link accounts across group companies to social responsibility code from an ordinary code provision?

Q24. Do you think it would be helpful to instead replace the provision about identification of individual customers with a licence condition that required the linking of accounts for money laundering prevention as well as social responsibility provisions of LCCP?

I have to say I support this linking of accounts to link self exclusion and deposit limits.

I am also emailing a lot of MPs and the UKGC calling for self exclusion from all UK licenced sites to be made available via a single call, plus asking them to look at "vertical" self exclusion.

 

[Nifty29]

The current UKGC consultation regarding the Licencing Conditions and Code of Practice has a couple of questions relevant to this. Please remember that all sites accepting UK players will have to sign up to these codes and apply them to all their customers.



I have to say I support this linking of accounts to link self exclusion and deposit limits.

I am also emailing a lot of MPs and the UKGC calling for self exclusion from all UK licenced sites to be made available via a single call, plus asking them to look at "vertical" self exclusion.

I beg to differ Richas.

If anyone thinks that every casino is going to either purchase a UK licence or stop taking UK players, they're kidding themselves.

I cannot see how the UK courts or government can control the behavior of overseas entities, especially those in Cowboy Town or other tax havens. The US haven't managed to stop it, and I don't see how the UK can do much better.

It's great if you choose a licenced casino, but the others will be offering juicy promos and many players won't be able to resist.

 

[Richas]

I beg to differ Richas.

If anyone thinks that every casino is going to either purchase a UK licence or stop taking UK players, they're kidding themselves.

I cannot see how the UK courts or government can control the behavior of overseas entities, especially those in Cowboy Town or other tax havens. The US haven't managed to stop it, and I don't see how the UK can do much better.

It's great if you choose a licenced casino, but the others will be offering juicy promos and many players won't be able to resist.

Differ then. Any respectable site will take the white UK market by getting a license. If they don't they will be prevented from using any decent form of advertising and will be reduced to Nigerian con style spam which will be a specific offence to send in any case.

The reason the US fails to block is that they offer no legal advertised choice with respectable sites as an alternative. UK consumers will not go for "juicy bonuses" when they can have legal and respected brands that they can see on their TV, their premiership club shirts and high street who will BTW also have bonuses. Not getting a UK licence is for UK customers a bit like rogue status with real teeth.

15% of the UK market is UK licenced today. The treasury impact analysis assumes 80% in future but I think that is undercooking it by a lot, I reckon it will be over 95% within a year of the legislation applying.

For example if you look at affiliates. Any affiliate dealing with a UK licenced site will have to sign up to a contract with that operator that passes on the social responsibility code to them. This means that if that affiliate markets to or signs up a UK player to a non UK site then they can and would get their contract with the proper operator terminated at the insistence of the UKGC. The UK is doing this the right way, the US is taking a completely different approach, the US lesson is that bans do not work, the UK one that regulation can.

 

[Nifty29]

Differ then. Any respectable site will take the white UK market by getting a license. If they don't they will be prevented from using any decent form of advertising and will be reduced to Nigerian con style spam which will be a specific offence to send in any case.

The reason the US fails to block is that they offer no legal advertised choice with respectable sites as an alternative. UK consumers will not go for "juicy bonuses" when they can have legal and respected brands that they can see on their TV, their premiership club shirts and high street who will BTW also have bonuses. Not getting a UK licence is for UK customers a bit like rogue status with real teeth.

15% of the UK market is UK licenced today. The treasury impact analysis assumes 80% in future but I think that is undercooking it by a lot, I reckon it will be over 95% within a year of the legislation applying.

For example if you look at affiliates. Any affiliate dealing with a UK licenced site will have to sign up to a contract with that operator that passes on the social responsibility code to them. This means that if that affiliate markets to or signs up a UK player to a non UK site then they can and would get their contract with the proper operator terminated at the insistence of the UKGC. The UK is doing this the right way, the US is taking a completely different approach, the US lesson is that bans do not work, the UK one that regulation can.

I will.....then.

 

[Richas]

I will.....then.

OK.

You may want to consider where the carribbean cowboys will get their games post the new UK rules.

The big suppliers like Playtech, Microgaming and Spielo G2 will have to get UKGC licences and sign up to imposing conditions on their non UK licensed customers if they want to deal with the UK licensed major players. If the cowboys are using their software products and try to sell into the UK market, without a license, that puts the B2B's license at risk. They will stop supplying the small rogues before they lose their major UK facing customers.

Now the non UK licensed rogue sites may want to target UK players but if they try to do it with the products of B2Bs that are UK licensed they will not last long. What games are the small non UK casinos going to use when they sell to the UK market? Those by the big suppliers, nah. So what are they left with?

 

[skiny]

OK.

You may want to consider where the carribbean cowboys will get their games post the new UK rules.

The big suppliers like Playtech, Microgaming and Spielo G2 will have to get UKGC licences and sign up to imposing conditions on their non UK licensed customers if they want to deal with the UK licensed major players. If the cowboys are using their software products and try to sell into the UK market, without a license, that puts the B2B's license at risk. They will stop supplying the small rogues before they lose their major UK facing customers.

Now the non UK licensed rogue sites may want to target UK players but if they try to do it with the products of B2Bs that are UK licensed they will not last long. What games are the small non UK casinos going to use when they sell to the UK market? Those by the big suppliers, nah. So what are they left with?

You seem to be under the impression that this UK legislation is going to be the white knight that's going to ride in and save the world from rogue casinos. I just can't see it being that simple. If I'm reading this right you're saying that every casino that's licensed by a software provider has to follow UK legislation or none of them get licensed? Good luck with that.

If you take a company like RTG which has many more rogue casinos than it has reputable ones, do you think they're going to revoke all the licenses from every one of those rogue casinos so the small handful that's left over can get a UK license? And if a company like RTG just says "we don't care if you license us or not" what is this legislation going to do? Stop them from advertising in the UK? I know tons of online gamblers here in Canada and I've yet to see a casino ad anywhere other than some crappy CDs snail mailed to me once in a while and on casino websites which pretty much everyone in the free world has access to provided they have an internet connection.

Are they going to ban them from accepting UK players? Isn't that what the US has been doing for years? You said bans don't work, legislation does. And if they don't follow the legislation they get banned?... which you said doesn't work.

And if I am reading this wrong and the UK will license some casinos whether or not they all acquire licenses, what's to stop casinos from accepting UK players illegally like they've been doing in the US for years?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the UK handing out licenses but they're not going to clean up the online gambling industry with a few sheets of nicely worded rules. We call these casinos rogue for a reason.

 

[Richas]

You seem to be under the impression that this UK legislation is going to be the white knight that's going to ride in and save the world from rogue casinos. I just can't see it being that simple. If I'm reading this right you're saying that every casino that's licensed by a software provider has to follow UK legislation or none of them get licensed? Good luck with that.

If you take a company like RTG which has many more rogue casinos than it has reputable ones, do you think they're going to revoke all the licenses from every one of those rogue casinos so the small handful that's left over can get a UK license? And if a company like RTG just says "we don't care if you license us or not" what is this legislation going to do? Stop them from advertising in the UK? I know tons of online gamblers here in Canada and I've yet to see a casino ad anywhere other than some crappy CDs snail mailed to me once in a while and on casino websites which pretty much everyone in the free world has access to provided they have an internet connection.

Are they going to ban them from accepting UK players? Isn't that what the US has been doing for years? You said bans don't work, legislation does. And if they don't follow the legislation they get banned?... which you said doesn't work.

And if I am reading this wrong and the UK will license some casinos whether or not they all acquire licenses, what's to stop casinos from accepting UK players illegally like they've been doing in the US for years?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the UK handing out licenses but they're not going to clean up the online gambling industry with a few sheets of nicely worded rules. We call these casinos rogue for a reason.

I don't claim that the new legislation will cure everything. I do claim that it will be a huge step forward, most clearly for UK consumers but it will benefit ROW players too, sadly not US players though.

Software suppliers can supply non UK facing casinos (that do not need a UK licence) but they need to contract with those casinos not to take UK players. If they do take UK players illegally the B2C faces the risk of prosecution and the B2B risks their licence and ultimately prosecution too. The B2B will not want some rogue putting the rest of their business at risk, especially when test purchasing is a very easy way to catch them out/prove it.

You are right, RTG will have a choice - serve UK customers legally or stay a rogue software supplier for rogue sites. It may be that they are steeped so deep in roguedom that they opt out of the UK but this will not be true for most of the B2Bs. The main software suppliers will choose the legal white market and they will have to pull out of supplying rogues that accept players from the UK or jurisdictions that ban play.

The new legislation does have some international reach. This includes getting the B2Bs to insist that their casino customers accept UK rules, in particular not taking UK players without a licence and that they do not accept players from other jurisdictions like the US that do not allow play.

The vast majority of software suppliers and casinos will accept the new UK regime. There will remain a rump serving players essentially illegally which will remain rogue but they will be squeezed out of the UK market almost entirely. The legit firms that can advertise will massacre them. The only thing keeping such rogue operators alive is players from places that attempt to ban online gambling. That grey market is reserved for the rogues who will not be facing legitimate firms that out compete them.

Rogues continue under poor regulatory regimes but they exist primarily because of attempts to ban. This gives them a market that is protected for them alone. The only reason they exist is that some people have nowhere else to go. This stops the market killing them off or keeping them incredibly marginal at most.


To get back on topic: For UK players it does mean that the casinos will be asked to link accounts for the purposes of self exclusion and deposit limits, which is what this thread is about. The regulator is addressing this issue. Sadly they are currently failing to enable UK self exclusion from all UK Licensed sites.

 

[P.V.]

To get back on topic: For UK players it does mean that the casinos will be asked to link accounts for the purposes of self exclusion and deposit limits, which is what this thread is about. The regulator is addressing this issue. Sadly they are currently failing to enable UK self exclusion from all UK Licensed sites.

I designed a "one click self exclusion", patent pending . My hands are tied within the upcoming U.S. market but could launch the platform within the UK if the need ever arises , different site.

The problem is getting the gambling site's onboard but maybe if it's law they would..

Deposit limits need to be done on a site by site basis as you might want to play more at one than another but self exclusion as I define it is I have a gambling problem and need to quit.

And then there's I need to take a break which should be on a site by site basis too.

From your quote above why would they be failing to provide self exclusion from all UK sites? That's easy, demand it and provide a place for the process to take place.

Tell them to contact me if they can figure it out!

 

[Richas]

I designed a "one click self exclusion", patent pending . My hands are tied within the upcoming U.S. market but could launch the platform within the UK if the need ever arises , different site.

The problem is getting the gambling site's onboard but maybe if it's law they would..

Deposit limits need to be done on a site by site basis as you might want to play more at one than another but self exclusion as I define it is I have a gambling problem and need to quit.

And then there's I need to take a break which should be on a site by site basis too.

From your quote above why would they be failing to provide self exclusion from all UK sites? That's easy, demand it and provide a place for the process to take place.

Tell them to contact me if they can figure it out!

You'll have a job getting patent income from a joint self exclusion scheme in the UK, business processes are not patentable here.

Realistically it would only happen as part of the regulatory requirement, it is no good unless all the sites opt in or are forced to opt in. Costs would then be split amongst all the licensees just like they share the regulatory costs.

 

[P.V.]

You'll have a job getting patent income from a joint self exclusion scheme in the UK, business processes are not patentable here.

Realistically it would only happen as part of the regulatory requirement, it is no good unless all the sites opt in or are forced to opt in. Costs would then be split amongst all the licensees just like they share the regulatory costs.

I'm not in the UK, US patent.

 

[skiny]

The new legislation does have some international reach. This includes getting the B2Bs to insist that their casino customers accept UK rules, in particular not taking UK players without a licence and that they do not accept players from other jurisdictions like the US that do not allow play.

Rogues continue under poor regulatory regimes but they exist primarily because of attempts to ban. This gives them a market that is protected for them alone. The only reason they exist is that some people have nowhere else to go. This stops the market killing them off or keeping them incredibly marginal at most.

So the legislation says "Stop catering to the 300 million people in the US or you won't be allowed to cater to the 60 million on the UK."

Tough decision.

Rogues don't exist because people have no other place to go. Rogues exist because there are billions of people with internet connections that don't do their homework before taking too good to be true bonus offers from websites that advertise any casino regardless of whether or not they ever paid anyone. No legislation is going to change that.

 

[Richas]

So the legislation says "Stop catering to the 300 million people in the US or you won't be allowed to cater to the 60 million on the UK."

Tough decision.

Rogues don't exist because people have no other place to go. Rogues exist because there are billions of people with internet connections that don't do their homework before taking too good to be true bonus offers from websites that advertise any casino regardless of whether or not they ever paid anyone. No legislation is going to change that.

It is not a tough decision for the big suppliers, they will go for the legal access to a white market that is not just the UK but likely in not too long to be the whole EU. Why do they need the risk of DOJ action and fund seizures/arrest? The US market that they cannot advertise into and risk arrest/seizure of funds from is not worth the grief. Especially if they want to get in on any future regulated online gambling in the US.

There will remain a market for those wanting to gamble illegally but it will not be met by the main software firms any more. Rogues survive today largely because those without access to legitimate sites are left just with the rogues. In terms of competition in the UK market today what do you think the balance is for rogue sites as opposed to the mainstream B2C brands? There may be a handful of UK punters dim enough to go with the rogues but it is a tiny fraction. The rogues cannot cope with legitimate competition.

 

[skiny]

It is not a tough decision for the big suppliers, they will go for the legal access to a white market that is not just the UK but likely in not too long to be the whole EU. Why do they need the risk of DOJ action and fund seizures/arrest? The US market that they cannot advertise into and risk arrest/seizure of funds from is not worth the grief. Especially if they want to get in on any future regulated online gambling in the US.

You may very well be right. I have no way to predict the future. When the UK passes this heavy handed legislation it's entirely possible that all the major software providers may buckle down and start revoking licenses to all casinos that don't either acquire UK licenses or cease all operations with UK customers. The UK may well become a safe haven for players where rogue casinos fear to tread and rules and regulations keep all casinos in line for fear of reprisal and honest casinos rise to the top while the rogues fade into the dark forgotten corners of the gaming industry.

I remain pessimistic. Not one software provider on the planet can boast they do not license to rogue casinos. I seriously doubt they are unaware of the behaviour of these casinos. This is a billion dollar industry and it didn't get that way by creating software and then strictly regulating everything that each licensee does. Software companies have made a great deal of money by turning a blind eye to the treatment of the players using their products. Try contacting Playtech, RTG or Microgaming directly and complaining that a casino won't accept your ID. It seems to me that for the most part these companies aren't interested in policing the casinos they license to and they're really not interested in losing the millions of dollars it would cost to start revoking licenses to casinos that aren't as honest as we'd like them to be.

The major software providers license anywhere from dozens to hundreds of casinos with a very short list of what we consider to be the cream of the crop. When the hammer comes down and these providers are expected to start revoking licenses or paying fines to a large portion of their client base what's to say that they don't get frustrated with the loss of revenue and start moving their operations outside of the UK's jurisdiction? This website offers accreditation to any casino who wants it and I'm sure any casino would be happy to stick their name in the list but then they aren't capable of following the rules so rather than change their behaviour they simply operate from outside of Casinomeister's better graces.

When this legislation is passed I'm just as sure that any casino would want to operate with one of these UK licenses but we know how short that list of truly good casinos is and when that very long list of casinos that like to operate just outside of what we might call transparently honest starts falling by the wayside I'm just not convinced that all these major software providers are going to be comfortable with pulling all their licenses.

Rules, regulations and laws are great. They are a necessity to keep our civilization... civilized. But they have a long history of producing the opposite effect if it becomes too heavy handed. Sometimes it backfires and it wouldn't be the first time a large company moved it's operations to a less hostile operating environment when staying becomes more expensive than it's worth. You have to be careful when you start making statements like "You're either with us or you're against us." It doesn't always get you more allies. And if the major brands start pulling out of UK jurisdiction and the casinos follow because their licenses are all revoked it then becomes a player's problem. "If you can find a way to deposit, we'll try to find a way to pay you." Sound familiar?

There will remain a market for those wanting to gamble illegally but it will not be met by the main software firms any more. Rogues survive today largely because those without access to legitimate sites are left just with the rogues. In terms of competition in the UK market today what do you think the balance is for rogue sites as opposed to the mainstream B2C brands? There may be a handful of UK punters dim enough to go with the rogues but it is a tiny fraction. The rogues cannot cope with legitimate competition.

I don't know where you're getting this idea that rogue casinos exist because people have no place else to go. Every major software brand licenses to rogue casinos. If that were the case only US players would have accounts with rogue casinos. In fact, even US players have casinos they can chose that aren't rogue. People have choices. Rogue casinos exist because people aren't making the right ones.

 

[Richas]

I entirely agree that the software suppliers - the main operators know as B2Bs have washed their hands of their end customers. They have let them be defrauded, they deal with rogues and criminals and they do this by (to date) having refused any regulation or responsibility for players at all.

Your analysis of what they have done to date is spot on. That is why this change to require the B2B at the heart of the network to be regulated is a breakthrough for player protection. They will not be able to say "not me guv" any more. They have a choice - either go for a legitimate white market or stay in the grey market. It is UK today but the model is likely to spread to other regulators too.

As for rogues. Some are truly terrible and yes so long as they pay the b2B the supplier has until now said fine, not our problem, we will take crooks money but the US facing half decent sites are still a far higher risk for all players there. This risk is partly the DOJ but it is also a matter of moral hazard. The people running them are choosing to do something that they know could lead to charges. They may, with a bit of good luck, play reasonably fair with their customers, until external events interfere, but they have already demonstrated a certain roguish moral flexibility.

The regulation of the B2Bs - Playtech, Microgaming et al for the first time ever is a new era.

 

[skiny]

Time will tell but for this to make any difference software providers are going to have to revoke an awful lot of licenses because we know most of these casinos aren't going to suddenly become fair and honest.

RTG would basically be a write off because if you pulled every casino that consistently couldn't follow their own rules, much less someone else's you could fit a list of what's left on the back of a match book.

A lot of good casinos could suffer for the behaviour of bad ones with no way to effect any real change themselves. That would be limited to how much money the software providers are willing to lose in order to clean up their client base.

Maybe it will spark a growth in proprietary software. Who knows?

 

[Nifty29]

I tend to agree with skiny here.

There will always be a way to short-circuit even the most robust legislation, especially when it involves an international trade like online gambling. I'm not sure exactly what they'll do, but you can rest assured they will do something and probably already are.

The elephant in the room for me is who is going to pay the exorbitant licence fees (15% of turnover?).....the operators surely cannot absorb that kind of cost, so its the punter that will bear the brunt...which means drastically lower TRTP and quite possibly nasty deposit and cashout fees. It could well become not much better an option than trundling down to the arcade or the pub and playing the VWM specials. I just don't see the 95%+ being offered these days being financially viable for UK customers.

 

[skiny]

I tend to agree with skiny here.

There will always be a way to short-circuit even the most robust legislation, especially when it involves an international trade like online gambling. I'm not sure exactly what they'll do, but you can rest assured they will do something and probably already are.

The elephant in the room for me is who is going to pay the exorbitant licence fees (15% of turnover?).....the operators surely cannot absorb that kind of cost, so its the punter that will bear the brunt...which means drastically lower TRTP and quite possibly nasty deposit and cashout fees. It could well become not much better an option than trundling down to the arcade or the pub and playing the VWM specials. I just don't see the 95%+ being offered these days being financially viable for UK customers.

Just like any business, additional operating costs are ultimately paid for by the customer. Very few businesses will simply accept and absorb a decrease in profits. That money always comes out of our pockets.

But then what do people expect will happen when the government gets involved? lol

 

[Richas]

Time will tell but for this to make any difference software providers are going to have to revoke an awful lot of licenses because we know most of these casinos aren't going to suddenly become fair and honest.

RTG would basically be a write off because if you pulled every casino that consistently couldn't follow their own rules, much less someone else's you could fit a list of what's left on the back of a match book.

A lot of good casinos could suffer for the behaviour of bad ones with no way to effect any real change themselves. That would be limited to how much money the software providers are willing to lose in order to clean up their client base.

Maybe it will spark a growth in proprietary software. Who knows?

My enthusiasm may have led to me being unclear. For peer to peer gambling like poker sites that are non UK licensed the requirements for social responsibility need to go into the B2Bs contract with the B2C including that without a UK license they will not accept UK players. There is information sharing stuff and more for the peer to peer setup.

For casino licenses with shared platforms and prize liquidity the requirement on the non UK site that the B2B must impose is basically just that they do not take UK players. The software suppliers for casinos can supply rogues and hold a UK license so long as those rogues do not sign up any UK players.

As for 15% having a huge impact, maybe, lots of industries live with tax though. Bookies pay that today onshore and 20% on FOBTs and they still make money even with far greater staff, rent, rates and other overheads than a skin. It may be that the tax is a barrier to entry and larger sites are the ones that will get a UK license whilst some smaller ones drop out of the UK market and effectively sell on their players to UK facing B2Cs on the same network but 15% gross revenue tax does not make a casino unprofitable by definition, nor does it mean that they have to reduce payouts. They may need more turnover to cover the fixed costs but that's a scale thing an impossibility.

 

[Andy Walker]

And as we know the chairpersons at the casinos are going to roll their trousers up to their knees, don their party hats singing drinking songs and embrace the changes like being in a special membership to the Commonwealth of Nations (I love the commonwealth part).

This would assume complete idiocy on the people that are currently running a successful business, who would never have thought of trading like some big search engine, some big coffee shop and a rather large online store that trade and pay with tax levels so thin a gnat would be proud.

 

[skiny]

My enthusiasm may have led to me being unclear. For peer to peer gambling like poker sites that are non UK licensed the requirements for social responsibility need to go into the B2Bs contract with the B2C including that without a UK license they will not accept UK players. There is information sharing stuff and more for the peer to peer setup.

For casino licenses with shared platforms and prize liquidity the requirement on the non UK site that the B2B must impose is basically just that they do not take UK players. The software suppliers for casinos can supply rogues and hold a UK license so long as those rogues do not sign up any UK players.

And when they continue to do so the suppliers either have to cut them loose, pay the fines or pack up and move. The first option is unlikely, the second one will get tiresome and the third may be inevitable. But I'm just being pessimistic again.

As for 15% having a huge impact, maybe, lots of industries live with tax though. Bookies pay that today onshore and 20% on FOBTs and they still make money even with far greater staff, rent, rates and other overheads than a skin. It may be that the tax is a barrier to entry and larger sites are the ones that will get a UK license whilst some smaller ones drop out of the UK market and effectively sell on their players to UK facing B2Cs on the same network but 15% gross revenue tax does not make a casino unprofitable by definition, nor does it mean that they have to reduce payouts. They may need more turnover to cover the fixed costs but that's a scale thing an impossibility.

I have no idea what the operating costs are for bookies but I'm sure they're operating under a completely different business model than an online casinos that offer slot games and video poker at relatively high advertised TRTPs. If a casino is truly operating inside of anywhere near the 95% TRTP they claim to be, that wouldn't leave a whole lot left over if you skimmed off another 15% of the turnover.

But if the worst thing that happens is all the little guys have to sell off their customer bases to the big boys I guess that's not so bad. Just look at the quality and service we get from Wal-Mart and Target. Who needs selection when they have everything we need?

 

[dunover]

The big four softwares are MG and Playtech, UK companies and IGT and RTG which are American. RTG casinos will not be affected other than restrict UK players from playing which I suspect, given we in the UK can play anywhere and thus RTG is a poor choice, will have little effect. IGT (confirmed by CM's description in the software section) have had no rogue casinos. RTG have had many as have Playtech. MG have had few. Now notice how MG are based 'offshore' in the Isle Of Man and Playtech are offshore too. Then we have the fact that a few large bookmaker casinos like PP, Boyles and Coral have switched from IGT to Playtech platforms. It's also worth mentioning that the big webwallets are UK companies, notably Skrill (formerly Moneybookers) and Neteller (part of the optimal group with their main office in the Isle of Man too).

Now unless Chopley is a secret billionaire and owns all these businesses and merely comes on here to spy on player opinion, this collection of facts will have not escaped the UK government's revenue-sniffing RADAR which is a remarkably efficient and effective tool. Especially as already cited that the government is facing huge criticism for allowing *m*z*n and St*rb*cks to abuse the tax loopholes. Here is a great opportunity to use the burgeoning online gaming industry much of which is UK-owned as a cash cow.

So, we have divided opinion on whether the 15% levy is workable, affordable for the casinos and what effect it will have on players. The authorities will not kill the golden goose for sure, and the 15% figure will not have been clutched from the air. As has been said already in this thread, it's not dissimilar to what has been levied on land-based bookies already, which have greater overheads. The government holds all the aces. Should they want to exclude us from playing at non-approved offshore sites or softwares overnight they could easily rule that webwallets or direct payments funded by UK debit/credit cards do not fall under the usual card protection schemes - overnight the webwallets and card companies and banks would bar payments to such. No legislation would be necessary. Those sites that don't cooperate would find it very hard to take money from the UK, a major proportion of their revenues.

So, to summarize, this looks like an easy option for the UK treasury after the criticism about non-taxation of companies making huge profits from UK customers but accounting offshore to avoid taxes. They are starting with UK-owned large 'offshore' businesses involved in the huge online gaming industry. It was inevitable I suppose.

 

[skiny]

Speaking of IGT, how come Canadians aren't allowed to use this software? Or is it just the one I tried to join?

 

[Richas]

Now unless Chopley is a secret billionaire and owns all these businesses and merely comes on here to spy on player opinion, this collection of facts will have not escaped the UK government's revenue-sniffing RADAR which is a remarkably efficient and effective tool. Especially as already cited that the government is facing huge criticism for allowing *m*z*n and St*rb*cks to abuse the tax loopholes. Here is a great opportunity to use the burgeoning online gaming industry much of which is UK-owned as a cash cow.

The *m*z*n and St*rb*cks comparison is a real political pressure but the comparison is a bit wrong. That is about corporation tax on profits from UK revenues. Now both those firms pay (well their customers pay) large amounts via the turnover tax VAT to HMRC. The avoidance is on the corporation tax of profits.

The new levy is a turnover tax, they can still do all the same offshoring tricks as other multinationals but the levy will apply. The extent od avoidance by major UK firms in online gambling is far worse than the examples that have (rightly) got people annoyed.