Q&A Sister Casino Self-Exclusion: is there really such a thing?

[maxd]

So, in one of our recent staff discussions the question of sister casino self-seclusion -- let's just call it SCSE for short -- came up and some of my esteemed colleagues were genuinely shocked at my statement that for all intents and purposes none of the major jurisdictions where enforcing it. Not the UKGC, not Malta, certainly not Curacao ... Kahnawake might but I'd have to check.

A few years ago I wrote an article on the realities of self-exclusion: Is Self-Exclusion an Illusion? .
I pretty much stand by what I wrote then but the one thing I didn't do is actually dig into the licensing legalese to see what the different jurisdictions have to say on the subject. And, perhaps more to the point, I didn't talk to our industry friends to see what they had to say. After all, they're the guys at the front line so who better than them to comment on this.

Before I kick this off I should identify what I actually mean by SCSE: let's assume casinos X and Y are owned and run by company ABC, possibly but not necessarily under the same license. Also, lets assume a player has legitimate accounts at both casinos. If the player self-excludes on their account at Casino X does the self-exclusion apply to their account at Casino Y? Obviously X and Y are "sister" casinos so that why the "SCSE" term would apply.

I'm well aware that some operators are conscientious and would, of course, do the SCSE here. But I want to isolate the "yes we would because it is the right thing to do" cases from the "yes we would because our license requires it" cases.

The problem behind all this is that in their day-to-day operations most casinos regardless of their license jurisdiction are practicing "no SCSE" policies. I see this all the time in the Complaints work I do for players. But why? Both Malta and the UKGC have clauses in their licensing directives that more or less say that SCSE should be applied. How is it that it's not? What is the reasoning behind that? I think that's really the question here.

Anyway, time to turn it over to readers for their insights. I'd especially like to hear from some of the reps -- @Mark_Lottomart ? @L&L-Jan ? @Betreels Casino & Sports ? @Team.Videoslots ? @Unibet Rep ? -- but I'm not trying to pressure anyone, I'd just love to hear your thoughts on this.***

Regards,
Max Drayman
Player Arbitration (PAB) Manager, Casinomeister.com

***if you'd prefer to comment off the record maybe PM me and I can post on your behalf, anonymised of course.

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

Hi Max,

I might be a little rusty on this since the last couple of places I’ve worked have only operated on one licence, but I’m pretty sure it’s licence dependent.

If brands A & B operate under the same licence they must be excluded across both brands, however if they operate on separate licences (for example after an acquisition) then there certainly didn’t used to be a requirement for exclusion across brands.

That said, the place I worked which operated under different licenses did the right thing and implemented cross-brand self exclusion despite the different licences, I’m pretty sure this was a voluntary thing at the time rather than a regulatory requirement though. I could be wrong, it was a while ago.

Hope that helps.
Mark

 

[maxd]

Thanks Mark, I know and understand both cases you've mentioned. As always you guys have been in the "do the right thing" group so the actual letter of the law (so to speak) was a bit beside the point.

- Max

 

[jasonuk]

But why? Both Malta and the UKGC have clauses in their licensing directives that more or less say that SCSE should be applied. How is it that it's not? What is the reasoning behind that? I think that's really the question here.

In regards the UKGC, I wonder if that is still true - the

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice) loves the phrase "all reasonable steps" in 3.5.3 (remote, social responsibility) and 3.5.4 (remote, "ordinary"/ good practice). The multi-operator requirements (3.5.5) are currently a single line - that they must participate in a national multi-operator self-exclusion scheme (so GAMSTOP)

I suspect a lot of operators haven't consolidated their systems for that reason - if they merge them, then it's a reasonable step as the accounts are already linked together; if they don't merge them, then it's potentially a "burden" and the operator may - rightly or wrongly - argue it is unreasonable.

In the case of Flutter, as of June 2022 they will do a best-effort to exclude across all four major brands (PaddyPower, Betfair, SkyBet and PokerStars) within the UK - but this doesn't apply historically (e.g. PPB exclusions before May 2020 don't spread to PokerStars, PP exclusions before December 2016 wouldn't spread to Betfair), nor outside the UK.

In the case of Entain, their award-winning ? policies state you can do it although the PartyPoker and Ladbrokes FAQs are pretty bare on this and give no details - so I wouldn't be surprised if they give you a list buried in some legalese and tell you do it one by one. The good news (!) is they do tell you that you can reopen all of your other Entain accounts with just one call! ?

The problem is, even when the UKGC are made aware of such breaches (thinking back to a streamer that got RG-locked on one site, so switched to their account on a sister site under the same licence and started playing) often nothing seems to happen - possibly a mixture of the wheels turning very slowly, and not wanting to rock the boat too much.


As a slight tangent, the UKGC's single customer view scheme appears to be entering it's trial phase, called

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

:

Participating Operators will identify a player as at risk of health-related problem gambling if the player states that they:

• Have a gambling problem or addiction.
• Are seeking external support or treatment for gambling problems.
• Will harm themselves or someone else.
• Should not be gambling because they have a medical condition.
• Want to stop gambling forever due to problems with their gambling.

Initial Account Closure

• Once a Participating Operator has identified a player as at risk of health-related problem gambling, it will close all of the player’s accounts and exclude the player from all of its gambling services.
• It will also inform the player that they will be added to GamProtect due to issues with health-related problem gambling.

Once listed on the scheme [as of April 2023: PaddyPowerBetfair, Entain, Bet365, WH and Mr Green], players will be self-excluded for a minimum of 5 years from all participating sites. If a player believes this is in error, the "participating operator" is the judge, jury and executioner on any redress procedure - which seems like a double edged sword, given it wouldn't be the first time we've had malicious operators abuse a process to spite (e.g. winning) players.

 

[L&L-Jan]

but I’m pretty sure it’s licence dependent.

Pretty much this yes, so SGA+UKGC they SE an account, all accounts are SE'ed and attempts for new registered account are SE'ed after registration is completed.

For MGA players SE goes per casino, especially if no interaction at all. IF they interact we always ask for reasoning and if something related gambling problem a full stop is imposed. All accounts will be shut down and attempts to register future accounts will be prevented.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Let's face it, a casino that cares would apply a self-exclusion facility to all possible avenues, whether or not they are obliged to because of licencing.

I think the difference is in the application and execution of such facilities. No licence is going to punish a casino for going over and above what's required when it comes to reducing gambling harms.

 

[AndrewPearson]

As a slight tangent, the UKGC's single customer view scheme appears to be entering it's trial phase, called

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

:

Once listed on the scheme [as of April 2023: PaddyPowerBetfair, Entain, Bet365, WH and Mr Green], players will be self-excluded for a minimum of 5 years from all participating sites. If a player believes this is in error, the "participating operator" is the judge, jury and executioner on any redress procedure - which seems like a double edged sword, given it wouldn't be the first time we've had malicious operators abuse a process to spite (e.g. winning) players.

This system is not as bad as you may think, it's only for people who tell the operators they have a gambling issue, they are banned across all operators.
It is NOT a case of Ladbrokes looking at your betting patterns and deciding them self that you have a gambling issue.

 

[Mark_Lottomart]

This system is not as bad as you may think, it's only for people who tell the operators they have a gambling issue, they are banned across all operators.
It is NOT a case of Ladbrokes looking at your betting patterns and deciding them self that you have a gambling issue.

I agree to a certain extent, but there's also the concern that comments can be taken out of context by poorly trained agents. I've seen accounts flagged for comments which I, as a gambler myself, would personally take with a pinch of salt. I'd like to think that operators will only allow senior members of staff to flick this particular switch and only when it's clear there's an issue.

It's an unusual decision to allow the operator themselves to mark their own homework on any disputes and I believe an independent body should be reviewing these rather than someone who could be financially motivated (e.g. a competitor).

 

[jasonuk]

This system is not as bad as you may think, it's only for people who tell the operators they have a gambling issue, they are banned across all operators.
It is NOT a case of Ladbrokes looking at your betting patterns and deciding them self that you have a gambling issue.

I fully agree with the idea of the scheme as long as:

1. the risk identification doesn't evolve to include automated and/or aggregated data processing or pattern matching - given this is a part of the Single Customer View strategy, that could be a logical extension and a significant privacy can of worms.
2. there is a meaningful (independent) right of appeal.

My concern is that we've seen operators either incompetently or maliciously utilise self-exclusion against people when closing their account before - and similarly I've heard of people blocked for responsible gambling welfare checks based on chat comments misconstrued by a chat host or chat agent. I believe the scheme is important, but given a mistake by the closing operator could result in someone being banned from every regulated operator for at least five years, it's important that it's done correctly.

 

[maxd]

In regards the UKGC, I wonder if that is still true - the

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice) loves the phrase "all reasonable steps" in 3.5.3 (remote, social responsibility) and 3.5.4 (remote, "ordinary"/ good practice). The multi-operator requirements (3.5.5) are currently a single line - that they must participate in a national multi-operator self-exclusion scheme (so GAMSTOP) ...

Good points.

What seems specifically relevant to our discussion here is LCCP section 3.9.1 - Identification of individual customers - remote:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

Therein you'll find item 2 which says:

Where licensees allow customers to hold more than one account with them, the licensee must have and put into effect procedures which enable them to relate each of a customer’s such accounts to each of the others and ensure that:

a. if a customer opts to self-exclude they are effectively excluded from all gambling with the licensee ...

Of course that's explicitly allowing the SE to be confined to a single license (for no obvious reason).

But then there's this, item 3 (my emphasis):

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.

Aside from the goofy wording that sure sounds to me like "sister casino SE" should be a thing above and beyond a single license. Why that isn't the case in practice is something I'm still struggling to understand. Is it just a matter of there being the "licensee" clause from item 2 so that's good enough (not to mention convenient)? Either I'm not understanding something here or LCCP 3.9.1 is saying two different things and thus leaving it to the casinos as a multiple choice.

 

[jasonuk]

Good spot regarding 3.9.1 (and sure enough, there is "all reasonable steps" again ? ).

Therein you'll find item 2 which says:

(quote)Where licensees allow customers to hold more than one account with them, the licensee must have and put into effect procedures which enable them to relate each of a customer’s such accounts to each of the others and ensure that:

a. if a customer opts to self-exclude they are effectively excluded from all gambling with the licensee ... (/quote)

I have to wonder if the second part is a cop-out... (my emphasis)

(a) if a customer opts to self-exclude they are effectively excluded from all gambling with the licensee unless they make it clear that their request relates only to some forms of gambling or gambling using only some of the accounts they hold with the licensee;

Taking a vastly simplified example:
[Customer] I wish to self exclude - that's a general request
[X Casino] Are you sure you want to self exclude from X Casino? - the casino frames it to be specific to the single site as a "clarification"
[Customer] Yes

In that case, has the casino (potentially unknowingly to the player) steered them into the cop-out, and thus only needs to self-exclude the one account, rather than all of them? As long as they have the option (e.g. a shiny button for option A, and a small clickable link for option B - marketing tricks 101 and all that), that could - possibly unfairly - be construed as intent?

Regarding Item 3 - that makes sense as long as Item 4 doesn't come into play (

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

), we know companies will come up with elaborate corporate structures to avoid regulations or tax, and I wonder if that is the case here. If they do that successfully, then 3.9.1.4 would excuse them from SCSE.

 

[maxd]

Yes, pretty much my thoughts exactly. Excellent point regarding the wording -- "Are you sure you want to self exclude from X Casino?" -- instant get-out-of-jail-free card for the casino if they choose to read it that way.

I've thought back over the relatively recent PABs related to this SCSE stuff and realized that the primary reason given by casinos -- mostly UKGC casinos TBH -- for not applying SCSE is the "not the same license" argument which, as it happens, comes up a lot more than you think it might. As @Mark_Lottomart pointed out earlier when Casino X is acquired by Casino Group ABC they likely acquire the license that Casino X held and voila!, Casino X is "officially" NOT a sister casino to their other properties because of separate licenses.

I know I've become a bit jaded over the years but I'm pretty sure that certain casino groups apply this tactic intentionally: spread your casinos across multiple licenses and you effectively fire-wall each license group from the others insofar as SCSE "rules" go.

In that scenario SCSE is largely rendered non-functional because few players look at the individual licenses when they're doing their SE request(s). It's far more often the case that the player will assume that if the Terms for Casino X and Casino Y both say "owned and operated by Group ABC" then X and Y are sister casinos and SCSE should be applicable. Of course, because of the multiple licenses, they technically are NOT sister casinos and SCSE is NOT applicable, often to the player's surprise and dismay.

- Max

 

[Avernite]

I've got to admit the most annoying thing I've encountered is having an account automatically excluded based on me excluding from a different casino of which they don't share a licence (6 years ago mind you), and no longer existing due to being closed.

Exclusion is a bit of a messy thing. I just wish that all operators were more clear about how they apply exclusions. Some are great at it (like Maria Casino listing all other sister casinos you get banned from), others not so much.

 

[jasonuk]

It's far more often the case that the player will assume that if the Terms for Casino X and Casino Y both say "owned and operated by Group ABC" then X and Y are sister casinos and SCSE should be applicable. Of course, because of the multiple licenses, they technically are NOT sister casinos and SCSE is NOT applicable, often to the player's surprise and dismay.

Cake and Eat It scenario I assume - link them together (marketing) for the good stuff, keep them separate (legal) for the bad stuff. Unless the player knows what they are looking for (license numbers etc), they stand no chance.

I've got to admit the most annoying thing I've encountered is having an account automatically excluded based on me excluding from a different casino of which they don't share a licence (6 years ago mind you), and no longer existing due to being closed.

Exclusion is a bit of a messy thing. I just wish that all operators were more clear about how they apply exclusions. Some are great at it (like Maria Casino listing all other sister casinos you get banned from), others not so much.

Might not be the same one, but I remember EveryMatrix had an absolute nightmare in terms of SE clarity - a Venn diagram of confusion where even well-informed players wouldn't be able to explain what the implications of SE would be... not surprisingly it lead to a string of complaints in both directions, people excluded from sites they didn't intend, and people not excluded from sites they did intend.

 

[AndrewPearson]

There is nothing in Entains T&C's that allow them to share your data currently with GamProtect.

We may need to share personal information with other organisations to ensure that we meet our legal obligations or where we need support in meeting your needs or our contractual obligations. We may also share information with other organisations where we consider it to be in the public interest or in the legitimate interest of ourselves or these other parties. These other parties are typically:

• business partners, suppliers and sub-contractors for the performance of any contract we enter into with them or you;
• our affiliates and selected third parties, where you have expressly opted-out of receiving marketing from us / third parties, have been barred or self-excluded, in which case we may share suppression lists with our affiliates and selected third parties, to ensure you do not receive unsolicited marketing;
• members of the Entain Group and third party suppliers and service providers for any of the purposes identified in the table above; third party suppliers and service providers to the extent they assist the Entain Group with its legal / regulatory obligations e.g. providers of services in respect of anti-money laundering, fraud, verification etc.;
• selected third parties so that they can contact you with details of the services that they provide, where you have expressly opted-in/consented to the disclosure of your personal data for these purposes;
• analytics and search engine providers that assist us in the improvement and optimization of our site and other selected third parties;
• other 3rd party organisations who ask, encourage or collate feedback and any online views of your experiences with us to help us improve and optimize our services;
• banks, credit card companies, Sports Governing Bodies and relevant agencies who may share with third parties for the purpose of investigating and safeguarding against underage, fraudulent, criminal or suspicious activity or safer gambling (or other activities we are bound by law, regulation or guidance to investigate and safeguard against) or if we have reason to believe that you have undertaken such activity; and
• our regulators, law enforcement or fraud prevention agencies, as well as our legal advisers, courts, applicable independent adjudication services, sports' governing bodies and betting integrity organisations and any other authorised bodies, for the purposes of investigating any actual or suspected criminal activity, maintaining standards of behaviour in sport or other regulatory or legal matters.

We may share your personal information with other members of the Entain Group for marketing purposes. We will not share it with other 3rd party organisations however unless you have expressly opted-in/consented to the disclosure of your personal data for these purposes.

We may also disclose your personal information to third parties in the following circumstances:

• in the event that we consider selling or buying any business or assets, in which case we will disclose your personal data to any prospective sellers or buyers of such business or assets;
• in the event of any insolvency situation (e.g. the administration or liquidation) of Entain Group plc, or a data controller or any of its group entities;
• if we, or substantially all of our assets, are acquired by a third party, in which case personal data held by us about our customers will be one of the transferred assets;
• in order to enforce or apply our website terms of use;
• to protect the rights, property, or safety of us, our staff, our customers, or others. This includes exchanging information with other companies and organisations (including without limitation, other gambling operators and the local police or other local law enforcement agencies) for the purposes of staff and customer safety, crime prevention, fraud protection and credit risk reduction;
• if we are under a duty to disclose or share your personal data in order to comply with any legal obligation or regulatory requirements, or otherwise for the prevention or detection of fraud or crime;
• If you are based within the UK, when we check your identity when you first become a customer, or check your financial status as required by our License Conditions, we share information with a Credit Reference Agency and this will leave a “soft” footprint on your credit file. Further information about how this agency holds and uses your information can be found here:
  You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
  ; and
• Where you have self-excluded yourself from gambling, we may share this information with our regulators or other companies in our field where we believe it is important to support your exclusion.

 

[AndrewPearson]

It does say this, but this does NOT cover them "thinking" you are at risk. Only for players that SE

1. If you have self-excluded from gambling, your information may be shared with regulators or other companies in the field to support your exclusion.

 

[jasonuk]

I can see at least two clauses that might cover them, from the top box:

• banks, credit card companies, Sports Governing Bodies and relevant agencies who may share with third parties for the purpose of investigating and safeguarding against underage, fraudulent, criminal or suspicious activity or safer gambling (or other activities we are bound by law, regulation or guidance to investigate and safeguard against) or if we have reason to believe that you have undertaken such activity; and

from the bottom box:

• if we are under a duty to disclose or share your personal data in order to comply with any legal obligation or regulatory requirements, or otherwise for the prevention or detection of fraud or crime;

As the UKGC and Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) are working on this, even at a trial stage framing it as regulatory requirements seems pretty reasonable.

The

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I mentioned previously has a lengthy description of the data processing they will do - and I assume that's partly to

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

given the project has been delayed for three years because of privacy concerns (the article mentions two years - but delayed a further 14 months since it was published in February 2022).

The BGC article also tries to calm fears that this isn't a national betting database - which is important because that information would be a gold mine in the wrong hands, allowing operators to target losing / at risk players and restrict or remove winning / skilful ones.

 

[Betreels Casino & Sports]

Hi there,

I checked with our compliance team and they advise that if a player excludes with us, then they are excluded from all casinos on the platform.

This applies on our UKGC and MGA license.