I wouldn't lump all operators in the same boat - some of them appear to be equally frustrated with the situation because the ridiculous overhead costs them money and reputation (in excessive background checks, in additional CS, in PR headaches from customers having bad experiences, or concerned the UKGC will switch direction again and start accusing them of regulatory failings despite following the guidelines).
Admittedly many will use it to take the piss - which is why we need a regulator that is on the ball. Unfortunately we've got the UKGC - who are not only asleep at the wheel, but completely asleep (as demonstrated when they admitted in a recent panel they didn't have a handle on unregulated crypto gambling - and that it might take them another three years for an industry that has already been an epidemic* for 3-4 years).
At this point, some of the headline operators (e.g. those that operate on the high street) seem to be happier to flout the regulations and take a periodic fine, rather than fix their processes because I expect they make more money that way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that a new account depositing £10000 in a week might need investigating... and yet we still hear cases about it with some regularity.
In terms of withdrawals, I would put aside larger withdrawals (£2000+) because those are beholden to two sets of regulations - the UKGC ones (LCCP mentioned above) and AML. If the withdrawal
is the triggering condition, then it predictably causes a pain point - exaggerated when those reasonable requests (proof of ID, proof of address) become unreasonable (bank records, blood type, why they sent £20 to a friend six months ago).
The problem comes with the rest of them - we've seen countless examples where a CDD (customer due diligence) request is triggered
suspiciously close to a withdrawal - such that as far as the player is concerned they believe - rightly or wrongly - the non-qualifying withdrawal triggered it (for example, the
Kwiff BBF). The recent
WH debacle is another blatant example - the
wagers easily triggered CDD, but they deferred it to collection anticipating it would cause significant inconvenience to the customer.
Operators are always going to push the boundaries, it's on the regulator to push back and keep the checks and balances - unfortunately time and again the UKGC demonstrate they are not fit for purpose.
[* For clarity, I'm talking purely in the regulation landscape here - understandably the actual situation is a mixture of good and evil]
