“ I think they’ ve seriously underestimated the pushback from ordinary punters who will be faced with invasive checks. Most of them won’ t be problem or high value gamblers( who should be caught by existing AML checks). They will think it’ s mad”
igamingbusiness. com
What’ s your view? Tweet @ iGamingBusiness
11
“ I think they’ ve seriously underestimated the pushback from ordinary punters who will be faced with invasive checks. Most of them won’ t be problem or high value gamblers( who should be caught by existing AML checks). They will think it’ s mad”
CLIVE HAWKSWOOD, RESPONSIBLE AFFILIATES IN GAMBLING gamblers( who should be caught by existing AML checks). They will think it’ s mad.”
He added that average consumers never respond to public consultations so“ their voice never gets heard”.
Referencing the lived experience individuals who are being consulted by the Commission, Hawkswood said that“ a group of former problem gamblers is not representative”.
Meanwhile, Regulus Partners was scathing on what it feels will be the net result of the Commission’ s plans on spending caps.
“ Catastrophic […] accurately describes the Commission’ s affordability plan in terms of its likely efficacy and impact as well as proportionality. Consequently, the idea that this is therefore just regulatory maintenance rather than a swingeing and far-reaching policy change is as risible for the Commission to suggest as it is cowardly for legislators to accept.”
Affiliates won’ t be the only ones caught in the middle of the fight over spending caps, but the impact on their business models is worthy of further examination.
January 2021