European Gaming Lawyer magazine EGL_Spring2017_opt | Page 29

Consumer complaints in the gambling
industry: the Gambling Commission expects
more from operators, ADR providers and
the Commission itself
by Stuart McMaster and Nicholas McVeigh
S
Stuart McMaster
Nicholas McVeigh
peaking at a Parliamentary All Party
Betting & Gaming Group seminar
on 29 March 2017, Sarah Harrison,
CEO of the Gambling Commission,
encouraged gambling operators to
build businesses highly focused on consumers,
aiming not just for consumer enjoyment but also
consumer trust. On the same day, the Commission
published a review, “Complaints processes in the
gambling industry (March 2017)”, the foreword to
which makes clear that eff ective handling of
consumer complaints is a key element in building
this consumer trust.
European regulations on alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) came into eff ect in October 2015.
Th ese tasked the Gambling Commission with
responsibility for certifying ADR providers in the
British gambling sector. Th e Commission is now
reviewing the impact the regulations have had and
taking the opportunity to look more generally at
complaints procedures across the gambling sector.
Th e Commission’s proposals and areas of focus
for further consultation cover not just what the
Commission will expect from gambling operators
and ADR providers, but also ways in which the
Commission itself can more eff ectively put in place
rules and standards to support those operators
and providers.
In particular, the Gambling Commission is
challenging operators to “take complaints more
seriously by operating complaints procedures that are
genuinely accessible and that give consumers trust
that their concerns have been listened to and acted
upon in a timely way”. Th e Gambling Commission
also states that it wants to make it easier for
consumers to make complaints.
A wider range of disputes to be subject to
ADR?
As the Commission notes in its review, ADR
providers can look only at disputes relating to the
outcome of gambling transactions. Th e Commission’s
view is that this includes disputes related to the
application of bonus off ers, account management, or
the ability to access funds and winnings, since those
are all part of the overall gambling transaction.
However, the ability of ADR providers to
adjudicate on these disputes can be complicated
where the operator has suspended or closed the
customer’s account because of AML/problem
gambling concerns.
Th e Commission is concerned that the ADR
process may be frustrating for consumers, because
their complaints may not be resolved for long
periods, and the consumer may be left in the dark
regarding the progress of their dispute.
European Gaming Lawyer | Spring Issue | 2017 |