Enquiries into Sorare
Request
On the 8 Oct 2021, the gambling commission wrote an article on it's website around a football themed website called Sorare. In the article it was stated:
"The Gambling Commission is currently carrying out enquiries into the company to establish whether Sorare.com requires an operating licence or whether the services it provides do not constitute gambling."
I'm trying to decide if I am going to put some money into the platform and to be able to make such a decision, I'd like to know the following:
1) Has the enquiry concluded and what is the outcome? 2) Has there been informal enquiries only, or was a formal review undertaken/being undertaken? 3) At any point as part of these enquiries, has the FCA been contacted regarding Sorare?
If you can provide this information I will be able to make a more informed choice. If there are current talks underway about regulation of the product, I am more likely to put some money into the project, knowing that either Gambling Commission or Financial Conduct Authority rules are working to be adhered to/some safety net may be in place. If the enquiries are concluded and it's deemed Sorare does not require regulation, I am more inclined to walk away
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have referenced an article on the Gambling Commission website, from the 8 Oct 2021, around a football themed website called Sorare. In the article it was stated:
"The Gambling Commission is currently carrying out enquiries into the company to establish whether Sorare.com requires an operating licence or whether the services it provides do not constitute gambling."
Your request was for the following information:
1) Has the enquiry concluded and what is the outcome? 2) Has there been informal enquiries only, or was a formal review undertaken/being undertaken? 3) At any point as part of these enquiries, has the FCA been contacted regarding Sorare?
The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions; through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry. We release details of our enforcement activity through public statements.
The public statements will detail the nature of the failings by the operator and the amount of the fine or settlement. Further to this, the Commission also publishes a list of recent regulatory sanctions we have imposed on licence holders.
When we publish these statements and sanctions, we take care to present as much information as possible to ensure that lessons can be learned by operators. However, we must also be careful not to reveal any information that could hinder our ability to conduct investigations or enable those we may investigate to avoid detection.
The Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any information held regarding specific action unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.
Section 31(3) (“Law Enforcement”) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.
Arguments in favour of disclosure
We acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission.
Further to this, it is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers have an understanding of the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking with specific operators to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption
However, confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t investigating a particular case and provide them with an opportunity to alter their behaviours or evade detection. This would result in making it more difficult for the Commission to achieve its aims.
Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of investigations and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Finally, once or if a formal decision has been made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future investigations by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
Weighing the balance
Given the points considered, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest. Ultimately, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption, therefore we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to this part of your request
Within your request you have also stated that you will use the information provided in response to this request to inform your decision with regards to Sorare.
The FOIA gives individuals the right to request only recorded information held by public authorities, such as the Gambling Commission. It does not provide an avenue for individuals to gain views or opinions of public authorities. We are therefore unable to comment on any personal decisions in relation to this organisation.
We would however point out all operators who are licensed, or in the process of being licensed, by the Commission can be found on our Licensee register, which is regularly updated. This can be found here: Full register of gambling businesses - Gambling Commission. Any consumers who gamble with unlicensed operators are unlikely to receive the protections the Commission requires from its licensees.
Review of the decision
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B2 4BP
Internal Review Request
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Gambling Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Sorare'.
It is blatantly obvious that this is in the public interest and will help consumers make informed decisions.
It was published information by the Gambling Commission that they were looking into Sorare almost 2 years ago and yet their has been no communication to the public regarding whether this has been concluded.
I hope you can understand that knowing this will allow customers to make decisions regarding where they put their money.
I can currently put money into this product based on its current rules, however if this was a regulated product, I suspect Sorare would need to change some of its practices in relation to VIPs, AML etc that could fundamentally change the product.
I notice that the French Gambling Commission have publicly stated that they do not consider Sorare to be gambling, but I am seeking reassurance from the UK organisation as ultimately, I am subject to your rulings as a UK citizen
I am willing to take this as far as possible, as on a larger scale, the actions of the Gambling Commission could be said to be restricting trade and as a result UK tax collection. Stating that you were looking into Sorare would have ultimately had a negative affect, with users like me unwilling to put money in until you have completed this. In not communicating whether you have carried out any review/investigation/informal look at Sorare, this user confidence remains in limbo
I understand that a gambling licence is not support for a product in the GCs eyes, however knowing that a product is expected to adhere to certain security measures is highly important to members of the public.
Also, with recent discussions about black market gambling, not disclosing this information actually could contribute to members of the public unwittingly betting on the black market, which I would think would be gross misconduct on the side of the Gambling Commission
In addition to requesting an internal review, I will be raising this with my local MP
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: WhatDoTheyKnow - Sorare (opens in a new tab)
Internal Review Response
I am writing further to your Freedom of Information request dated 25/02/23 which we responded to on 24/03/23, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 24/03/2023. We have now concluded our review and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
In your original request you referenced a post on the Gambling Commission’s website, dated 8 October 2021, relating to a website called Sorare. The post stated:
"The Gambling Commission is currently carrying out enquiries into the company to establish whether Sorare.com requires an operating licence or whether the services it provides do not constitute gambling."
Your request was for the following information:
1) Has the enquiry concluded and what is the outcome? 2) Has there been informal enquiries only, or was a formal review undertaken/being undertaken? 3) At any point as part of these enquiries, has the FCA been contacted regarding Sorare?
Firstly, it should be noted that, as of the date of this email, Sorare remains unlicenced by the Gambling Commission. As such, we are unable to comment on any personal decisions taken by customers in relation to this organisation. As stated in our initial response, all operators who are licensed, or in the process of being licensed, by the Commission can be found on our Licensee register, which is regularly updated.
In our response we advised that the Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions and through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry. We release details of our enforcement activity through public statements, which can be found on our website here:
When we publish these statements, we take care to present as much information as possible to ensure that lessons can be learned and standards raised in the industry. However, we must also be careful not to reveal any information that could hinder our ability to conduct investigations or enable those we may investigate to avoid detection.
As stated in our original response, the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any regulatory work we may or may not be undertaking, unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we were unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any specific information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.
Section 31(3) (“Law Enforcement”) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Having acknowledged that the Commission was not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, we considered a public interest test to identify whether there was a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption, as is necessary when looking to apply the section 31 FOIA exemption.
We acknowledged that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission, and that it is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain so consumers have an understanding of the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.
However, we advised that confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable is likely to impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.
Finally, once or if a formal regulatory decision has been made or there is agreement of a regulatory settlement, the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of any ongoing or future investigation by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
To disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission, its stakeholders and other regulatory bodies, which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from organisations who are unfit or incompetent in their activities.
On balance, our view was that there was a greater public interest in favour of engaging the exemption when considering the impact.
When reviewing this request, the public interest test was further considered, and we can confirm that fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission which may further increase public awareness of the work carried out by the Commission. Further to this, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
However, as a regulatory body, the Commission relies on a variety of sources sharing information to enable the Commission to carry out its functions. Discussing within the public domain information which has been passed to us may deter these sources from sharing important material with us, as such prejudicing our regulatory functions.
Fulfilling this request may also prejudice the outcome of any future work by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commission’s work and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Finally, once/if a formal regulatory decision has been made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. This far better achieves the aims of protecting players and preventing widespread malpractice than releasing any information prematurely.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commission would be caused by confirming or denying whether we hold any information falling within the scope of your request.
After reviewing your request and our response, in conclusion, I uphold our original decision to engage the S31 exemption.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.