Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
Back to full FOI list

Evidence based papers and case studies used for policies

Request date
18 January 2023

Outcome
Full disclosure

Document actions
Print or save

Request

Please can you provide me as a FOI request:

The titles of the academic papers and the case studies from other jurisdictions and any other associated materials that were the evidence base used by the Commission to support the introduction of the following policies:

  • Affordability as per Proposed guidance document – Remote Customer interaction guidance (Proposed Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3), paragraph 4F
  • Vulnerability as per Proposed guidance document – Remote Customer interaction guidance (Proposed Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3), Requirement 3
  • The concept that betting in-play is a marker of harm - paragraph 5B (d)

Response

Dear Sir

Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In your email you have requested:

The titles of the academic papers and the case studies from other jurisdictions and any other associated materials that were the evidence base used by the Gambling Commission to support the introduction of the following policies:

  • affordability as per Proposed guidance document – Remote Customer interaction guidance (Proposed Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3), paragraph 4F
  • vulnerability as per Proposed guidance document – Remote Customer interaction guidance (Proposed Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3), Requirement 3
  • the concept that betting in-play is a marker of harm - paragraph 5B (d).

I can confirm that the Commission does hold information falling within the scope of your request.

The following includes evidence which was considered to inform the preparation of the Remote customer interaction guidance on the topics of financial risk and/or affordability, vulnerability and indicators of potential harm, specifically in-play betting.

Some studies were relevant for more than one subject category, and this has not always been replicated in the following content.

Every study listed as follows has its strengths and weaknesses and the listing of a report as follows should not be seen as endorsement by the Commission of the entirety of the findings or their application to the gambling sector.

Evidence that informed the preparation of the Remote customer interaction guidance

Affordability (Para 4F)

Various Commission enforcement cases

Related sub-topics, sources and links are Gambling Commission casework.

Office of National Statistics (ONS) data on personal and household finances

Related sub-topics, sources and links are Office of National Statistics (ONS): Personal and Household Finances (opens in new tab).

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

The following have since been published in relation to the lower risk gambling guidelines:

Vulnerability (Req 3)

Approaches by other regulators and international bodies - Low Gambling Literacy - Learning condition (dyslexia, literacy, numeracy)

Ongoing review of approaches by other regulators – informed by workshops, participation in development of international standards, example documents also as shown here.

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Deprivation

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Young Adults

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Participation rates: prevalence and PG rates for the 16-24 age group:

Youth and Neurology:

Young Adults new freedoms

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Incidence of new PG behaviour and new freedoms between 17 and 20:

Physical Health

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Mental Health

(There’s a link between MH problems, especially depression, and gambling – but it’s complex and likely to be bi-directional)

Depression and Online

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Depression, and lockdown

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Mental health and problem gambling

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Suicidal behaviors

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Shame

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Brain injury / Medication

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Older Adult

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Domestic Abuse

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

  • As with other risk factors, it seems that there are complex links and comorbidities are likely to be common.
  • Lived experience input
  • RET bodies evidence about domestic abuse and gambling.
  • Illegal money lending team, including their lived experience input.

Change in circumstances (including bereavement)

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

  • International body of evidence on vulnerabilities and comparison to other regulators
  • Commission casework based on discussions with compliance colleagues
  • Lived experience input

Note: Crossover with social isolation

High Risk Appetite / Impulsivity / Urgency

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Youth and Neurology:

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Risk preference and causality:

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

In-Play Betting (Para 5B (d))

The information provided here relates to in-play betting and event frequency, which can be a factor in some in-play betting.

Patterns of play

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Event Frequency

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

Impulse Betting

Related sub-topics, sources and links are as follows:

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

Is this page useful?
Back to top