BetIndex Report

Request

In an email dated Tuesday 29 March 2022 REDACTED refers to "REDACTED report" which I am requesting a copy of, redacted where required, although the author of the report is now known.

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 email dated Tuesday 29 March 2022, where REDACTED refers to "REDACTED report". Your request is for a copy of this report, redacted where required.

Please see the attached report, as requested.

We have redacted from this report information relating to identifiable individuals that would constitute personal data.

The Data Protection Act 2018 requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. It is the view of the Commission that disclosing the personal information within the attached document would constitute the disclosure of personal data and would contravene this principle.

This information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Further to this, we consider that information identifying this level of detail about individual companies, to be of a commercially sensitive nature. This level of detail is not otherwise in the public domain. Therefore, we are of the view that this information is exempt under section 43 of the FOIA.

Section 43(2) Commercial Interests

Section 43(2) of the FOIA provides that information is exempt information if: its disclosure under the FOIA would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

The Public Interest Test

Having acknowledged that some of the information within the scope of your request is exempt from disclosure, section 43 FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Public interest arguments in favour of disclosure

• There is a legitimate public interest in promoting accountability and transparency of public authorities
• There is considerable public interest in general relating to the collapse of Bet Index.

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

• Businesses which have interacted with the Commission, have a reasonable expectation that their information would not be published on an individual basis, particularly whilst they are trading.
• Details of individual companies not directly associated with the gambling industry does not contribute to supporting consumers with their choice of operator.

Weighing the Balance of public interest arguments

Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of information submitted on that basis and to be mindful of the commercial sensitivities of information that is held.

Having weighed these issues, the Commission is of the view that the public interest is best served through maintaining this exemption. There is very little that providing this information would do in terms of the public interest whilst disclosure would be likely to impact on the commercial interests of individual companies.

Further to this, given the nature of the information contained within this correspondence and consequently the impact on the regulatory work of the Commission in releasing this information, we are of the view that some of the information you have requested is exempt under section 31 of the FOIA

Section 31 (Law Enforcement)

The FOIA provides that information held by a public authority is exempt if its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice a public authority in the exercising of its functions for any purposes specified in subsection 2 (a) – (d).

Section 31(1) of FOIA provides that Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice -

(g) the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2)

(2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are -

(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,

(b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,

(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,

The Public Interest Test

Having acknowledged that the requested information is exempt under section 31 it is necessary that I consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in disclosing this information as opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Public interest arguments in favour of disclosure

• There is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities
• Public disclosure of this information may also, demonstrate our proactive work in this area,
• Further to this, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold our regulatory responsibilities.
• There is considerable public interest in general relating to the collapse of Bet Index

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

• Providing information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable may deter stakeholders or other sources of information from sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.
• We use evidence from a range of places to build cases against gambling businesses. Information provided to us helps inform our work to raise gambling industry standards and make gambling fairer and safer.
• Disclosing detailed information is likely to impact on the openness of operators which will in turn impact on the ability of the Commission to effectively regulate.
• Disclosure of the requested information may prejudice the outcome of future investigations by the Commission, or another body by exposing investigative techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.

Weighing the Balance of public interest arguments

It is our view that section 31 of the FOIA exemption is engaged. However, due to the nature of the collapse of Bet Index and the number of people who have been impacted by its closure, the public interest test, although finely balanced, is found to be in favour of disclosure for some of the information you have requested and outweighs the application of the exemption in this specific request.

Having considered the above points, the Commission is also of the view that the balance of the public interest lies with maintaining the exemption, in some instances.

The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator.

However, disclosure of the exempt information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest. There is an overwhelming importance that operators continue to share detailed information with us, in order for us to continually raise standards and support consumers. Disclosure of this information would be of detriment to that work. On balance, in a small number of instances, the public interest is in favour of engaging the S31(2)(a)(b)(c) exemption when considering the impact upon the Commission’s ability to perform its regulatory functions

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. 

It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.

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

Files

Some files may be not be accessible for users of assistive technology. If you require a copy of the file in an accessible format contact us (opens in new tab) with details of what you require. It would help us to know what technology you use and the required format.

PDF Files Some PDF files cannot be displayed in a browser, you will see a message saying "Please wait...". If you see this message, you will need to download the file and open it in Adobe Acrobat Reader (opens in a new tab).