Complaints regarding Omaze

Request

On page 61 of this report our advice here (pages 60-62) (opens in a new tab) I see that there have been 549 reports since 2019 about 386 entities, with Raffall, Elite Competitions, Bounty Competitions, Raffle House and Omaze being the most common. Can you please provide details of the complaints regarding Omaze?

Furthermore, what is the gambling commission's view on the disclosure of odds within the prize draw sector?

Response

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

In your email you have referenced the Advice to Government - Review of the Gambling Act 2005. (opens in a new tab) Specifically page 61 of this report where it references that there have been 549 reports since 2019 about 386 entities, with Raffall, Elite Competitions, Bounty Competitions, Raffle House and Omaze being the most common.

You have requested details of the complaints regarding Omaze. Furthermore, you have requested the gambling commission's view on the disclosure of odds within the prize draw sector.

Firstly, for context it should be noted that we use evidence from a range of sources, including from gambling customers, licensed operators, law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders 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.

We make a record of all information received. Where consumers share information with us that indicates a breach of our rules, that information will inform any regulatory action that we decide to take. However, the way in which we record the information that we receive changes over time in order to most effectively support our regulatory functions.

Further to this, it should be noted that prize competitions and free draws do not require a licence to operate. They sit outside of the Gambling Commission’s regulatory remit as long as they meet rules that distinguish them from a lottery. These rules are set out in the Gambling Act 2005. Further information about this type of arrangement can be found on the Gambling Commission website:

Free draws and prize competitions

Arrangements such as raffles seen on social media may be run as prize competitions or free draws and can be run for private or commercial gain. Our only role in relation to these arrangements is to monitor the boundary with lotteries and act where we consider that an arrangement does not meet the requirements for prize competitions and free draws. In that case it may be an unlicensed lottery or some other form of unlicensed gambling. This could make that arrangement illegal activity.

The Commission is of the view that information held in relation to specific details of information reported, other than what is made publicly available, is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)g of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released.

Section 31

Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).

The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:

i. Subsection 31(2)(a) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,

ii. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,

iii. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,

Public interest test

The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below.

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

• The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties the work that the the Commission is undertaking in relation to the information it receives.
• Furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:

• There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly when discussing potential areas of non-compliance with the LCCP. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
• The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing products to establish whether they fall with its regulatory remit. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of a product being offered without an appropriate licence.
• It could seriously impact the Commission’s investigation process, if details of what information it uses to inform its regulatory activities became known; this is strongly not in the public interest as it would impair the Commission’s ability to regulate effectively
• Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator

Weighing the balance

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 information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.

We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information.

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