Games testing enquiry

Request

I require the following information,

1. Criteria for game testing

2. Game test results

3. Persons responsible for approving test results

Games - Gates of olypus, sweet bonanza, money cart 2.

Response

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

In your email you have requested the following information for the games Gates of Olympus, Sweet Bonanza, Money Cart 2:

1. Criteria for game testing
2. Game test results
3. Persons responsible for approving test results

Gambling software and remote operating licence holders are required under licence condition 2.3.1’ to comply with our remote technical standards (RTS) and requirements relating to the timing and procedures for testing. The RTS details the specific technical standards and the security requirements that licensed remote gambling operators and gambling software operators need to meet. we also set out the minimum requirements which should be checked within its Annex.

These checks are undertaken by independent third party approved test houses, who undertake a test of the relevant product against the RTS through the timings and procedures set out within the Testing Strategy. The Gambling Commission do not approve games or test results; we require operators to get the game tested (by an approved test house) and then submit the game (and test report) prior to release.

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

Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.

Information collated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence

However, the Commission does not disclose further details of this assessment process, for individual operators. Doing so would reveal the methods and techniques the Commission uses as part of the assessment process. It could seriously impact the Commission’s assessment process, if information relating to how, it gathers information and evidence as part of that process became known; this is strongly not in the public interest

As such, the information you have requested is exempt under section 31 of the FOIA.

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:

1. Subsection 31(2)(a) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
2. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
3. 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,
4. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on

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.
• It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing licensees and, 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:

• The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing existing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator continuing to provide gambling services where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s compliance assessment processes.
• There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly as regards information it asks for to not only ascertain if a licence should be granted but to monitor this and check compliance. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
• The amount of specific information the Commission can release relating to our specific discussions about a licensee could lead to potentially non-compliant licenses altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes. This in turn may impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.
• 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.
• Further, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.

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.

It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.

However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess operators’ compliance with the LCCP and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.

We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.

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

The specific request was for the results of the games testing.

As per my previous emails, the mentioned games (operators) are in breach of their licensing agreements by encouraging gamblers to bet more, my request is to see this testing to verify for myself.

The games have a feature that allows gamblers to stake more in return for doubling their chance of hitting the bonus feature.

If this feature is in the games test results, then the test house who tested must be held accountable for allowing games that are in breach of the commission's regulations. Also, if not in the test results, then they should be held accountable for bringing games to market without complete testing.

It is in the public's interest to know about games that could be detrimental to the finances and general well-being.

Internal Review Response

I’m writing to you, further to your Freedom of Information request dated 06/01/2023, which we responded to on 17/01/2023, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 24/02/2023. 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.

Internal Review

In your initial enquiry you requested the following information for the games Gates of Olympus, Sweet Bonanza, Money Cart 2:

1. Criteria for game testing
2. Game test results
3. Persons responsible for approving test results

In our response dated 17/01/2023 we advised you that we held information in relation to your request however it was our view that this information was exempt under S31 – Law Enforcement.

We explained in our response that Gambling software and remote operating licence holders are required under licence condition 2.3.1’ to comply with our remote technical standards (RTS) and requirements relating to the timing and procedures for testing. The RTS details the specific technical standards and the security requirements that licensed remote gambling operators and gambling software operators need to meet. we also set out the minimum requirements which should be checked within its Annex.

These checks are undertaken by independent third party approved test houses, who undertake a test of the relevant product against the RTS through the timings and procedures set out within the Testing Strategy. The Gambling Commission do not approve games or test results; we require operators to get the game tested (by an approved test house) and then submit the game (and test report) prior to release.

We further explained that we do not disclose details of this assessment process for individual operators as this would reveal the methods and techniques the Commission uses as part of the assessment process. It was our view that disclosure of the information requested could seriously impact the Commission’s assessment process if, for example, how it gathers information and evidence as part of that process became known.

Section 31(1) 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)

The relevant purposes referred to subsection (2) are –

1. Subsection 31(2)(a) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
2. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
3. 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,
4. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on

Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.

The information requested is collected as part of our assessment process to review the manner in which a particular class of licensees carry on the licensed activities authorised by their licences, and, in particular, how the licensees in question comply with the conditions attached to the class of operating licence.

Disclosure may lead individuals to think they can reduce the possibility of any non-compliance being detected by the Commission because they understand the matter and priorities the Commission has or has not decided to direct its resources towards. This may result in operators or individuals knowing how to present information to avoid further scrutiny. Non-disclosure is more likely to raise overall standards in the gambling industry if operators are not able to second guess or predict what specific matters will be subject to a more detailed consultation or investigation, the resources that will be devoted to it and the methodology the Commission will use.

The Commission also takes the view that disclosure is likely to reduce the overall standards in the gambling industry because releasing this information would undermine our relationship with operators as the information that they provide to us as part of the application process (which can include commercially sensitive information) is done so on the understanding that this will not be released into the public domain. If this information was disclosed, it would damage the relationship that we have formed with operators which would result in them being less likely to share information with us in the future which would undermine our regulatory functions and, as a consequence, have a detrimental impact on the wider public.

There is an expectation of confidence in much of how the Commission carries out its statutory functions, particularly as regards information it asks for to not only ascertain if a licence should be granted but to monitor this and check compliance.

We recognise that there is a public interest in promoting accountability and transparency of the Commission. It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary due diligence checks and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.

The information that is publicly available on our website clearly sets out the required standards that remote operator licensees are expected to comply with, therefore, it is our view that there is sufficient information publicly available about the testing process to adequately address the public interest in this matter.

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.