The scope of the 116 review of Evolution AB

Request

I would like to know what the original scope of the Evolution AB (or its subsidiaries Evolution Malta Holding Limited, Evolution NetEnt (Gibraltar) Limited, Evolution NetEnt Malta Limited, Evolution Red TigerMalta Limited, Evolution Services Sweden AB) 116 review was.

I would also like to know if the scope of the 116 review has changed and if so, what it is now.

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 original scope of the Evolution AB (or its subsidiaries Evolution Malta Holding Limited, Evolution NetEnt (Gibraltar) Limited, Evolution NetEnt Malta Limited, Evolution Red TigerMalta Limited, Evolution Services Sweden AB)116 review was.

Further to this, you have enquired as to whether the scope of the 116 review has changed and if so, what it is now.

Information about the commencement of review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited’s operating licence under Section 116 of the Gambling Act 2005 was made publicly available by Evolution AB in December 2024:

Regarding review by UK Gambling Commission (opens in a new tab)

I can confirm that further information falling within the scope of part one of your request is held. However, the Commission is of the view that information in relation to specific operators, 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.

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.

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

Regulatory action may only be imposed where the Commission thinks that a condition of a licence has been breached. Section 116 of the Gambling Act gives the Commission the power to review the performance of licence holders and their compliance with the LCCP. This section provides for two different types of review.

Following a review under section 116(1) or (2) of the Act, the Commission may:

• decide to take no further action
• decide to give the licensee advice as to conduct
• decide to exercise its powers set out in section 117 of the Act (Regulatory powers).

Under section 117 of the Gambling Act, it can:

• give the licensee a warning
• add, remove, or amend a condition to the licence
• suspend a licence
• revoke a licence
• impose a financial penalty.

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

ii. 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

It is our view that the regulatory functions of the Commission, would be prejudiced by disclosure of this information as it would:

i. prejudice the Commission’s ability to fulfil its statutory functions by revealing how the Commission assesses operators’ and individuals for regulatory purposes, and

ii. prejudice the Commission’s licensing, compliance and enforcement functions as well as its ability to raise overall standards in the gambling industry as it would undermine the trust the Commission has gained with operators in terms of disclosing information where it is necessary and proportionate.

The Commission therefore concludes that the disclosure of this information would prejudice the regulatory functions of the Commission.

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 when discussing areas of a licensee’s compliance with the LCCP. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
• Disclosing this level of detail is likely to reveal the techniques the Commission uses in general when conducting investigations. This could severely hamper the effectiveness of the Commission’s investigatory processes in future cases.
• It could seriously impact the Commission’s investigation process, if information relating to what information it uses to inform the licence review process 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.
• 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.

Further to this, in relation to the second part of your request, the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any investigations 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.

Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of the second part 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

• 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 it is fulfilling its statutory obligations as set out in section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005. The statutory duties laid out in section 1 are:

a) preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,

b) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and

c) protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission conducts its investigatory activities.
• Furthermore, fulfilling this request 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 exercising our investigatory powers. These procedures and processes have been put in place to increase the integrity of investigations, demonstrating to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s ability to uphold its statutory obligations.
• There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the course of an ongoing investigation. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
• Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals, events or lines of enquiry identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t engaging in specific conversations; providing an opportunity for individuals 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 the Commissions work and individuals from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
• Finally, if a formal decision is made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such information in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work of 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. As such, 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 the second part of your request.

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