White Label Agreements
Request
I am currently investigating issues relating to white label agreements in the UK.
As per the Act, I am requesting the following information:
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for TGP Europe;
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for TGP white label partners 8XBet and 6686;
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for other white label partners of TGP;
- Knowing your commitment to privacy, I do not request identifiable details, but merely wish to number of PEPs on the relevant records.
If it is possible, it would be helpful if you could disclose the nationality of owner(s), and if they are a natural person or a company/trust etc.
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 number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for TGP Europe;
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for TGP white label partners 8XBet and 6686;
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for other white label partners of TGP.
Gambling operators are required to hold a licence from the Commission in order to offer facilities for gambling to customers located in Great Britain. The Commission goes through a licence application process as part of this and makes an assessment of suitability against criteria set out in the Act. Part 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 details the Commission’s statutory functions in relation to the licensing requirements. The Licence conditions and codes of practice (LCCP) set out the requirements all licensees must meet in order to hold a Gambling Commission licence.
When we receive licence applications an assessment is made on whether a business will uphold the licensing objectives and also the suitability of the applicant to carry out the activities that the licence allows. As part of this assessment the Commission will request the following evidence to support the application and the individuals who are relevant to the application, such as:
- the identity of the individuals,
- financial and other circumstances including resources available to carry out licensed activities
- integrity – honesty and trustworthiness
- competence – experience, expertise, qualifications and history
- criminality – criminal record
Details with regards to how we process a licence application can be found on our website:
Licences and fees (gamblingcommission.gov.uk)
These checks are carried out to ensure that we meet our obligations under the Act and our Statement of Principles:
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.
The Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any information held regarding specific operators and the information gathered as part of their application process, 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.
Section 31(3) (Law Enforcement) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope 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
We acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission.
Further to this, it is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers have an understanding of the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking with specific operators to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption
Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t engaging in specific conversations with operators and provide them with an opportunity 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 regulatory work and individuals or operators 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. Ultimately, 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 your request.
It should be noted that the responsibility for compliance of all operating gambling websites, including white labelled sites, sits with the licence holder and cannot be transferred to any other party.
Therefore, it is essential that licence holders conduct appropriate due diligence checks on their prospective white label partners before entering into a business relationship. Responsibility for compliance will always sit with the licence holder so they should satisfy themselves appropriate safeguarding measures and controls are in place before committing to contractual obligations to ensure compliance with LCCP SR Code provision 1.1.20 Responsibilities for Third Parties.
Failure to do this may bring into question the suitability of an operator to hold a licence.
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
Thank you taking the time to consider my request regarding politically exposed people. I am hoping to get some more detail about your decision to reject this request.
My request was for a set of simple, unidentifiable data points: the number of politically exposed people named in due diligence on TGP and associated brands.
Providing these numbers - with no identifiable information - can not prejudice the commission's law enforcement capabilities.
As the Commission frequently reassures, its due diligence is of the highest standards, and therefore will have identified the correct number of PEPs under the TGP umbrella.
PEPs know who they are already; they are not reliant on the Commission to alert them to this.
Therefore, releasing these numbers can not in any way undermine your regulatory or investigative capacity. Conversely, not releasing them will undermine the public's trust in the Commission as a trustworthy and diligent regulator.
Internal Review Response
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 17/11/2023 which we responded to on 22/11/2023, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 27/11/2023.
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.
In your initial email you requested the following information:
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for TGP Europe;
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for TGP white label partners 8XBet and 6686;
- The number of politically exposed people named in due diligence carried out by or submitted to the Commission for other white label partners of TGP.
In our response we advised that when we receive licence applications an assessment is made on whether a business will uphold the licensing objectives and also the suitability of the applicant to carry out the activities that the licence allows. Further to this, once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.
However, we confirmed that the Gambling Commission does not provide comment on any information held regarding specific operators and the information gathered as part of their application process, unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we were unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any specific information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption was engaged.
Internal review
When reviewing this request, the public interest test was further considered, and we acknowledge that fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission which may further increase public awareness of the work carried out by the Commission.
However, the Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing licensees. These procedures and processes are put in place to minimise the risk of an operator providing gambling facilities, where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s licence assessment processes.
Confirming or denying information which identifies specific information processed by the Commission is likely to impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.
There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the information collected in relation to specific operators during the Commissions due diligence process.
In order to promote transparency, there is information that is publicly available, both on our website but also via the Policy Statement, which clearly sets out the required standards with which operator licensees are expected to comply.
Therefore, it is our view that there is sufficient information publicly available about the assessment process and assessment framework to adequately address the public interest in transparency in respect of this matter and the information requested would not further the public interest in this subject.
The Commission also publishes other information in relation to how it assesses licensees, including its Statement of principles for licensing and regulation. Therefore, to the extent that there is a public interest in transparency around the assessment of licensees this is already met by the material the Commission proactively publishes.
To disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission, its stakeholders and other regulatory bodies, which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from organisations who are unfit or incompetent in their activities. Finally, the amount of information released regarding individual licensees is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commission’s work and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commission would be caused by confirming or denying whether we hold any information falling within the scope of your request.
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.
Yours sincerely,
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission