Consultation response
Autumn 2023 consultation – Proposed changes to LCCP and RTS: Consultation Response
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on the proposed changes to LCCP and Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards.
Contents
- Executive summary
- Summary of topics
- Customer-led tools - Consultation Response
- Improved transparency on customer funds in the event of insolvency - Consultation Response
- Removing obsolete Gambling Commission requirements due to the government's upcoming statutory levy - Consultation Response
- Evaluating the impact of relevant changes
- Annex
Issue 1f - Options for implementation
Proposals
The 2023 White Paper set out a commitment that the Gambling Commission would review and consult on requiring gambling licensees to improve player-centric tools such as by making deposit-setting mandatory or opted in by default. This was in relation to new accounts.
In seeking views on this, we remained committed to striking a balance between increasing the take up of these tools, particularly by consumers who may most benefit from them, while also maintaining consumer choice. The aim of both options was primarily to improve the uptake of financial limits, at levels which are meaningful to customers.
At the time of consulting, the evidence available did not indicate a clear preferred option, and we consulted on both options. We asked respondents the extent to which they agreed with each individual option presented (and why), and to indicate which would be their preferred option (and why) and for any additional comments on the proposals. These proposals were offered in the consultation as new requirements and new implementation guidance:
Option 1 – present limit-setting as the default option
- for new customers, setting a financial limit must be preselected, requiring action to opt-out
- existing customers without account limits must be prompted to review this on an annual basis
- a customer who chooses to opt out must confirm that choice
- implementation guidance that customers who choose to opt out and/or choose not to set a limit should be signposted to resources such as budgeting tools.
Option 2 – all new customers required to set a financial limit
- all new accounts must have a customer-set limit applied and maintained from registration or first deposit
- existing customers without account limits must be prompted to review this on an annual basis
- for existing customers only, a customer who chooses not to set a limit must confirm that choice
- implementation guidance that existing customers who choose not to set a limit when prompted should be signposted to resources such as budgeting tools.
Whether respondents have a clear preference for either option.
Consultation questions
To what extent do you agree with the implementation option 1 – presentation of customer-led tools as the default option?
To what extent do you agree with the implementation option 2 – presentation of customer-led tools as required to participate?
If you have a clear preference for implementation option 1 or 2, please indicate below?
Respondents’ views
There was widespread agreement among stakeholders that the current position - where ‘no limit’ can be presented as the default or no action option - should be changed.
Regarding option 1, the majority of responses supported the proposals. Comments included that the requirement of an action to opt-out would present an opportunity to pause and reflect and struck an appropriate balance between autonomy and enabling informed choice, and that this would also reduce the risk of customers setting excessively high limits. Some respondents suggested minimum and maximum limits should be predetermined, to either avoid customers setting ‘too low’ limits by mistake, or ‘too high’. Some suggested all accounts should have low limits applied until the customer provided assurance of affordability.
Regarding option 2, respondents’ comments included some support for mandating the use of financial limits as an important way to prevent harm and to normalise the use of protective tools, and a small number called on the Commission to consider imposing maximum limits. However, support overall for this option was less positive, with the majority of respondents disagreeing with this proposal.
Comments against option 2 included contradiction of this approach with the principles of individual choice, that it would likely lead to customers setting excessively high limits, and that customers may be discouraged from opening new accounts, which would adversely affect new entrants to the market and restrict customer choice.
A small number of respondents made reference to our customer interaction guidance and the use of operator-imposed financial limits as an action to prevent harm, citing the imposition of financial limits as a ‘strong intervention’ in that context, and therefore disproportionate in relation to all new customers.
Across both options, respondents generally supported the proposals to prompt existing customers to review limits, and to provide links to budgeting tools and resources.
In response to our question about a clear preference, the majority of respondents preferred implementation option 1 – retaining the ability for new customers to take action to opt out of setting a limit.
Our position
Our view is that retaining the ability for customers to opt out of setting financial limits is the best way to enable consumer choice and avoid unintended consequences.
We acknowledge that by enabling opt-out, some customers may still choose to not set a limit at all or may set higher limits than they realistically intend to spend. However, this option should improve access to and increase meaningful participation in setting financial limits, without unnecessarily restricting consumer choice and ‘forcing’ customers to set a limit.
In Summer 2024 we commissioned research to explore consumer journeys using deposit limits to expand the evidence base on definitions of deposit limits and inform the supplementary consultation due for publication shortly after this response. We asked survey respondents about their views on financial limits, and up to a third of respondents reported that financial limits were an inconvenience or would have little impact on the money they spent gambling.
Customer-set limits are also not the only regulatory tool through which risk is mitigated – ongoing monitoring for indicators of harm and customer interaction processes (which may include operators imposing or requesting that customers set financial limits on their accounts) form part of the wider regulatory toolkit.
A small number of respondents requested clarity or further guidance on the practical application of how the default position could be presented, and what would constitute confirmation that the customer does not wish to set a limit. We have addressed this by introducing further new implementation guidance. This guidance was not included in the consultation but is designed to provide clarity and is a direct response to stakeholder feedback during the consultation.
We are therefore proceeding with option 1, to retain the ability for new customers to take action to opt out of setting a financial limit. As a direct response to stakeholder feedback, we are also introducing additional implementation guidance to support the requirements.
Final wording
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
RTS requirement 12E
Financial limit-setting facilities must present setting a limit as the default choice. The gambling system must require an action by the customer in order to decline setting a limit.
The gambling system must receive confirmation that the customer does not wish to set a limit before moving on to deposit/gamble.
The gambling system must prompt existing customers without limits set to review this position as a minimum on an annual basis.
RTS implementation guidance 12E
Presentation of financial limits as the default option could take the form of pre-selected fields such as tick boxes, or through visual distinction.
Action to decline setting a limit and receiving confirmation could take the form of a tick box, dismissing a message or other action by the customer.
Customers who choose to opt out of setting a limit could be provided with information or links to tools and resources such as budgeting tools and information about safer gambling.
Last updated: 4 February 2025
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.