Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content

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.

Issue 3 – Seeking views on artificial barriers to consumer choice

Call for views

Under issue 3 we asked for examples or evidence of situations where the product architecture and design of gambling facilities could create an imbalance in the gambling licensees’ favour and drive consumer behaviour which may not be in their best interests.

Question

Do you have examples or evidence of situations where the architecture and design of gambling facilities creates an imbalance in the gambling licensees’ favour and drives consumer behaviour which may not be in their best interests?

Respondents’ views

The responses received noted similar concerns to those raised in response to the call for evidence to support the Gambling Act Review. Examples provided by respondents included:

  • presentation of information about gambling products (stakes and/or odds, repeat bet functionality, speed of play) can be difficult to access and understand
  • account closure information can be unclear and difficult to access
  • experience of friction when trying to withdraw account funds. Experiences include withdrawal processes being too lengthy, having to contact customer services to withdraw funds of a certain amount, or imposition of minimum withdrawal amounts
  • pre-populated default values on deposit pages that require the customer to override and populate with their own value can be perceived as trying to drive behaviour in a particular direction
  • losses disguised as near wins were also highlighted as an area of concern for stakeholders.

Our position

Feedback from stakeholders to this question has confirmed our concerns regarding specific points in the customer journey and the design of facilities where friction is applied which could influence consumer behaviours or actions. In this consultation on customer-led tools we have addressed concerns around ‘anchoring’ when setting financial limits, and shifting or removing friction to make it easier for more customers to set and review limits and to access information about their own gambling activity.

Our corporate strategy 2024 to 2027 sets out our commitment to improve our understanding of issues which pose a risk to the fair and open licensing objective, including understanding consumer concerns, improving information to players and ensuring the fairness of gambling products. We will continue to take into account the feedback provided around fairness and transparency at various points in the customer journey as part of that work, communicate any further action on these issues in due course, and will continue to monitor developments relating to choice architecture and the design of gambling facilities.

Is this page useful?
Back to top