Consultation response
Remote customer interaction: Consultation Response
This response document sets out our conclusions and actions in relation to the consultation around remote customer interaction.
Contents
- Summary
- Next steps
- Introduction
- Proposal 1 - Overall requirements and process
- - Overall requirements and process
- - Consultation questions on overall requirements and process
- - Respondents’ views on overall requirements and process
- - Our position on overall requirements and process
- Proposal 2 - Identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Consultation questions on identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Respondents’ views on identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Our position on identifying customers at risk of harm
- Proposal 3 - Requirement to act
- - Requirement to act
- - Consultation questions on requirement to act
- - Respondents’ views on requirement to act
- - Our position on requirement to act
- Proposal 4 - Evaluation of effectiveness
- - Evaluation of effectiveness
- - Consultation questions on evaluation of effectiveness
- - Respondents’ views on evaluation of effectiveness
- - Our position on evaluation of effectiveness
- The LCCP provision
Identifying customers at risk of harm
Operators are already required to monitor gambling accounts to identify harm – we make clear in the existing guidance that this includes monitoring a customer’s account from the point of opening and we set out information on the indicators that should be used. However, we found that operators’ approaches were inconsistent and often missed key indicators that were available, including for new customers. We therefore proposed to require operators to:
- monitor an account for signs of harm from the point of opening
- use a set of minimum indicators of harm
- flag indicators of harm in a timely manner, including feeding into automated solutions
- explicitly be responsible for implementing these requirements even where there is a third party provider.
We set out proposed additional requirements for specific indicators on vulnerability and time spent gambling. This meant that operators would be required to take action when they identify customers in a vulnerable situation, but not to screen all customers for vulnerability. It also meant that operators would have to flag unusual amounts of time spent gambling as an indicator of harm.
Next sectionConsultation questions on identifying customers at risk of harm
Last updated: 14 April 2022
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.