Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited Public Statement
Our public statements make reference to breaches of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) requirements which were in effect at the time of the breach. In some cases, the requirements have since been updated.
Operators are expected to consider the issues outlined below and review their own practices to identify and implement improvements in respect of the management of customers’ accounts.
Introduction
Licensed gambling operators have a legal duty to ensure their gambling facilities are provided in compliance with the Gambling Act 2005 (opens in new tab)(the Act), the conditions of their licence and in accordance with the licensing objectives, which are to:
- prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime
- ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair, safe and open way
- protect children and other vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
Operators are expected to consider the issues outlined below and review their own practices to identify and implement improvements in respect of the management of customers’ accounts.
Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited Executive Summary
A licence review under section 116 of the Act was commenced following a Compliance Assessment, conducted between May and June 2024 of the remote operating licence of Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited (“the Licensee”)(licence number 039544-R-319290-009).
The review found failings in Petfre Gibraltar Limited’s Social Responsibility (SR) controls. Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited failed to comply with the following Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP):
- paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 7 and 11 - Social Responsibility Code Provision (SRCP) 3.4.3 relating to remote customer interaction
- in line with our Statement of Principles for Licensing and regulation, Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited will make a payment in lieu of a financial penalty of £900,000. Details of this are set out under the heading Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited Regulatory Settlement.
Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited Findings
A Commission compliance assessment and subsequent regulatory review found that Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited:
Failed to Comply with Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 7 and 11 of SRCP 3.4.3
Compliance with a SRCP is a condition of the licence by virtue of section 82(1) of the Act.
We found that between 31 October 20231 and 24 June 2024, Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited failed to comply with the following requirements relating to remote customer interaction.
SRCP 3.4.3 paragraph 1 requires:
"Licensees must implement effective customer interaction systems and processes in a way which minimises the risk of customers experiencing harms associated with gambling. These systems and processes must embed the three elements of customer interaction – identify, act and evaluate – and which reflect that customer interaction is an ongoing process as explained in the Commission’s guidance (see paragraph 2)."
The review found that elements of the Licensee’s customer interaction systems and processes did not effectively minimise the risk of customers experiencing gambling harms and embed the three elements of customer interaction, specifically identify and act. The review found that due to the lack of automated processes, and delay in the Licensee’s customer interaction processes, some customers who were displaying indicators of harm2 were not identified and interacted with promptly enough.
SRCP 3.4.3 paragraph 2 requires:
“Licensees must take into account the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction for remote operators as published and revised from time to time (‘the Guidance”).”
The Licensee failed to adequately take into account all aspects of the Commission’s guidance on customer interaction, because:
- the Licensee did not have sufficient processes in place to identify indicators of harm by utilising automated processes as set out at requirement 11 of SRCP 3.4.33
- the Licensee did not have processes in place to ensure immediate and automated action was taken to minimise harm where strong indicators of harm were identified.4
SRCP 3.4.3 paragraph 4 requires: “Licensees must have in place effective systems and processes to monitor customer activity to identify harm or potential harm associated with gambling, from the point when an account is opened.”
The Licensee failed to have in place effective systems or processes to adequately monitor customer activity to identify harm or potential harm associated with gambling. The Licensee’s safer gambling processes included a delay which meant that when a customer’s account was flagged for a safer gambling review they would not be flagged for a further review for 7 days. This resulted in customers exhibiting further indicators of harm not being interacted with as promptly as they should have.
SRCP 3.4.3 paragraph 7 requires:
“A licensee’s systems and processes for customer interaction must flag indicators of risk of harm in a timely manner for manual intervention, and feed into automated processes as required by paragraph 11.”
The Licensee failed to adequately flag indicators of harm in a timely manner for manual intervention or feed into automated processes as required by paragraph 11. This was due to a 7-day delay within the Licensee’s safer gambling processes. Further to this, the Licensee did not have automated processes in place as required by paragraph 11.
Delays and lack of automation within the Licensee’s safer gambling processes resulted in customers not being interacted with promptly enough. One customer received an interaction after surpassing a deposit trigger, and a decision was made to take no further action. The customer then deposited and lost a further £17,900 within the next 24 hours without any further intervention. Due to the lack of real time monitoring, and automated processes the Licensee unable to adequately identify and interact with this customer promptly enough when they exhibited further indicators of harm.
We found that between 31 October 20235 and December 2025 the Licensee failed to comply with the following requirements relating to remote customer interaction.
SRCP 3.4.3 paragraph 11 requires:
“Licensees must ensure that strong indicators of harm, as defined within the licensee’s processes, are acted on in a timely manner by implementing automated processes. Where such automated processes are applied, the licensee must manually review their operation in each individual customer’s case and the licensee must allow the customer the opportunity to contest any automated decision which affects them.”
The Licensee failed to clearly define its strong indicators of harm within its safer gambling policy for the purposes of paragraph 11. In addition to this, the Licensee did not have automated processes in place to interact with customers who displayed strong indicators of harm.
Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited Regulatory settlement
This regulatory settlement consists of:
- a payment in lieu of a financial penalty of £900,000. The money will be directed to the Consolidated Fund.
- agreement to the publication of a statement of facts in relation to this case
- payment towards the Commission’s costs of investigating the case.
In considering an appropriate resolution to this investigation, the Commission has had regard to the following aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors
- the Licensee has previously been subject to regulatory actions
- the Commission has previously issued public statements regarding similar issues which it has observed in relation to other operators.
Mitigating factors:
- the Licensee swiftly put in place an action plan designed to remedy the failings and provided updates
- fully co-operated with the investigation.
Good practice
Gambling operators should take account of the failings identified in this investigation to ensure industry learning. Operators should consider the following questions and take remedial action where required:
- would your safer gambling controls identify all potential indicators of harm, as required by SRCP 3.4.3?
- do your safer gambling policies and procedures clearly define what you consider to be a strong indicator of harm?
- do you have automated controls to act on strong indicators in a timely manner?
- do your automated processes capture both financial and behavioural indicators?
Footnotes
1 The date that the Customer interaction guidance - for remote gambling licensees (Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3) came into effect
2 Licensees must use a range of indicators relevant to their customer and the nature of the gambling facilities provided in order to identify harm or potential harm associated with gambling. These must include:
- customer spend
- patterns of spend
- time spent gambling
- gambling behaviour indicators
- customer-led contact
- use of gambling management tools
- account indicators
3 Section B - Identify - Requirement 4, Paragraphs 4.4 and Requirement 7, Paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2
4 Section C – Act – Requirement 11, Paragraph 11.1
5 The date that the Customer interaction guidance - for remote gambling licensees (Formal guidance under SR Code 3.4.3) came into effect