Research Services. Harm Minimisation, Sports Integrity & Emerging International Practices in Online Gambling Regulation

Transcription

1 Research Services Harm Minimisation, Sports Integrity & Emerging International Practices in Online Gambling Regulation A Benchmarking Study Comparing Australia s Online Gambling Regulations to Leading International Regulated Jurisdictions

2 Contents About this benchmarking report Executive Summary Part One: Harm minimisation and player protection Is player protection addressed in the objectives of regulation? Which products and platforms are regulated? How and when are players verified? Are there any relevant player deposit limits? What self-exclusion policies are in place and is there a nationwide list? Is harm minimisation and advocating responsible gambling found in advertising policies? What do gambling prevalence studies indicate about levels of problem gambling pre and post online gambling regulation? Part Two: Sports integrity and in-play betting What initiatives are taking place to ensure sports integrity? What legislation is in place to ensure sports integrity related to gambling? What are regulatory approaches to in-play betting? Authors Laurie Korpi, Legal & Research Director Luis Gil, Senior Legal Analyst Pauline de Zeeuw, Legal & Research Manager, Europe

3 About this benchmarking report GamblingCompliance Research Services (GCRS) was commissioned by the Australian Wagering Council to conduct a regulatory benchmarking survey of international markets which have regulated online betting and gaming Denmark, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom and Australia. As part of this exercise GCRS conducted research following two themes: harm minimisation and player protection; and in-play betting and sports integrity. Reflecting these two research themes, the report analysed the following questions: Harm minimisation and player protection: * Is player protection addressed in the objectives of regulation? * Which products and platforms are regulated? * How and when are players verified? * What are any relevant player deposit limits? * What self-exclusion policies are in place and is there a nationwide list? * Is harm minimisation and advocating responsible gambling found in advertising policies? * What do gambling prevalence studies indicate about levels of problem gambling pre and post online gambling regulation? Sports integrity and in-play betting: * What initiatives are taking place to ensure sports integrity? * What legislation is in place to ensure sports integrity related to gambling? * What are regulatory approaches to in-play betting? Primary Sources: Direct extracts from laws, regulations, codes, technical standards or other primary sources are included throughout this report, with large extracts highlighted in green. Further references are located in this report s footnotes. Results: The results of this research are contained in the following two chapters, with commentary and findings summed up in this report s executive summary. Contact: Should you have any questions, please contact [email protected] Use of this information In preparing this report, GamblingCompliance Ltd has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of its contents. However, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is given as to the accuracy or completeness of its information. All conclusions reached are based on an independent and impartial analysis of the topics covered based on GamblingCompliance Ltd s regulatory database of reports and analysis, conferences attended and, where relevant, interviews conducted. The views and opinions expressed in this report are not necessarily those of Gambling Compliance Ltd, but of the individual authors of this report. Readers, or their associated corporate entity, that rely on any information in this report do so entirely at their own risk. GamblingCompliance Ltd and its employees do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this report. This report is no substitute for local legal advice in each jurisdiction covered. Before acting or refraining to act on any information you read in this report, it is strongly recommended that you obtain independent legal advice. Copyright 2014 GamblingCompliance Ltd All rights reserved. The intended use of this report is for purchasers only. No part of this report may be: (i) copied, photocopied or duplicated in any form by any means; or (ii) redistributed or republished without the prior written consent of GamblingCompliance Ltd Terms and conditions can be found at terms-and-conditions. 3

4 Executive Summary Through the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA) Australia was among the first jurisdictions in the world to express a policy position on online gambling. A key policy driver was consumer protection as it was thought that the quantum leap in the accessibility of gambling services...could exacerbate problem gambling in Australia. The IGA prohibited most forms of online gambling from being provided to Australians, however, the IGA did not restrict Australians from accessing unregulated, black market online gambling. The key exception to the prohibitions in the IGA is online wagering service providers who are licensed by state and territory regulators. However, not all forms of online wagering are permitted, with most forms of online in-play sports betting still included among the IGA s prohibitions. Since Australia enacted the IGA, online gambling regulation has received increased policy consideration internationally, particularly across Europe, with many European jurisdictions choosing to install licensing models for a broad range of online gambling activities. There is, therefore, a growing body of regulatory experience and know-how to draw upon to frame key regulatory questions and understand any emerging common practices. This is what this benchmarking research has sought to do, asking a number of questions regarding harm minimisation and player protection on the one hand, and sports integrity and in-play betting on the other, for both Australia and a number of international (European) markets. In short, this research identifies a strong case for an updating and enhancement of Australia s regulatory approach to achieve international best practice public policy outcomes in each of these areas. This includes approaches to player verification, deposit limits, self-exclusion, and the issue of platform/ regulatory neutrality and its relationship to both consumer protection and sports integrity. While the in-depth results of this research are contained in the body of this report, with legislative extracts and references, the benchmarking study s results can be grouped into the follow common practices and key themes. Common Practices The research contained in this report can be organised into a number of common practices which are shared among the majority (but not all) of the jurisdictions analysed. While Table One below contains a snapshot of the harm minimisation and player protection research findings as well as the research findings related to sports integrity and in-play betting, the following statements on common practices and policy positions are made based on the benchmarking exercise conducted in Parts One and Two of this report. Regulation: jurisdictions are increasingly regulating the supply of online gambling in addition to providing a legal, competitive alternative for players to access. Platform: platform neutrality is a common feature of most regulatory frameworks. Verification: jurisdictions do not permit withdrawals until verification is complete, with verification commonly completed within a matter of days, if not hours or at the time of registration. Deposit limits: jurisdictions require players be given the ability to set their own limits. It is common practice that any increase in a limit is subject to a cooling-off period, whereas decreases in limits take effect immediately. Self-exclusion: jurisdictions require players be given the opportunity to self-exclude, with a national self-exclusion register in place (or moves to implement one) across most jurisdictions, so that a player excluded on one website cannot sign-up with another operator. Marketing: it is common practice for jurisdictions to require responsible gambling messaging, including a commitment not to target minors or the vulnerable, across all marketing and promotions. Sports integrity: most jurisdictions have regulated their online betting markets to encompass a wide range of betting offers, including in-play betting, which would provide legal alternatives to black market betting. This policy approach also provides traceable, transparent betting data, an essential component in successful sports integrity monitoring systems, as well as evidence to enforce sports integrity laws. Themes There are a number of key themes that underpin the regulatory regimes that are described in this report. They are as follows: Restricting Supply, Regulating Demand Internationally, jurisdictions are regulating both the supply and demand for online gambling by restricting access to a market for unlicensed operators, while providing a licensed and legal alternative. In the European context, restricting the access to, and the supply of, online gambling services, to licensed operators has been termed channelling, with regulation seeking to channel players from illegal websites to the regulated market. This is the case for both federally-governed jurisdictions, such as Spain, and unitary governments, such as France. In comparison, Australia s Interactive Gambling Act 2001 simply restricts the supply of online gambling services. Platform Neutrality All the jurisdictions studied have similar policy objectives, with harm minimisation and consumer protection uniformly found at the core of gambling regulation as policy drivers. However, while these international markets have enacted regulations which are applied uniformly across channels to meet their policy objectives, Australian policy is not so consistent. International markets have created online regulatory regimes which are platform neutral and therefore do not discriminate whether a player accesses online services via a computer, tablet or over a telephone. This has resulted in having the same gambling product regulated uniformly and consistently across access channels and subject to the same rules and consumer protections. For instance, a UK player can place an in-play bet in person at a land-based betting shop, over a smartphone, or using a telephone and therefore will be subject to the same protections 4

5 found in the UK s gambling regime, including licence conditions and codes of conduct operators are required to uphold. Australia s policy approach is somewhat different, with the IGA excluding certain services from its scope. Using the same example, an Australian player will be able to place an in-play bet on a horse race online, but not a football match, and can place in-play bets over a telephone call or at a land-based venue, but not online for sporting events. Harm Minimisation Much of the benchmarking indices looked at harm minimisation measures. Table 1 on Page 6 summarises the key findings of the benchmarking exercise in this respect. As can be seen, most jurisdictions have implemented similar harm minimisation requirements. However, Australia has substantially longer verification time period requirements, does not have a comprehensive approach to deposit limits and lacks a nationwide self-exclusion register. Attractive, Competitive Products Of the international markets analysed, the product suites permitted to be offered by licensed operators are much broader than the limited exceptions carved out under the IGA available to Australian operators. These international markets permit their operators to provide most forms of online gambling (with the exception of France), with all markets permitting in-play betting. The concept of channelling, which most European markets use as a means to restrict supply of gambling services, also provides justification for permitting licensed operators to compete with black market offers through competitive and similar products suites, in order to not be put at a competitive disadvantage to unlicensed operators. A Danish Ministry of Taxation memorandum to the Danish Parliament summed up the rational for this by stating that the gambling products should be so attractive that players do not want to gamble on sites of foreign (illegal) operators. Gambling Prevalence A concern which underpinned the formulation of the IGA was that interactive gambling represents a quantum leap in the accessibility of gambling services, and could exacerbate problem gambling in Australia. Of the international markets studied, the UK provides an evidence-based case study into the effects of online gambling regulation on problem gambling rates. This is because the UK conducted studies of its population s gambling prevalence well before online gambling regulation was enacted, and additional studies post regulation. The UK s experience suggests that the introduction of online gambling has not exacerbated problem gambling. Sports Integrity Both internationally and in Australia, there has been a raft of initiatives at both the regional and country levels to fight against match-fixing and related sports manipulation threats. While Europe is working on a convention which will address sports integrity, Australia already has issued a nationwide policy to ensure a consistent approach to sports integrity. Moreover, Australia s approach, coordinated through its National Policy on Match-Fixing in Sport, is proving influential, with New Zealand recently following a similar model. This echoes the development of a so-called right to bet, which was first introduced by Victoria and has been subsequently followed in other jurisdictions, including France, which is one of the international markets under focus. In-Play Betting The results of the benchmarking exercise in Part Two of this research indicate that all the international jurisdictions studied permit their licensees to offer forms of in-play betting online. Australia s approach to in-play betting is an anomaly compared to the other jurisdictions benchmarked, as whether or not in-play betting is permitted is dependent on the type of event and the platform used to place the bet. One consequence of this inconsistent regulatory approach in Australia is that it risks driving Australian players to seek out black market online betting sites, which offer a more attractive range of betting products compared with those available on the regulated market. Table One below also summarises these findings in the in-play betting column. Match-Fixing and Regulated Betting Markets The opportunity to bet on variables in sporting events and inplay betting has given rise to concerns that sporting events can be manipulated for match-fixing purposes. European experience suggests that regulated betting markets, far from being a threat to sports integrity, are a key bulwark in efforts to combat matchfixing. This is because regulated markets provide for a range of sports integrity measures to be in place. One of these measures is monitoring systems which are a key area of cooperation between sports governing bodies and regulated betting operators. The key to the success of monitoring systems is regulated betting markets which can analyse betting data and alert sports governing bodies and the authorities of any suspicious betting patterns. For unregulated markets and unregulated betting offers, data from unlicensed operators will not be available and therefore constitute a threat to both the success of monitoring systems specifically and sports integrity more generally. Although Australia has been a leader in many respects in combating match-fixing, it is an outlier, compared with the international jurisdictions analysed, as its suite of regulated online betting offers does not match up to those offered by unlicensed operators acting on an unregulated market. Specifically, in-play betting, which this research shows is growing substantially in Europe s regulated markets (one operator saw in-play business grow by 1,400 percent between ), could pose a threat if left available to be offered by unlicensed operators, with no legal and regulated alternative on the online Australian market. By bringing online in-play betting into the regulated market, information sharing and monitoring systems will gather data and any suspicious betting patterns or other related sports integrity threats can be illuminated for authorities to act upon. There will also be other benefits in terms of consumer protection, harm minimisation and revenue to government. 5

6 Research findings: a snapshot Jurisdiction Denmark France Italy Spain United Kingdom National legislation restricting supply of online gambling National legislation regulating demand for online gambling National legislation platform neutral Player verification time limits Player verification and withdrawals Deposit limits Australia a a a a a a a a a a a X a a a a a X At time of account opening (immediately). Verification at account opening, no withdrawals are possible until verification complete. Yes, daily, weekly and monthly voluntary deposit limits can be set by players. A request to set a limit should be implemented immediately, with requests to increase limits subject to a 24-hour cooling-off period. Temporary account setup initiates a postal identification procedure. Must be completed within one month. No withdrawals until verification complete. Mandatory win limits must be set when registering account. Any amount won above this limit must be credited to the player s bank account. Must be completed within 30 days of account opening. No withdrawals until verification complete. Deposit limits must be set by players, with players prohibited from having an unlimited deposit limit. Any increase in these self-imposed limits will be subject to a cooling-off period of seven days with any decrease to be implemented immediately. Verification required to be completed in real-time or within three days. No withdrawals until verification complete. Players are required to be offered voluntary deposit limits. Operators must limit deposits to 600 per day; 1,500 per week; and 3,000 per month. Increases or removal of deposit limits require a player to pass a gambling addiction test. If the request is a second or subsequent request, player gaming records must be analysed, with requests only permitted once every three months. Increases in deposit limits are subject to a cooling-off period of up to seven days. Age verification is required with 72 hours. No withdrawals until verification complete. Online gambling platforms require players to have facilities to set their own deposit limits. Increases in deposit limits require a 24- hour cooling-off period, with reductions required to be implemented within 24 hours. Verification required to be completed within 90 days. No withdrawals until verification complete. Deposit limits applicable in certain codes of practice (such as South Australia); however, implemented by industry in absence of requirement found in gambling law. Self-exclusion a a a a a a facilities 6

7 Jurisdiction Denmark France Italy Spain United Kingdom Nationwide selfexclusion a a list Responsible gambling and advertising requirements National selfexclusion system currently under development a National self-exclusion system currently under development Australia a a a a a In-play betting a a a a a X online permitted X 7

8 8

9 Part One: Harm Minimisation and Player Protection 9

10 1. Is player protection addressed in the objectives of regulation? 1.1. Denmark Yes. Legislation for Denmark s online gambling market is based in the Gambling Act 2010, with its first licences operational from January According to Section 1 of the Gambling Act 2010, the purpose of the act is to: i) To maintain the consumption of gambling services at a moderate level; ii) to protect young people and other vulnerable people from being exploited through gambling or developing a gambling addiction; iii) to protect players by ensuring that gambling is provided in a fair, responsible and transparent manner; and iv) to ensure public order and to prevent gambling as a means to support crime France Yes. The French National Assembly approved a law introducing an ouverture controlee, or controlled opening, of the country s online gambling market on April 6, The law set up a licensing regime for online gambling, with licensees active from late The main objective of the law was to channel players from unlicensed gambling websites to websites regulated by French authorities. Section 3 of the Online Gambling Act 2010 noted that the objectives of the law were to protect players and minors, including preventing excessive or pathological gambling; fight against fraud and crime, including money laundering; ensure the integrity and reliability of gambling; and ensure a balanced and equitable development of the sector. The concept of channelling players to regulated gambling services has received attention from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The court has consistently ruled in favour of channelling and the right to offer competitive products and a certain level of marketing to meet this channelling objective: Authorised operators must represent a reliable, but at the same time attractive, alternative to a prohibited activity. This may as such necessitate the offer of an extensive range of games, advertising on a certain scale and the use of new distribution techniques (see Placanica and Others, paragraph 55) Italy Yes. Italy was the first jurisdiction in Europe to implement a point of consumption or local licensing regime for online gambling, beginning in Italy s objective, as stated in Article 38 of Decree 223/2006 (the Bersani Decree), for regulating online gambling was to combat illegal online gambling offers and related tax evasion, as well as ensuring player protection through a regulated market Spain Yes. Spain has federal regulation for online gambling, in addition to autonomous regions having the authority to regulate the activity. At the federal level, online gambling is regulated by Law 13/2011. Article 1 of the law states that the main purpose of the regulation is as follows: The purpose of this Law is to regulate gaming activities, in their different forms, developed within the scope of the State in order to guarantee the protection of public order, as well as to fight against fraud, prevent addictive behaviour, protect the rights of minors and safeguard the rights of whoever participates in the games United Kingdom Yes. The United Kingdom first regulated online gambling through the Gambling Act 2005, which came into force in September The three pillars of the act, forming the licensing objectives for regulating gambling, are found in Section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005, as follows: In this act a reference to the licensing objectives is a reference to the objectives of: (a) preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime, (b) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and (c) protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling. The UK currently follows the same model as most other European countries, and will require online gambling operators to hold a local licence from October 1, This is being achieved through changes to the Gambling Act 2005, in the form of amending legislation (the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 and secondary legislation (Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2014) Australia Yes. Federally, Australia s Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA) was enacted to, according to the Act s explanatory memorandum, to address a: Concern that interactive gambling represents a quantum leap in the accessibility of gambling services, and could exacerbate problem gambling in Australia. Moreover, the IGA, through prohibitions and a complaints scheme, created a framework which sought to, according to the explanatory memorandum: Limit the development of this newly emerging industry [interactive gambling] and minimise the scope for problem gambling among Australians. It balances the protection of Australians with a sensible and enforceable regulatory regime. 1 Joined cases C-316/07, C-358/07 to C-360/07, C-409/07 and C-410/07 Markus Stoß and Others, Court of Justice of the European Union, September 8, 2010 at paragraph

11 2. Which products and platforms are regulated? 2.1. Denmark According to Section 5 of the Act on Gambling, online gambling is defined as gambling activities between a player and a gambling provider through the use of remote communication. This has resulted in a broad array of games on the regulated market, with licences available for online betting and online casino games, while online lotteries and horse race betting remain subject to a monopoly held by Danske Spil. The definition of online gambling requiring the use of remote communication has meant the law is platform neutral and therefore could encompass accessing gambling services from a desktop computer, smartphone, tablet, or even telephone betting. The Danish Ministry of Taxation in a memorandum to the Danish Parliament in March 2010 provides the reasoning why that jurisdiction chose to regulate the wide range of online gambling products on its market: The gambling products should be so attractive that players do not want to gamble on sites of foreign (illegal) operators France France s Online Gambling Act 2010 in Article 10-1 defines online gambling as a game in which the player s actions in a game exclusively go through an online communication service to the public. Online gambling licences are available for sports betting (pari-mutuel or fixed-odds, although only pari-mutuel betting is permitted for horse race betting), and jeux de cercle, or shared games, which in practice means different variants of poker. Online lotteries and bingo remain under a monopoly held by Française des Jeux. France s online regime has not stipulated the type of platform the online communication takes place on, so could encompass accessing online gambling from a desktop computer, smartphone, and a tablet. Telephone betting could also be considered an online communication, and has not been expressly excluded from the scope of the law Italy Italy s online gambling framework has expanded over time, with new forms of online gambling being introduced. While Italian law does not define what online or remote gambling consists of, Article 2(r) of Decree 111/2011, which regulates fixed-odds betting on sports, provides a definition of a telematic bet. This definition encompasses bets placed from a distance and can include telephone or internet betting. In practice, Italy has licensed most forms of online gambling including: casino games; cash poker; tournament poker; bingo; lotteries; betting; betting exchanges and online gaming machines. The definition of online betting provides that online betting is platform neutral and therefore could encompass accessing gambling services from a variety of mediums. 2 European Commission Decision of on the measure No C 35/2010 (ex N302/2010) which Denmark is planning to implement in the form of Duties for Online Gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act, < competition/state_aid/cases/238735/238735_ _269_3.pdf>, at page Spain Spain has followed Italy s model closely and has implemented a wide range of online gambling games. According to Article 3(h) of Law 13/2011 online gambling games are defined as follows: These games use any mechanism, installation, equipment or system that makes it possible to produce, store or transmit documents, data and information, including any open or restricted network such as television, the Internet, mobile and landline telephones or any other, or interactive communication, whether it is in real or delayed time. Spain has licensed online gambling for betting (pool betting and fixed odds); poker (cash and tournament); casino games (including roulette, blackjack, baccarat) bingo; game shows; raffles; and social games. Spain is currently issuing for betting exchanges and online gaming machines. The definition of online games is platform neutral, with players able to access gambling services via a desktop computer, smartphone, tablet, or even via a telephone United Kingdom The UK has regulated online gambling regulation through the Gambling Act 2005, which came into force in September The UK originally adopted an approach which was slightly more liberal than most other European countries which have regulated online gambling, as it permitted operators not licensed in the UK to take custom from the players in Great Britain. Although the UK is currently changing its regime to require operators to hold a UK licence if the operator has remote gambling equipment in Great Britain or even transacts with a British consumer, the definition of what constitutes remote gambling has remained intact. Section 4 of the Gambling Act defines remote gambling as gambling in which persons participate by the use of remote communication. Section 3 of the Gambling Act 2005 defines gambling as: Betting, which is defined in Section 9 of the Gambling Act 2005 as the making or accepting of a bet on the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process; the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring; or whether anything is or is not true. Gaming, which is defined in Section 6 of the Gambling Act 2005 as playing of a game of chance, which itself can include a skill element, for a prize. Participating in a lottery (as defined in Section 14 of the Gambling Act 2005). Moreover, remote communication is defined broadly in Section 4 of the Gambling Act to mean: Communication using: (a) the internet, (b)telephone, (c)television, (d)radio, or (e)any other kind of electronic or other technology for facilitating communication. The definition of remote communication therefore is platform neutral and therefore could encompass accessing gambling 11

12 services from a desktop computer, smartphone, tablet, or even telephone betting Australia The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 regulated online gambling by installing a prohibition on interactive gambling services and creating a complaint-based system to restrict the supply of online gambling services, where those services have an Australian-customer link. The types of online gambling prohibited and across what platforms these prohibitions apply vary depending on the type of gambling service and communication platform used. A brief overview of the IGA s definitions and the types of gambling services excluded from its scope is required. The IGA defines a gambling service in Section 4 as: (a) a service for the placing, making, receiving or acceptance of bets; or (b) a service the sole or dominant purpose of which is to introduce individuals who wish to make or place bets to individuals who are willing to receive or accept those bets; or (c) a service for the conduct of a lottery; or (d) a service for the supply of lottery tickets; or (e) a service for the conduct of a game, where: (i) the game is played for money or anything else of value; and (ii) the game is a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill; and (iii) a customer of the service gives or agrees to give consideration to play or enter the game; or (f) a gambling service (within the ordinary meaning of that expression) that is not covered by any of the above paragraphs. An interactive gambling service is defined in Section 5 of the IGA as: (1) For the purposes of this Act, an interactive gambling service is a gambling service, where: (a) the service is provided in the course of carrying on a business; and (b) the service is provided to customers using any of the following: (i) an internet carriage service; (ii) any other listed carriage service; (iii) a broadcasting service; (iv) any other content service; (v) a datacasting service. Note: This definition relates to the offences created by section 15 and Part 7A. (2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to subsection (3). However, the IGA excludes a number of services from within its scope. These excluded services are listed under Section 5(3) and are: For the purposes of this Act, none of the following services is an interactive gambling service: (a) a telephone betting service; (aa) an excluded wagering service (see Section 8A); (ab) an excluded gaming service (see Section 8B); (ac) a service that has a designated broadcasting link (see Section 8C); (ad) a service that has a designated datacasting link (see Section 8C); (ae) an excluded lottery service (see Section 8D); (b) a service to the extent to which it relates to the entering into of contracts that are financial products within the meaning of Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001; (c) an exempt service (see Section 10). Further exemptions are included under an excluded wagering service and an excluded gaming service in the IGA. While an excluded gaming service relates to the definition of gambling service contained in Section 4 paragraph (e) of the definition of a gambling service of the IGA (which includes a game of mixed chance and skill) and an exemption of such services to the extent to which the service is provided to customers who are in a public place (such as linked jackpot poker machines in clubs); an excluded wagering service is listed in Section 8A as: 8A Excluded wagering service (1) For the purposes of this Act, an excluded wagering service is: (a) a service to the extent to which it relates to betting on, or on a series of, any or all of the following: (i) a horse race; (ii) a harness race; (iii) a greyhound race; (iv) a sporting event; (b) a service to the extent to which it relates to betting on: (i) an event; or (ii) a series of events; or (iii) a contingency; that is not covered by paragraph (a). (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a service unless such other conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations have been satisfied. (2) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a service to the extent to which: (a) the service relates to betting on the outcome of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event; or (b) the service relates to betting on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event. (3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a service to the extent to which the service is: (a) a service for the conduct of a scratch lottery or other instant lottery; or (b) a service for the supply of tickets in a scratch lottery or other instant lottery; or (c) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a scratch lottery or other instant lottery; or (d) a service for the conduct of a game covered by paragraph (e) of the definition of gambling service in section 4; or (e) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill. 12

13 The consequence of the IGA s definitions and scope means that most online gambling services, such as online casinos, online poker, and online gaming machines are prohibited under the IGA, while online wagering services are not prohibited to the extent that they are not in-play betting on an outcome or contingency on a sporting event after the event has begun, and certain lotteries. Moreover, the IGA differentiates between the platform for an interactive gambling service. That is, interactive gambling services do not include telephone betting services, and designated services which have a datacasting or broadcasting link. 3. How and when are players verified? 3.1. Denmark To verify a customer, Danish licensees are required to use the country s NemId system when a player wants to open an account. NemId is digital signature system, used to access both government and business website services, such as checking tax file information online and online banking. The system consists of a user ID, password and a card containing one-time access codes. According to the Technical requirements on gambling operators for obtaining a licence to provide online gambling services in Denmark Version 1.09: When a new player wants to open an account on the Licence Holder s website, the Licence Holder must check, before the account opening has been completed, the player s identity via NemId, the player s age and whether the player is registered on the Problem Gambling Register. If the player cannot log in via NemId, the player is younger than 18 years old or the player is registered on the Problem Gambling Register, a player cannot open an account. Both the online betting and online casino executive orders 3 in Section 2(4)-(6) provide the legislative base for the registration and verification of players: Paragraph 4. The licence holder shall obtain information concerning the customer s identity, including his name, address and personal ID number, or other similar information if the person in question does not have a personal ID number. The information obtained shall be verified by means of the necessary documentation. The scope of the documentation shall be determined on the basis of a risk analysis, so that the licence holder is sure that the customer is the person who the customer claims to be. Paragraph 5. The licence holder shall make registration as a customer conditional upon the customer acting exclusively on his own behalf. Paragraph 6. In the event of any doubt as to whether information obtained previously concerning the customer s identity is adequate, further proof of identity shall be requested France According to Article 3 of the Online Gambling Law 2010, French players can only set up temporary accounts on an operator s website prior to verification. To change the account from temporary to an official playing account requires the player to send the operator, via post or , identification documents to be verified, as proof of their age and identity. Article 4 of the Online Gambling Law stipulates that these documents can 3 Executive Order No. 67 of 25. January 2012 on online casinos and Executive Order No. 66 of 25 January 2012 on the provision of online betting the secondary legislation which implemented Denmark s online gambling framework. be either copies of their national ID card, passport or driving licence and need to be sent in within a month of a temporary account being opened. Once the verification papers have been sent to the operator, the operator is required to send the player an activation code by post according to Article 5 of the Online Gambling Law Until the player has been verified the player cannot cash out any winnings Italy Italian players are required to open a player account to access Italian operator s online gambling services. According to the Certification Guidance Version 1.1, the player s details for their gambling account must be verified by the gambling operator, within 30 days of opening the account. While deposits are permitted, withdrawals are not permitted until verification has been completed. The verification uses Italy s national identification number for verification purposes Spain Spanish players are required to provide operators with verification details which include their national identification number, name and date of birth, according to the Web service standards for the verification of players by gambling operators Version 1.6 December 2013 (a 130 page technical specification booklet on player verification). Once the operator has received the player s verification details the operator is required to send these to the national gambling regulator (Gambling Directorate, or the DGOJ), which is required to check the details against Spain s national population database as well as the national gambling self-exclusion database. The DGOJ is required to confirm the verification in real-time or within three days according to Article 26 of Royal Decree 1613/2011 (secondary legislation for Law 13/2011). If verification has not been conducted within one month, the player s account must be cancelled (Article 26 (3) of Royal Decree 1613/2011). The technical specification booklet furthermore stipulates that no withdrawals are permitted until verification is complete United Kingdom The UK s online gambling framework requires operators to follow established British standards with respect to the security requirements for software technical standards (an ISO standard ISO/EIC 27001: 2005). This includes a requirement for user identification and authentication. Furthermore, the Gambling Commission has stipulated Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) relevant for online gambling operators. LCCP social responsibility code provision aims to uphold one of the pillars of licensing namely protecting children and young persons and lays down provisions with respect to age verification and a time limit of 72 hours to verify a player s age. 13

14 A social responsibility code provision means that: compliance with these is a condition of licences; therefore any breach of them by an operator may lead the Commission to review the operator s licence with a view to suspension, revocation or the imposition of a financial penalty and would also expose the operator to the risk of prosecution. Social responsibility code provision ( Access to gambling by children and young persons ) (2)(f) states that: In the case of any UK resident customer who deposits money using any type of payment method other than a credit card, and unless the licensee has established that a third party has satisfactorily carried out age verification, the following age verification procedures: (i) verifying additional information about the customer, such as carrying out searches of credit reference and other databases that list names and addresses of individuals over the age of 18; (ii) carrying out secondary age verification checks in any circumstances which give the operator reason to suspect that the person may be underage; (iii) not permitting the customer to withdraw any winnings from their account until age verification has been satisfactorily completed; and (iv) in any event, a requirement that if age verification has not been satisfactorily completed within 72 hours of the customer applying to register to gamble and depositing money: the account will be frozen no further gambling will be permitted until age verification has been successfully completed if on completion of age verification the customer is shown to be underage, the operator must return to the customer any money paid in respect of the use of the gambling facilities, but no winnings shall be paid Australia Verification requirements for online gambling services are contained in Australia s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter- Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1), providing relevant provisions under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act The rules apply to the types of interactive gambling referred to in 5(1)(b) of the IGA, including excluded wagering services. The rules state: Part 10.4 Accounts for online gambling services Special circumstances that justify carrying out the applicable identification procedure after commencement of the provision of a designated service Subject to the condition specified in paragraph , online gambling services are specified for the purposes of paragraph 33(a) of the AML/CTF Act For the purposes of paragraph 33(b) of the AML/CTF Act, the special circumstances in respect of online gambling services are only available if: (1) the customer is required to open an account in order to obtain the service; and (2) the reporting entity does not permit the customer to withdraw any funds from the account prior to carrying out the applicable customer identification procedure. The period ascertained in accordance with subparagraph 34(1)(d)(i) of the AML/CTF Act This Rule is made pursuant to subparagraph 34(1)(d) (i) of the AML/CTF Act. In respect of the designated services specified in paragraph above, the period is 90 days commencing on the day that the reporting entity opens the account in the name of the customer. Therefore online gambling service providers not prohibited by the IGA such as bookmakers licensed in the Northern Territory or state licensed wagering operators are required to verify customers within 90 days from account opening, with the withdrawal of funds not permitted until a customer verification process has been carried out. In practice, this has led to either online verification or paper-based verification. For verification purposes there is a requirement to have original or certified copies of supporting documents. Australia Post is used by some operators 4 to provide a 100-point check offline, with companies such as Edentiti 5 providing a similar service online. 4 Such as Centrebet 5 Such as Sportingbet. 4. Are there any relevant player deposit or win limits? 4.1. Denmark Both Denmark s Executive Order on Online Betting and Executive Order on Online Casinos contain requirements for licensees to provide players with the function to set deposit limits. These are contained in chapter 6 of both respective executive orders. The rules state in Article 15 and 17 respectively that: The licence holder must make a function available to the player that allows the player to set daily, weekly and monthly deposit limits. A player s request to set a deposit limit shall be implemented immediately upon request; but see paragraph 2. Paragraph 2. A player s request for an increase of a previously fixed deposit limit may not come into force until after 24 hours have passed France French law requires players to set mandatory win limits when registering their account with the verification code sent in the post by a gambling operator. Article 17 of the Online Gambling Law 2010 states that the player is required to set an amount, over which any winnings will be transferred back to their bank account: When entering the secret code mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 5, the operator is required to ask the player to determine an amount beyond which the available 14

15 winnings from the player account are automatically transferred to their payment account referred in paragraph 1 of Section 2. No gambling operation can be performed until the player has determined this amount. The player must be able to change this amount at any time by an easily accessible device Italy Italy s online gambling rules require limits to be in place which only players can set. According to Section of Italy s Technical Certification Guidance (which elaborates rules on deposit limits), online gambling systems must make players set their deposit limits, with the gambling system prohibited from having an unlimited deposit level. This self-imposed deposit limit is also subject to a rule which requires any increase in a player s deposit limit to take effect only after seven days from the change; however, decreases in deposit limits a required to take effect immediately. Gambling operators are prohibited from offering default limits to a player Spain According to Spain s Royal Decree 1614/2011 (a piece of secondary legislation for Law 13/2011) in Article 36, Spanish licensees are required to offer deposit limits to players. These are self-imposed limits, however, operators must limit deposits to a maximum of 600 per day; 1,500 per week and 3,000 per month according to Appendix II of Royal Decree 1614/2011. According to 36(2) of Royal Decree 1614/2011: Gaming operators must offer participants the option of voluntarily setting limits on their deposits of amounts lower than those generally applicable [as set out in Appendix II, cited above]. Each participant may make such a request expressly and individually. Gaming operators must grant these requests immediately, and therefore must have and offer participants the technical systems needed for these self-imposed limits. Moreover, if a player wants to increase their deposit limits, operators can grant this request only if the following conditions are met (contained in Article 36(3) of Royal Decree 1614/2011): a) When it is the first request by a participant to increase or remove any limits, the participant must pass the gambling addiction and responsible gaming tests established for that purpose by the National Gaming Commission. After the tests are passed the new limits will come into effect after seven days. b) In the case of the second or subsequent request by the same participant to increase limits, the operator must analyse the aspects of the participant s gaming records established by the National Gaming Commission, which will relate to their profile, their form of participation in the games, and whether they show any sign of addictive behaviour in relation to gaming. The new limits will come into force three days after this study returns a favourable result. c) No increase in the limits established by the participant may be requested if three months have not elapsed since the last change to the self-imposed limits United Kingdom The UK s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice require online gambling operators to ensure that their online platform is compliant with the Gambling Commission s technical standards. The UK s technical standards have a standard, Remote Technical Standard (RTS) 12, on financial limits. The aim of RTS 12 is to provide customers with facilities that may assist them in sticking to their personal budgets for gambling with the operator, with a requirement 12A which imposes the obligation that: [T]he gambling system must provide easily accessible facilities that make it possible for customers to impose their own financial limits. Customers must be given the opportunity to set a limit as part of the registration process (or at the point at which the customer makes the first deposit or payment). Moreover, guidance on the implementation of requirement 12A for access to remote gambling over the internet, mobile or interactive TV states that the customer should be offered the opportunity to select a deposit/spend limit from a list which may contain a no limit option or to enter a limit of their choice as part of the registration or first deposit process. The no limit option should not be the default option. The types of limit options can include deposit, spend or loss limits. These are outlined in RTS 12 as: Deposit limits: where the amount a customer deposits into their account is limited over a particular duration spend limits: where the amount a customer spends on gambling (or specific gambling products) is restricted for a given period this type of limit may be appropriate where the customer does not hold a deposit account with the operator loss limits: where the amount lost (i.e. winnings subtracted from the amount spent) is restricted (for instance when a customer makes a 10 bet and wins 8, the loss is 2). While the duration of the player s limit cannot be less than 24 hours, the technical standards also note that limits may be implemented per customer, accounts, or other methods; as well as either across all product channels or across individual products or channels. Links to limit facilities are also required on an operator s homepage, as well as limit facilities being available on deposit pages or linked to from deposit pages (RTS 12A guidance paragraph d, e). Similar to other jurisdictions in this report, should a player wish to increase their limits, a cooling-off period of 24 hours applies before these come into effect (RTS requirement 12B). Guidance on this requirement states that: a) Increases should not be implemented until a coolingoff period of at least 24 hours from the point at which the request to increase the limit was received. Where it is practicable to do so, the customer should be required to confirm that they still wish to increase the limit at the end of the cooling-off period. b) Where possible (for instance, unless systems/technical failures prevent it) limit reductions are to be implemented within 24 hours of the request being received Australia Due to the fact that the IGA sought to restrict the supply of online gambling to Australian residents, and not regulate demand, coupled with the state and territory authorisations for some form of online gambling, the IGA does not provide any guidance 15

16 on deposit limits. Generally, deposit limits are not considered in Australian online gambling regulation and have largely been implemented by licensed operators in the absence of a regulatory requirement. An exception to this is South Australia s Responsible Gambling (Bookmakers) Code of Practice (Version No. 003, August 2010) and Responsible Gambling (Authorised Interstate Operators) Code of Practice (Version No. 003, August 2010), both of which contain a clause on gambling accounts (Clause 7) and stipulate certain pre-commitment requirements, including on deposit limits. Clause 7(3) states (in both codes) that: (a) An account holder must be able to set a precommitment limit for a fixed period of seven days (the relevant period ); (b) the pre-commitment limit set by the account holder may apply to: (i) net betting losses by the account holder (regardless of the number of accounts held) during the relevant period; (ii) deposits made to the account during the relevant period; or (iii) a combination of both; c) a gambling account must not be able to be used until the account holder has set a pre-commitment limit or chosen not to set a pre- commitment limit; (d) the gambling provider, at intervals of no less than two years, must contact each account holder who has chosen not to set a pre-commitment limit to offer the choice to set a pre-commitment limit; (e) a decision by an account holder to: (i) increase or revoke a pre-commitment limit; or (ii) change the start day for the relevant period must not come into effect for a period of seven days; (f) a decision by an account holder to decrease a precommitment limit must be given effect as soon as practicable. Tasmania has also implemented a Responsible Gambling Code of Practice (Version 1.2, effective May 2013). Under provision 10, information to players, online wagering providers are required to provide responsible gambling information which includes how to limit the amount of money that can be lost. However, in the absence of nationwide or harmonised rules across Australia on deposit limits, the ability to set financial limits and pre-commit has largely been implemented as an industry initiative. For instance, Northern Territory licensed bookmaker Centrebet provides the following information on pre-commitment: Try and establish limits for the amounts you want to wager or deposit. Centrebet was one of the first to offer Pre commitment Limits. If you would like to set limits on your wagering or your deposits you can do so by using Centrebet Pre Commitment Limits or contacting our Customer Service department via the Contact Us section of our website. Similarly, fellow Northern Territory licensee Sportingbet provides a link to a web page on pre-commitment limits on its website, which provides the following information: Try and establish limits for the amounts you want to wager or deposit. Sportingbet was one of the first to offer Pre commitment Limits. If you would like to set limits on your wagering or your deposits you can do so by using Sportingbet Pre Commitment Limits or contacting our Customer Service department via the Contact Us section of our website. More Information on using our Precommitment services are set out below. Tasmanian licensed Betfair also provides information on deposit limits. On a homepage link to responsible gambling information the operator provides users with the following information and tools: Functionality is available to set Daily, Weekly or Monthly Deposit Limits. These can be set either when you register for an account or from within your Account Profile if you are already a customer. Limits can be amended at anytime from within your Account Profile and more detailed information about this functionality can be found there. Weekly, Monthly or Yearly Loss Limits are also available. These can be set either when you register for an account or from within your Account Profile if you are already a customer. Limits can be amended at anytime from within your Account Profile and more detailed information about this functionality can be found there. If you require any further information or assistance regarding any of our Financial Limit functionalities, please check out our Help Centre. 5. What self-exclusion policies are in place and is there a nationwide list? 5.1. Denmark Both Denmark s Executive Order on Online Betting and Executive Order on Online Casinos contain requirements for licensees to provide players with self-exclusion facilities. More fundamentally however, Denmark s gambling framework has created a central self-exclusion register. This is set up in the online casino and online betting executive orders (Article 19 and Article 17 respectively), with the applicable article stipulating: The Danish Gambling Authority shall keep a register of players who want temporary or permanent exclusion from gambling with all licence holders. A player may be entered in the register on the Danish Gambling Authority s website or by turning to the Danish Gambling Authority. The player shall give explicit consent to his inclusion on the register. Furthermore, according to Article 19 of the Executive Order for Online Casinos and Article 17 of the Executive Order for Online Betting, licensees are required to provide information to players about how to be included in the register; and when registering new players or when a player logs onto their account, the operator s gambling system is required to check the register. The requirement for an online gambling operator s system to check the register is also included in technical requirements, for instance, the Online Betting Annex 1: Technical Requirements of the Control System, state that the: 16

17 Register of voluntarily excluded players (ROFUS) is a register of all players in Denmark who have voluntarily wished to exclude themselves temporarily or permanently from being able to play online games in Denmark. The register is placed within the Danish Gambling Authority who is responsible for administrating the register. The licence holder must be connected to the register and secure that players who are registered cannot play through the gambling system of the licence holder. The licence holder s communication with the ROFUS-system takes place through web services. The licence holder must immediately notify the Danish Gambling Authority if errors are detected on Tamper Token or ROFUS. Requirements by law for licence holders and self-exclusion are contained in Article 18 of the Executive order for Online Casinos and Article 16 of the Executive Order for Online Betting. These articles outline a system of temporary and permanent exclusion, with cooling-off periods and also a requirement to direct certain players to information and counselling treatment. The articles outline that: Article 16/18. The licence holder shall provide a function for the player, allowing the player to request temporary or permanent exclusion from gambling. The licence holder shall ensure that the player cannot start new games after he has requested exclusion. Paragraph 2. Temporary exclusion may not be for less than one month, but the player shall have the opportunity to choose a short break from gambling for 24 hours (coolingoff period). A temporary exclusion and short break from gambling mean that the player s gambling account is deactivated during this period. Paragraph 3. Final exclusion of a player means that the licence holder shall close the player s account and terminate the customer relationship. The player cannot re-register as a customer (cf. Section 2) until one year has passed from closure of the gambling account. Paragraph 4. If a player has excluded himself from participation in a licence holder s game, the licence holder shall inform the player about the option for counselling and treatment of pathological gambling at a Danish treatment centre. If the player is a customer from Greenland, the licence holder shall inform about counselling and treatment of pathological gambling at a Greenlandic treatment centre France The French Ministry of the Interior keeps a list of self-excluded persons. The L interdiction volontaire de jeux, or self-exclusion program, is a personal and confidential program that prohibits those on the list from accessing most gambling services. The program was originally created to address land-based casino gambling (via Article 22 of Decree of May 14, 2007); however, it was extended to online games by the Online Gambling Act Gambling operators, including online gambling operators, are required to make sure that no players are registered to their services if they are on this excluded persons list. The Online Gambling Law 2010 in Article 26 also requires operators to have put in place mechanisms for self-exclusion and inform players about how to register onto the list held by the Ministry of the Interior. Once on the list, a player s self-exclusion lasts for three years. If the player wishes to stay on the list after three years, no action is required, as the ban remains until the person concerned asks the Ministry of the Interior to be removed from the list. Players on the excluded persons list can still bet on horse race or sports events in licensed shops and participate in bingo and lotteries, as these operators are not required to check the excluded persons list. In addition to the Ministry of the Interior self-exclusion list, players can also bar themselves from gambling websites directly. While this form of exclusion is less comprehensive than the nationwide list as it is an application for a single operator, a player can ask the operator to be excluded from gambling for a selected period of time Italy Italian licensees are required to have self-exclusion systems in place. One of the regulatory bases for this is found in the Certification Guidance Version 1.1 (the technical standards). Section is on Self- Exclusion. That section outlines that: Players should be given a clear and simple system for selfexclusion from the game. The self-exclusion system must be accessible at least on the player protection section (of the website) for the purpose of conduct responsible gaming. The player must be given the option to self-exclude for fixedterm or an unlimited period of time. In case of self-exclusion for a fixed term (temporary), the gambling platform must ensure that: a) with immediate effect at the time of receipt of the self-exclusion request, no bets or deposits will be accepted from the player until the end of the selfexclusion period. It is acceptable that, in the case of active games (including the step of requesting the right of participation and the transfer of bet to the gaming account) the self-exclusion order will enter into force at the end of them; b) During this period, the player is not prevented from withdraw from the gaming account all or part of the amounts relating to the winnings, since the status of the player does not prevent this, namely that the game account is not block by the dealer or by the court. In the case of self-exclusion for an indefinite period, the gambling platform must ensure that: a) With immediate effect at the time of receipt of the self-exclusion request, no bets or deposits will be accepted from the player, until the self-exclusion is terminated. It is acceptable that, in the case of games (including the step of requesting the right of participation and the transfer of mail from the account of the original game) self-exclusion order to enter into force at the end of them; b) During this period, the player is not prevented from withdraw from the gaming account all or part of the amounts relating to the winnings, since the status of the player does not prevent this, namely that the game account is not block by the dealer or by the court c) The player has a system of removal from the selfexclusion (list or system), through a special procedure of identification by the licensee; 17

18 d) The removal from the self-exclusion cannot be requested before six months since the request (selfexclusion) was approved. The list of players, including their tax code number (Codice Fiscale), of those who decide to exercise the right of selfexclusion for an indefinite period shall be communicated in writing to AAMS, so as to be communicated any decision to be removed from the self-exclusion program. It is required to pay particular attention to the fact that in both cases, fixed-term and permanent self-exclusion, the player shall not be permitted to create another account to play. Operators are required to send the regulator, AAMS, their lists of permanently self-excluded players. AAMS has implemented real-time controls for its online gambling framework, which can be used to ensure permanently self-excluded players cannot access Italian licensed websites. GamblingCompliance understands AAMS will introduce a centralised register for selfexcluded players later in Spain Through Article 6(3) of Law 13/2011 Spain s National Gambling Commission was directed to establish a self-exclusion register, the General Register of Gaming Access Bans and the Register of People Linked to Gaming Operators. Moreover, according to the Web service standards for the verification of players by gambling operators Version 1.6 December 2013, when a player registers for a gaming account, the Spanish licensee is required to check the self-exclusion register as part of the verification process (page 9 of the standards), with similar checks each hour thereafter (page 19 of the standards). In addition, Article 8 of Law 13/2011 requires Spanish licensees to create the appropriate facilities to enable a player to selfexclude and to inform players that self-excluded players cannot participate in gambling. The requirement to have self-exclusion facilities is further enforced in technical requirements found in Royal Decree Article 3(2) of that decree states (emphasis added): Technical gaming systems must ensure the effectiveness of controls in relation to game playing time, maximum bet placed or the use of self-exclusion options, among other measures, as required by the National Gaming Commission in relation to the operation of games or their various forms of implementation, and the other stipulations of Article 17.2 of Law 13/2011 of 27 May on the regulation of gaming United Kingdom The UK has enshrined self-exclusion as a social responsibility code provision as well as an ordinary code provision in its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice. Social responsibility LCCP code provision applies to remote gambling licences and requires: 1. Licensees must have and put into effect procedures for self-exclusion and take all reasonable steps to refuse service or to otherwise prevent an individual who has entered a selfexclusion agreement from participating in gambling. 2. Licensees must, as soon as practicable, take all reasonable steps to prevent any marketing material being sent to a self-excluded customer. 3. Licensees must take steps to remove the name and details of a self-excluded individual from any marketing databases used by the company or group (or otherwise flag that person as an individual to whom marketing material must not be sent), within two days of receiving the completed selfexclusion notification. 4. This covers any marketing material relating to gambling. However, it would not extend to blanket marketing which is targeted at a particular geographical area and where the excluded individual would not knowingly be included. 5. Licensees must close any customer accounts of an individual who has entered a self-exclusion agreement and return any funds held in the customer account. It is not sufficient merely to prevent an individual from withdrawing funds from their customer account whilst still accepting wagers from them. Where the giving of credit is permitted, the licensee may retain details of the amount owed to them by the individual, although the account must not be active. 6. Licensees must put into effect procedures designed to ensure that an individual who has self-excluded cannot gain access to gambling. These procedures must include: a) a register of those excluded with appropriate records (name, address, other details, and any membership or account details that may be held by the operator) b) a record of the card numbers to be excluded c) staff training to ensure that staff are able to enforce the systems d) the removal of access from those persons found to have gambled or who have attempted to gamble on the facilities. In addition to the social responsibility code provision, ordinary code provision provides the following guidance for selfexclusion: Self-exclusion processes should require positive action in order to self-exclude. If this is over the internet this could be a tick box, or over the telephone, a direct question. Information about the consequences of self-exclusion should be given before exclusion occurs. Licensees should encourage the player to extend their selfexclusion to other online gambling operators. Players should be able to self-exclude by contacting customer services and where possible by entering an automated process. As part of the licensees information about self-exclusion, information about software to prevent a computer accessing gambling websites should be given, providing a link. Self exclusion should be a minimum of six months with an option to extend to at least five years. If a player chooses to self-exclude there shouldn t be a cooling-off period and this should happen immediately. Once a self-exclusion period has ended (at least six months later) the player is required to take positive action so as to gamble again. No marketing material should be sent as a general rule unless the player chooses to gamble again and agreed to accept marketing materials. Where a player chooses to gamble again, a one day coolingoff period is required before the player can begin to gamble. The contact between the player and the operator needs to 18

19 be in person or over the telephone as re-registering online is not deemed sufficient. Self-exclusion materials need to be kept by the licensee until at least the self-exclusion period has ended. Although the UK does not have a centrally administered selfexclusion list and therefore a player is required to self-exclude from individual operators, the UK Gambling Commission is in discussion with stakeholders to move to a central system. In correspondence with the Gambling Commission on May 22, 2014 GamblingCompliance was informed that: At Report stage in the House of Lords of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill the Government confirmed that the Gambling Commission will be reviewing the existing self-exclusion provisions as part of a wider exercise to strengthen player protection, with the aim of making significant progress within six months towards the establishment of a national remote gambling exclusion scheme. We are currently working with the Remote Gambling Association and others to establish how a national remote self exclusion system might work in practice...such a scheme would be likely to apply to all Gambling Commission remote licensees, and would allow an individual to apply to be self excluded once and for that self exclusion to be recognised by all Gambling Commission licensed remote operators Australia Although Australia does not have a national self-exclusion register, the provision of self-exclusion facilities are contained in state-based legislation and codes of conduct, with self-exclusion a fundamental feature of Australian licensed online gambling websites. For instance, Victoria s Gambling Regulation Act 2003 provides at Section that players can give a notice to a licensed operator to be excluded from an interactive game. The section elaborates on self-exclusion orders related to online / interactive gambling that: Self-exclusion order (1) If a person gives notice in writing to a licensed provider to the effect that the person is not to be permitted to play an interactive game conducted by the licensed provider, the licensed provider: (a) must give a copy of the notice to the Commission; and (b) must not permit the person to play an interactive game conducted by the licensed provider unless the notice is revoked in accordance with this section. (2) If the Commission receives a notice from a licensed provider under subsection (1), the Commission must give a copy to each other licensed provider and to the relevant authority in each participating jurisdiction. (3) If the Commission receives a notice from the relevant authority in a participating jurisdiction under a provision of a corresponding law corresponding to this section, the Commission must give a copy of the notice to each licensed provider. (4) A licensed provider that receives a copy of a notice under subsection (2) or (3) must not permit the person to whom the notice relates to play an interactive game conducted by the provider unless the notice is revoked in accordance with this section or the corresponding law. (5) A person may revoke a notice given under subsection (1) by giving notice to that effect to the licensed provider. (6) A notice under subsection (5) does not take effect unless: (a) seven days have passed since the person gave the notice; and (b) the person has not withdrawn the notice. (7) A licensed provider must not accept a wager from a person in respect of whom a notice under subsection (1) or under a corresponding provision of a corresponding law is in effect. Penalty: 240 penalty units. An example of self-exclusion in codes of practice is that of the Northern Territory s Responsible Gambling Code of Practice. Section 4 of the code is on the Exclusion of problem gambler which requires: Patron responsibility: players are encouraged to take responsibility for their gambling. Self-exclusion procedures should be in place. For online operators: Appropriate self-exclusion facilities and procedures are to be developed and implemented. Completed self-exclusion forms should be provided. Forr online operators: The website is to operate such that the submission of a completed self-exclusion triggers technical responses that block access by the player to the site, and this action is written to the audit log for the system. Counselling contact information is to be provided. Players are to be encouraged to self-exclude form other Australian gambling providers. Correspondence and marketing material should not be sent to self-excluded players. As a final example, South Australia s Responsible Gambling (Bookmakers) Code of Practice (Version No. 003, August 2010) and Responsible Gambling (Authorised Interstate Operators) Code of Practice (Version No. 003, August 2010), both of which contain a clause on self-exclusion facilities. The clause provides that for self-exclusion facilities: (1) A gambling provider must facilitate the voluntary exclusion of customers for: (a) a fixed period; or (b) an indefinite period. (2) A gambling provider must ensure that every approach by a customer about self-exclusion is responded to while the customer is on premises or on the telephone. (3) Self-exclusion must include: (a) provision of a translation service (which may be a telephone interpreter service) during the application process, if requested; (b) provision for immediate referral to, or liaison with, a gambling help service; (c) provision for the review of self-exclusion notices with customers before notices are rescinded; and (d) removal of excluded people from loyalty mailing databases. (4) A gambling provider must ensure, to the extent reasonably possible, that the gambling provider does not provide gambling services to a person who has been excluded. 19

20 6. Is harm minimisation and advocating responsible gambling found in advertising policies? All the jurisdictions studied have certain advertising rules and guidelines; however, this section will focus on some of those rules which relate to responsible gambling advertising European Level Initiatives The European Commission is due to publish its Recommendations on the common protection of consumers of gambling services and on responsible gambling advertising imminently. The recommendations are part of the European Commission s two year action plan on online gambling which came out of a green paper consultation carried out in On the Recommendation, the commission has stated that it: Sees significant benefits in developing a set of common principles at EU level to ensure a high level of protection of all citizens. These principles should include effective and efficient registration, age verification and identification controls, self-limitation possibilities (temporal and financial limits, exclusion), signposting to helplines, clear notices on no underage gambling and socially responsible advertisements and marketing. 6 In a release 7 foreshadowing the recommendation (which was released on July 9, 2014, at the time of publication of this research), the European Commission noted that the main features of the recommendation are: (i) To ensure that citizens in the EU, especially minors, are aware of the inherent risks associated with gambling; and that operators have a set of common principles to abide by for responsible commercial communication; (ii) to provide greater clarity and assurance for consumers that the authorised sites they choose to play on have adequate safeguard measures in place, for example effective age verification, registration and identification controls; (iii) to provide for appropriate measures to prevent the risks associated with gambling, such as addiction or excessive gambling Denmark While Denmark s online gambling licensees are permitted to advertise, the Act on Gambling 2010 provides guidelines for the content of any marketing of gambling. At Section 36 of that Act, the marketing of gambling needs to comply with a number of measures, which resonate with the responsible gambling objectives of Denmark s regulatory framework. These are to ensure that the marketing or advertising: i) Shall present the chance of winning in a correct and balanced manner that does not create an impression that the chance of winning is greater than it actually is; ii) shall focus on gambling as a form of entertainment; iii) shall not aim at children and young people under the age of 18, neither in its communication form nor in the choice of 6 European Commission Gambling portal, initiatives page, accessible here: 7 European Commission Calendar, Commission to adopt Recommendation on online gambling, accessible here: newsroom/calendar/events/2014/07/09-online-gambling_en.htm media; iv) shall not by using well-known personalities suggest that participation in gambling activities has contributed to their success when that is not true; and v) shall not have a content that conveys the impression that participation in gambling activities helps provide a solution to financial problems or improves the player s social acceptance. In addition to the guidelines in the Act on Gambling 2010, Section 8 of the Marketing Practices Act gives further guidance by stating that marketing directed at children and young people shall be designed with specific reference to their natural credulity and lack of experience and critical sense, as a result of which they are readily influenced and easy to impress. Moreover, each rule included in the Act on Gambling must be interpreted in accordance with practice pursuant to the Danish Marketing Practices Act, which is monitored by the Danish Consumer Ombudsman. The executive orders for both online betting and online casinos also note that when a player has excluded themselves, the licence holder shall take measures to avoid sending marketing material to players who have excluded themselves from participation in gambling temporarily or permanently (Section 18 and 20 respectively) France French licensed operators are required to observe Article 7 of the Online Gambling Act This article outlines some responsible gambling requirements and that marketing and advertising by operators should be: 1) Accompanied by a warning message against gambling addiction, and a message referring to the information and assistance system planned under Article 29 of the Online Gambling Act ) Prohibited in publications aimed at minors. 3) Prohibited on audiovisual programs presented to minors. 4) Prohibited in online programs aimed at minors. 5) Prohibited in movie theatres during the broadcast of works available to minors Italy Italian licence holders are subject to a number of decrees with regard to advertising; however, Decree No. 158/2012, which came into force on January 1, 2013 established a number of rules with regard to responsible advertising for public health reasons, and includes gambling advertising rules (among other areas such as alcohol and tobacco). Article 7 of this decree provides the following rules for responsible gambling advertising: Advertising of gambling services is banned during broadcasting of programs directed at children and 30 minutes before and after the transmission or broadcast has taken place. Advertising of gambling services in newspapers or magazines aimed at minors is prohibited. 20

21 Advertising through any media including TV, radio, internet or the press, which includes incitement of exaltation of participating in gambling activities, the presence of minors, or any advertising which lacks information regarding the risks related to problem gambling and the winning chances of players in each activity. Advertising of gambling practices must display clearly the winning opportunities of the player when participating in a single game. In those cases in which winning opportunities cannot be precisely established, a historical estimate must be included. possibility of winning. The prohibition of marketing which suggest that the skill and the experience of the player reduce the element of chance from which winnings depend. Additionally Section 7 of the code includes information regarding the protection of minors, establishing that marketing must not: Suggest that minors are allowed to gamble or place bets Use minors. Be directed to those under the age of Spain While Spain has general rules for advertising and Law 13/2011 in Article 7 stipulates advertising and sponsorship rules for online gambling operators, responsible gambling advertising guidelines are contained in a code of conduct the Code of Conduct of Commercial Communications of Gambling Activities. 8 This code, which has been incorporated by most licensed operators, contains key principles of responsible gambling and conduct of operator s marketing activities. The Code of Conduct of Commercial Communications of Gambling Activities contains the principles for responsible gambling which are contained in Sections 5 and 6 of the code. Among others, the sections contain the following principles. Principle of Social Responsibility Under the scope of this principle, the advertising and marketing for gambling must be designed with social responsibility in mind, with the following not permitted: The promotion directly or indirectly of violent or antisocial behaviour. The promotion of unauthorised gambling activities or activities carried out by unlicensed operators. The representation or promotion of socially irresponsible gambling behaviours. Including messages which encourage gambling in favour of work or study. The promotion or tolerance of gambling in a working environment. Including sexual content or link gambling and sexual behaviours. Presenting gambling as an indispensable element of life. Principle of responsible gambling These principles include: The prohibition of marketing which promote the addictive practice of gambling. The obligation to include messages regarding social responsibility and prevention of gambling addictions. The prohibition of marketing which present gambling as a way out of personal, professional, educational problems, loneliness or depression. The prohibition of marketing which present gambling as a solution to financial problems. The prohibition of marketing which present gambling as tool to recover economic losses resulting from gambling. The prohibition of marketing which suggest or induce players to gamble in the expectation of possible winnings or induce the player to believe that repetition increases the 8 percent3a//spacesstore/9facc048-fcf6-4f10-becc fffc Finally, Section 9 of the code establishes the self-regulation principles for marketing through audio-visual channels (such as broadcasts). The code establishes that in addition to the existing regulation regarding broadcasting and the protection of minors, broadcasting of gambling commercial communications require special consideration in relation to programs designed and targeting children, establishing the following principles: Marketing of gambling services can only be broadcasted between 22:00 and 06:00 in the following cases: * Commercial communications promoting roulette, punto y banco, blackjack, poker and fixed-odds betting on sports and horse racing. This restriction will not be applicable to advertising during live sports or horse racing events or those transmitted on the radio. * Commercial communications which could affect the mental or physical development of minors. * Commercial communications of television programs dedicated exclusively to games of chance can only be broadcasted between 01:00 and 05: United Kingdom Under forthcoming changes to the UK s online gambling framework through the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, only licensed operators will be permitted to advertise their services to customers in Great Britain. Currently there are exceptions for certain jurisdictions on a white list and European Economic Area licensed operators. The UK s online gambling industry is subject to a number of advertising codes (known as CAP and BCAP ), maintained by the Committee of Advertising Practice, administered through the Advertising Standards Authority. In addition the gambling industry has a code for social responsible advertising which has industry support from both online gambling operators as well as land-based operators and businesses. Under the codes, the responsible gambling advertising measures include: Responsible gambling messaging is required, with a reference where practicable to Most gambling products not to be advertised before a 21:00 watershed. Exceptions remain for adverts during sporting events and bingo for instance. Display of licence status is required. Social responsibility messaging is required. Adverts should not encourage, condone or portray gambling behaviour which is irresponsible, or could lead to financial, social or emotion harm. Adverts should not appeal to those under 18 years of age or be associated with youth culture or exploit the inexperience or lack of knowledge by children, young or vulnerable persons. Adverts should not imply that gambling can solve financial 21

22 problems, is an alternative to work or is a way to achieve financial security. Adverts should not link gambling to sexual success, seduction or enhanced attractiveness Australia Online gambling operators in Australia are subject to a number of laws, regulations and codes of practice with respect to the content of their marketing and promotions, as well as codes with respect to when promotions can occur (such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority registered codes on betting odds promotions and gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts). Below is a snapshot of the different responsible gambling advertising measures in place in Australia, licensed online gambling operators may be subject to: In the ACT, under the Gambling and Racing Control (Code of Practice) Regulation of 2002, there are restrictions on showing people under 25 years old gambling and encouraging people under 18 years old to gamble or targeting them. The code also requires licensees to publish the name and telephone number of an approved gambling counselling service in the ACT in conjunction with any advertising material. In NSW under the Racing Administration Act 1998 and subsequent regulations, gambling advertising must not depict children gambling. Gambling advertisements must not suggest that winning will be a definite outcome, or that participation is likely to improve a person s financial prospects. In the Northern Territory, under the Code of Practice for Responsible Gambling of 2003, advertising cannot implicitly or explicitly be directed at minors or portray minors participating in gambling. Advertisements must not explicitly or implicitly misrepresent the probability of winning a prize, give the impression that gambling is a reasonable strategy for financial betterment; and contains a gambling warning signage in a clearly visible manner. In Queensland, under the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice 2012, licensees must ensure that advertising or promotion is not implicitly or explicitly directed at minors. Gambling advertising must not implicitly or explicitly misrepresent the probability of winning a prize, does not give the impression that gambling is a reasonable strategy for financial success, cannot include misleading statements about odds, prizes or chances of winning; and has, where appropriate, positive responsible gambling messages. In South Australia, the Independent Gambling Authority issued its Code of Practice Review on sports betting advertising on July 18, There is also a requirement under the Advertising Codes of Practice that gambling advertising must not be directed at minors or portray minors participating in gambling activities. Operators must ensure that advertising is socially responsible and does not mislead or deceive consumers. Advertisements must include a warning message in the language prescribed in the code and advertisements must not make claims relating to winning which are not based on fact. In Tasmania, under the Responsible Gambling Mandatory Code of Practice, the advertising of gambling products must not encourage or target people under the age of 18 to gamble. Advertisements must not show people under 25 years of age in gambling advertising unless their appearance is incidental and they are not located in a venue. The code also requires that advertising be socially responsible and consistent with the expectation that gambling would be conducted responsibly so as to minimise harm. The code also requires, among others, that the advertisement cannot be misleading or deceptive in relation to odds or the probability of winning a prize, and does not give not give the impression that gambling is a reasonable strategy for financial success. 7. What do gambling prevalence studies indicate about levels of problem gambling pre and post online gambling regulation? This research, by its nature, is not a study into gambling prevalence statistics, but a study into regulatory benchmarking. However, one issue which has been raised during discussions on regulating online gambling is that by regulating the activity, there will be a spike in problem gambling. The international markets studied therefore should be able to inform this debate from firsthand experience pre and post online gambling regulation. However, one issue which hampers such a debate is the quality of data. Across Europe, the country-by-country data on problem gambling has been classified as poor, medium and good. 9 Of the European countries under focus, which have regulated the demand and supply of online gambling, only the quality of the United Kingdom s data has been termed good by Professor Mark Griffiths, a leading academic in the field of problem gambling (Denmark s data has been termed medium, France s poor, Italy s poor and Spain s medium and localised). 10 Therefore, given the lack of quality data, only the UK s prevalence data will be listed in this part of the research. 9 This was the classification Professor Mark Griffiths used in a summary of country-by-country data in a report, Griffiths, Mark, Problem gambling in Europe: An Overview (2009), Nottingham Trent University, accessible here: dspace.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/1880/47808/1/prob_gamb_europe_2009.pdf 10 Ibid, page United Kingdom The United Kingdom has commissioned periodic prevalence studies, and importantly, the studies have been commissioned both prior to, and after online gambling regulations came into force. The following is an overview of prevalence studies from 1999 to present, with a recent English Health Survey also included. The results to date indicate that gambling prevalence rates have remained stable over the years in the UK, suggesting that regulating online gambling has not led to a spike in problem gambling. Gambling Prevalence Study 1999 According to testing using DSM-IV screening tool, problem gambling measured as a percentage of adults indicated that the prevalence of problem gambling was 0.6 percent in

23 Gambling Prevalence Study 2007 According to testing using DSM-IV screening tool, problem gambling measured as a percentage of adults indicated that the prevalence of problem gambling was 0.6 percent in According to the PGSI screening tool, problem gambling measured as a percentage of adults indicated that the prevalence of problem gambling was 0.6 percent in Gambling Prevalence Study 2010 According to testing using DSM-IV screening tool, problem gambling measured as a percentage of adults indicated that the prevalence of problem gambling was 0.9 percent in 2010, which was said to be on the margins of statistical significance compared to the last survey in According to the PGSI screening tool, problem gambling measured as a percentage of adults indicated that the prevalence of problem gambling was 0.7 percent in 2010 and did not increase significantly between survey years. On both screen tests problem gambling prevalence rates observed in Great Britain, measured by either DSM-IV or the PGSI, were similar to rates observed in other European countries, notable Germany, Norway and Switzerland, and lower than countries like the USA, Australia and South Africa. Health Survey of England 2013 Over 2012 a Health Survey of England was completed which for the first time included questions on gambling activity. The results led the Gambling Commission to issue a statement in December 2013 noting that the findings based on data published today suggest an overall decline in gambling participation and a reduction in the level of problem gambling in the population. The rate of problem gambling was estimated to be 0.5 percent on one measure and 0.4 percent on the other measure used [DSM-IV and PGSI] according to the Gambling Commission archive/2013/health_survey_for_england_give.aspx 23

24 24

25 Part Two: Sports Integrity and In-Play Betting 25

26 1. What initiatives are taking place to ensure sports integrity? 1.1. Europe: Political and Policy Sports integrity is the topic of much debate at the European level. In addition to high profile Europol criminal investigations, 12 at the political and policy level in Europe, sports integrity has been addressed in: The Nicosia Declaration. This was a joint declaration of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the European Commissioner responsible for sport in September The declaration defines five key areas, which require action: * 1. Education, prevention and good governance. * 2. Monitoring. * 3. Sanctions. * 4. Cooperation. * 5. International coordination. As the press release of the declaration explains, the declaration will remain on the European sports agenda and provide the compass for decisions and actions in the fight against the scourge of match-fixing that threatens the credibility and integrity of the entire sports structure. The communication of the European Commission on online gambling. Following the European-wide consultation on online gambling, the European Commission published a communication Towards a comprehensive European framework for online gambling during October On sports integrity this communication highlighted the following key action areas: cooperation between stakeholders, developing anti-match-fixing measures, ensuring effective deterrence of match-fixing and promoting international cooperation. The European Commission underscored in the communication, that EU level initiatives should focus on improving the enforcement of anti-matchfixing rules and urged member states to equip national legal and administrative systems with the tools, expertise and resources to combat match-fixing as well as to consider finding sustainable financing for sports integrity measures. The commission is expected to adopt a recommendation on best practice in the prevention and combating of betting related match-fixing during The recommendation s aim is to promote a more efficient exchange of good practice, to ensure mutual reporting and follow-up actions of suspicious activities to establish provisions to minimise conflicts of interest as well as to introduce telephone hotlines, along with other reporting mechanisms. action, asking them to develop a comprehensive approach towards the issue of match-fixing and corruption in sports. The Council of Europe 13 convention on sports integrity. On May 11, 2007, the Council of Europe adopted a resolution CM/Res (2007)8, with which it established the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sports (EPAS). EPAS serves as a platform for intergovernmental sports cooperation between the public authorities of its member states. Therefore, conferences for ministers responsible for sport are organised regularly. The idea of creating an international convention addressing sports integrity was raised during such a conference held on March 15, 2012 in Belgrade, Serbia. Work on the sports integrity convention began in September 2012 and the convention will be open for signature in the second half of Furthermore, non- European countries will also be free to sign-up to the convention which, as the current draft states, ensures that the problem [of match-fixing] is addressed in a global context]. The latest draft of the convention, entitled Draft Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions, is dated March 31, The draft convention encompasses the activities of national sports organisations, betting regulatory authorities, other relevant authorities and betting operators. Article 10 of the draft convention relates to sports betting operators and states that: Article 10 Sports betting operators 1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to prevent conflicts of interest and misuse of inside information by natural or legal persons involved in providing sports betting products, in particular through restrictions on: a) natural or legal persons involved in providing sports betting products betting on their own products; b) the abuse of a position as sponsor or partowner of a sports organisation to facilitate the manipulation of a sports competition or to misuse inside information; c) competition stakeholders being involved in compiling betting odds for the competition in which they are involved; d) any sports betting operator who controls a competition organiser or stakeholder, as well as any sports betting operator who is controlled by such a competition organiser or stakeholder, offering bets on the competition in which this competition organiser or stakeholder is involved. In a resolution of the European Parliament. On March 14, 2013 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on match-fixing and corruption in sport (2013/2567(RSP). In the resolution the parliament called all stakeholders to take 12 Including an investigation announced during February 2013 involving 425 match officials, club officials, players, and criminals, from over 15 countries, in attempts to fix over 380 professional football matches, including World Cup and European Championship qualifiers, UEFA Champions League matches and a number of matches from European national leagues. This particular investigation involved Europol and police from over 13 European countries, with it being estimated that over 8m in profits from bets were generated and 2m in illicit payments made to those involved. Highlighting the cross-border and international nature of match-fixing, Europol believed that the criminal group behind most bets had been betting on the Asian market. 2. Each Party shall encourage its sports betting operators, and through them, the international organisations of sports betting operators, to raise awareness among their owners and employees of the consequences of and the fight against manipulation of sports competitions, through education, training and the dissemination of information. 3. Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other 13 The Council of Europe is an international organisation which includes 47 member states compared to the 28 members of the European Union. Although it is an entirely separate body from the European Union, the Council of Europe explains on its website that the European Union is the Council of Europe s most important institutional partner at both political and technical levels. 26

27 measures as may be necessary to oblige sports betting operators to report irregular or suspicious betting without delay to the betting regulatory authority, the other responsible authority or authorities, or the national platform. On illegal sports betting Article 11 of the draft convention states that: Article 11 The fight against illegal sports betting 1. With a view to combating the manipulation of sports competitions, each Party shall explore the most appropriate means to fight operators of illegal sports betting and shall consider adopting measures, in accordance with the applicable law of the relevant jurisdiction, such as: a) closure or direct and indirect restriction of access to illegal remote sports betting operators, and closure of illegal land-based sports betting operators in the Party s jurisdiction; b) blocking of financial flows between illegal sports betting operators and consumers; c) prohibition of advertising for illegal sports betting operators; d) raising of consumers awareness of the risks associated with illegal sports betting Australia: Political and Policy Australia has led the world in its efforts to address match-fixing at a coordinated, national political and policy level. These efforts are coordinated through a national policy on match-fixing, which has seen the establishment of a national integrity in sport unit, integrity agreements between betting agencies and sports, codes of conduct and education, and sports funding guarantees among other measures. Australia s approach has recently been followed in New Zealand, which released, in April 2014, a Policy on Sports Match-Fixing and Related Corruption. The National Policy on Match-Fixing in Sport was signed by all sports and recreation ministers in June 2011, with Australian governments agreeing on a national policy on sports integrity. As stated in the policy, it will: provides the platform for collaboration, and will be underpinned by legislation, regulation, codes of conduct and industry standards. The national policy listed the following four principles: A nationally-consistent approach to deterring and dealing with match-fixing in Australia; information sharing and highly efficient networks between governments, major sports, betting operators and law enforcers; consistent national code of conduct principles for sport; and active participation in international efforts to combat corruption in sport including an international code of conduct and an international body. The national policy lists the role of the various stakeholders to ensure sports integrity, with, similarly to the Council of Europe convention on sports integrity, international options also considered. The roles of stakeholders include: Government. Australian governments must ensure: there is nationally applied legislation; criminal offences which address match-fixing; nationally consistent laws with respect to sports and betting agency arrangements; a national sports integrity unit (which was established in October 2012); and agreements to fund sports which put in place anti-match-fixing policies (which include having codes of conduct, sanctions). Sports organisation. Sports organisations are required to: adopt anti-match-fixing and anti-doping codes of conduct and apply to all levels of sport from player, to agents, official and staff; have a disciplinary framework in place; have national integrity agreements in place with betting agencies (these had to be in place by July 2012); give betting agencies appropriate information; give players, agents, officials and staff appropriate education; report and liaise with relevant government agencies; and exchange and provide information on suspected match-fixing or other corrupt activities (to oversight agencies; betting agencies and law enforcement). Betting agencies. Betting agencies are required to: adopt industry standards on information exchange and information provision (these were to be in place by July 2012); develop and enter into national integrity agreements (as noted above, these had to be in place by July 2012); guarantee confidentiality of information provided by sports to them; collaborate with other stakeholders (sports, law enforcement, relevant regulator); and provide a share of their revenues to assist in the implementation of the national match-fixing policy, which includes revenues to sports. In addition to the formation of a national sports integrity unit and integrity agreements between betting agencies and sports governing bodies, the National Policy on Match-fixing in Sport has resulted in the enactment of legislation across Australia, including making cheating at gambling a criminal offence, as well as legislating for integrity agreements. Some of these laws will be outlined below. 1.3 Betting Industry and Sports Governing Bodies In addition to political and policy developments, and sometimes in furtherance of a national policy, the betting industry and sports bodies, have initiated and implemented a number of initiatives, including the following. Monitoring Systems Monitoring systems are tailored to detect betting fraud related to sports. Four levels of monitoring system in operation are as follows: 14 Basic online monitoring. A system which monitors major European betting companies as well as betting exchange volumes and issues no automatic alerts in case of a suspicious or irregular betting pattern. The system sometimes monitors major Asian betting companies. It is mainly used by tennis federations. The early warning system. This systems monitors European and Asian betting companies and betting exchange volumes. This type of system, however, has no automatic alerts and makes no assessment of betting patterns. The early warning system is used by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération 14 As outlined by SportAccord, Integrity in Sport, Understanding and Preventing Match-Fixing, November

28 Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA introduced the Early Warning System GmbH (EWS) and tested it during the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany. The system monitors all matches in FIFA competitions. The IOC has also developed International Sports Monitoring GmbH which is a similar system to protect the integrity of the Olympic Games. The fraud detection system. This system, while similar to the early warning system, has a key difference in that it issues automatic alerts when a suspicious betting pattern is identified. The system, a fraud detection system (FDS), is a service which was developed by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and its commercial partner, Sportradar. Sportradar explains that: By tracking odds changes and liquidity across such a wide range of markets, the FDS is in an unrivalled position to detect irregular betting patterns in real-time, both pre-match and live (inplay). With the team s thorough specialist knowledge of both the betting markets and the sport (team news, local rumours, match action), the FDS is quickly able to reach a conclusion regarding the integrity of any match. In each case where fraudulent activity is suspected, a comprehensive report is compiled within 72 hours; providing an excellent platform for any potential criminal investigations into match-fixing. 15 The monitoring and direct risk management system. This system analyses betting patterns (European, Asian, and betting exchanges operators) and can also make automatic alerts. It is mainly used by organisations such as the European Sports Security Association s (ESSA) and the European Lotteries (EL). ESSA is a non-profit organisation incorporating leading European sports betting operators, and was founded in 2005 in order to take on the fight against sports related corruption. ESSA has established an early warning system and shares information on suspicious betting activities with the relevant sporting bodies and authorities free of charge. As ESSA s Code of Conduct explains, each member is obliged to nominate four people to whom an alert can be sent or who can send an alert to ESSA s security team. The system sends an initial alert to all ESSA members within 60 minutes. On the ESSA system, Khalid Ali, ESSA s Secretary General, has made the following statement about the system s effectiveness corrupters are steering clear of ESSA s well-regulated and vigilant sports betting operators, our detection systems are too effective. 16 Similarly, in its Integrity Report 2014 ESSA notes that: match-fixers bet primarily on unregulated markets which are not subject to any restrictions. There is no evidence to support limits on regulated betting markets, which would be an unjustified restriction on trade, based on unsubstantiated integrity grounds. 17 The EL s system, the European Lotteries Monitoring System (ELMS) monitors members sports betting data in real time and odds changes within the international betting market (including lotteries, private bookmakers, with focus on Asian bookmakers). Additionally, the ELMS searches the internet for sports information, including forums used by professional punters and football teams supporters. If ESSA s Press Release, European betting operators continue to deter corruption, June 5, EN.pdf irregular betting patterns emerge, EL members are required to exchange information with the IOC, FIFA and UEFA. Cooperation Agreements Cooperation agreements have become a commonplace sports integrity measure. These agreements facilitate information sharing and cooperation between the parties and in some cases enable monitoring systems to be put into place. Some agreements have included: FIFA and Interpol agreement. FIFA signed an agreement with Interpol in May 2011 establishing a dedicated Integrity in Sport unit within Interpol. Interpol and FIFA s program focuses on training, education and prevention within the key parties involved in football as well as enforcement officers. Early Warning System cooperation agreements. FIFA s early warning system has cooperation agreements with more than 400 betting operators throughout the world. International Olympic Committee cooperation agreements. The IOC has signed a number of cooperation agreements with gambling regulators from countries such as France, Malta and Belgium. European Sports Security Association cooperation agreements. ESSA has entered agreements with sports governing bodies, including FIFA, UEFA and the IOC. Education Education of stakeholders in sports competitions, especially athletes, is a key initiative to combat match-fixing, and key area in policies, such as Australia s Policy on Match Fixing in Sport. Examples of education programs have included: EU Athletes. EU athletes is a federation of European players association and athlete unions. During 2010 the federation launched a sports betting educational program ( Educating European Elite Athletes about Match-Fixing ) in connection with the European Gaming and Betting Association (EGBA), the Professional Players Federation (PPF) and ESSA. Since the start of the program, it was grown and also includes the Remote Gambling Association (RGA). SportAccord. SportAccord have a Global Program to Stop Match-Fixing in Sport. This program is sponsored by the European Lotteries and the World Lottery Association and includes an E-learning RealPlayer Program available on its website which is free of charge and available to athletes and referees. Codes of Conduct, Ethics and Model Rules Codes developed and policed by sports governing bodies and betting operators have also addressed sports integrity issues. Such codes include: European Sports Security Association code of conduct. ESSA s codes of conduct prohibit their members from having significant decision making power over athletes, stakeholders or events on which they offer betting. Moreover, the codes expressly prohibit members personnel from betting on their own products and call on their members to support any sports event organiser or sports body to prevent players, coaches, club managers, and 28

29 other individuals from betting on an event in which they are participating or otherwise involved. International Olympic Committee. The IOC s Code of Ethics, stipulates at Clauses A.5 and A.6, that: All forms of participation in, or support for betting related to the Olympic Games, and all forms of promotion of betting related to the Olympic Games are prohibited...also, in the context of betting, participants in the Olympic Games must not, by any manner whatsoever, infringe the principle of fair play, show non-sporting conduct, or attempt to influence the course or result of a competition, or any part thereof, in a manner contrary to sporting ethics. Rugby League code of conduct. Australia s National Rugby League has a national code of conduct. In this code, as a general principle, it says that participants are encouraged and expected to accept that the integrity of the sport is of paramount importance, therefore, no coach, player, Club official or match official is allowed to participate, or be directly or indirectly involved in any way, in gambling in relation to matches/competitions in which they are involved or directly linked. SportAccord Model Rules. SportAccord has issued Model Rules on sports betting integrity which are directed at international sports federations and organisations. The rules set out definitions as well as disciplinary procedures and sanctions. SportAccord recommends that sports federations and organisations incorporate these rules into their statutes and internal regulations. Betting Bans Betting bans for athletes have also become a way in which sports integrity has been approached. Such bans include the recent announcement by the English Football Association (FA) on a worldwide betting ban. The FA announced during May 2014 that it will extend current bans and introduce a worldwide betting ban on football from August 1, Currently the FA s rules state that no participant can bet on a match or competition they are involved in or which they can influence, or pass on inside information for betting. From the start of the 2014/2015 season the ban will extend to betting on any football related matter. 2. What legislation is in place to ensure sports integrity related to gambling? 2.1. Denmark Denmark s criminal and gambling laws could come into play with respect to match-fixing. The Danish Criminal Code has general rules regarding fraud in Article 279. To characterise fraud, there is the necessity to observe a loss of property. Money laundering legislation is also applicable in relation to the proceeds obtained unlawfully by match-fixing, following Article 290 of the Criminal Code. Gambling legislation also ensures sports integrity. The executive orders both for land-based and online betting activities at Sections 7 and 22 respectively state that the: licence holder shall take measures designed to reduce the risk of collusion ( match-fixing ) in betting, and shall refuse to accept wagers in betting where there are grounds to suspect collusion. In an observation to the Council of Europe in December 2011, Danish authorities said that there is no plausible ground to deem the existing and planned legislation inadequate in the fight against match-fixing France Match-fixing is combated through the application of corruption laws and specific criminal provisions dealing with sports events. France s Penal Code, in Articles and 445-2, describe the crimes of passive and active corruption of persons not holding a public function. In addition, in February 2012, an amendment to the Penal Code, was adopted through Law no The law introduced new paragraphs to Article 445, creating the offence of corruption in betting related match-fixing cases. Moreover, Articles and 18 European Committee on Crime Problems, Feasibility study on criminal law on promotion of the integrity of sports against manipulation of results, notably match-fixing, February 22, 2012, Council of Europe, CDPC (2012) 1 Final specifically prohibit offering, promising and accepting bribes that change the normal and fair conduct of a sport event. France has also introduced a proprietary right on the sports events organised by sports governing bodies. This means that betting operators need to acquire from sports bodies the right to use the events data for betting purposes, giving sports bodies a degree of oversight of legal betting on their respective sports events Italy Italy has a specific law on match-fixing. Law no. 401/1989 criminalises active and passive corruption in relation to competitions organised by the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI), the Italian National Horse Breeding Union (UNIRE) and the sports bodies, as well as their associated members. Article 3 of Law no. 401/1989 creates an obligation for sports bodies affiliated to CONI to report the match-fixing crimes to the authorities Spain Spain s Criminal Code deals with match-fixing. Article 286bis contains general rules regarding corruption between private individuals and specifically refers to executives, directors, employees or collaborators of a sporting entity, whatever its legal structure is, as well as sportsmen, referees or judges, who can commit an offence by deliberately and fraudulently predetermining or altering the result of a professional sport match, game or competition. In addition Spain s online gambling law, Law no. 13/2011, prohibits athletes from placing bets on the sports events in which they are participating (this law also covers coaches or any other person with direct participation in a sporting event, such as referees). The online gambling law also prohibits entities that 29

30 participate or organise sports events from obtaining a online gambling licence United Kingdom The UK has many legal tools which can be applied in cases of match-fixing. Provisions contained in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, the Criminal Law Act 1977, the Fraud Act 2006, the Bribery Act 2010, as well as the Gambling Act 2005 are likely to be used in sports corruption cases. The Gambling Act 2005 in particular has specific provisions for cheating at sports betting. Section 42 of that act rules that cheating occurs when a person cheats at gambling or does anything for the purpose of enabling or assessing another person to cheat at gambling. Attempting to cheat is also an offence, and it is does not matter whether the person has in fact won anything from cheating. As noted above, UK legislation provided for the conviction of Pakistani cricket players who were found to have fixed a Lord s Test match against England in The players were convicted under Section 42 of the Gambling Act as well as on the crime of conspiracy to accept corrupt payments using the Prevention of Corruption Act Regarding information exchange, the Gambling Act 2005 also allows all parties listed in Schedule 6 of the act to exchange information in order to exercise functions under the act the list includes a number of British sport governing bodies Australia Australian lawmakers have been among the most active in the world in pursuing sports integrity laws. As discussed above, Australian sports ministers agreed in June 2011 to a National Policy on Match-Fixing in Sport. As part of this policy, the National Integrity of Sport Unit was established, with nationally consistent legislation to address match-fixing issues to be pursued. To this end most Australian jurisdictions have amended criminal legislation to make cheating at gambling a criminal offence. Examples include: the Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2012 (NSW); the Crimes Amendment (Integrity in Sports) Act 2013 (Victoria); the Criminal Law Consolidation (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Act 2013 (South Australia); the Criminal Code Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2013 (NT); and the Criminal Code (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Act 2013 (ACT). In addition Victoria was the first jurisdiction in the world to introduce a betting right through the Gambling and Racing Legislation Amendment (Sports Betting) Act That Act, among other measures, introduced the need for a betting provider (based in Australia or overseas) to enter an agreement with a sports controlling body in order to legally offer bets on the sport in question. The law also gave Victoria s gambling regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, the authority to prohibit specific contingencies. Contravention of the sports integrity measures in the act were bolstered by creation of new offences. The (then) minister for gaming, closing his second reading speech noted that: the bill represents a bold and innovative approach to the regulation of sports betting in what is a rapidly evolving market. No other government in Australia, and to my knowledge in the world, has responded to the challenges and opportunities presented by sports betting as comprehensively as this government. The concept of the sports betting right model which Victoria implemented has been replicated in France, as noted above, and most recently in NSW. NSW parliament passed the Racing Administration Amendment (Sports Betting National Operational Model) Act 2014, receiving royal assent on June 5, The NSW law, as noted in the bill s Legislative Assembly second reading speech, augments new match-fixing penalties and offences introduced by the New South Wales Government in August 2012, as well as implementing the an operation model for integrity agreements. The operation model, outlined in the second reading speech, is [b]ased on the Victorian regulatory model administered by the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, the operational model provides a framework for betting service providers to enter into integrity agreements with sports controlling bodies and contains the following key features: first, integrity measures used to prevent, investigate and assist in the prosecution of match-fixing or corrupt behaviour; secondly, financial return to the sport; and, thirdly, information-sharing arrangements. Importantly, the NSW law gives sports controlling bodies a veto right on the type of betting that occurs, or whether any betting occurs at all, in respect of their sport according to the NSW Legislative Assembly second reading speech. 3. What are regulatory approaches to in-play betting? Across Europe, in-play betting, or live betting, is a growing part of betting operators offerings. Some instances are mentioned to provide a market context to the activity, before this report considers the regulatory approaches of the jurisdictions. UK-listed William Hill reported the number of in-play bets the firm has taken has grown 1,400 percent between 2008 and The firm saw 1.21bn wagered in-play during 2013, reflecting growth of 29 percent year-on-year. The in-play volumes accounted for 41 percent of the total amount staked online in Ladbrokes, which has historically lagged behind its peers in the online market, reported in-play bet volumes represented 65 percent of all digital non-racing sportsbook stakes over 19 William Hill 2013 Annual Report, page The firm also stated that it traded 85,000 events in 2013, reflecting growth of 21.4 percent in comparison to 2012 number of 70,000. Swedish-listed Unibet, which has growing market share in the UK, France and Denmark, reported that in-play betting accounted for 46.5 percent, or 52.3m of gross gaming revenues in 2013, 21 with almost 80,000 live events traded Denmark Danish online betting operators are permitted to offer in-play betting options. Section 5 of the Act on Gambling defines betting 20 Ladbrokes 2013 Annual Report, page Unibet 2013 end of year press release, page 5 30

31 as: activities in which a participant has a chance of winning a prize and where bets are placed on the outcome of a future event or the occurrence of a particular event in the future. Moreover, the act s explanatory notes state that betting licences also cover live betting. To avoid any doubt as to the legality of in-play betting in Denmark, Section 11(3) of the Act on Gambling lists what is not permitted with a betting licence, and does not list live or in-play betting. In-play betting is widely offered by Danish licences France While the Online Gambling Act 2010 does not contain any explicit provision on in-play, or live betting, the legal basis for this is found in secondary legislation. This is through Article 3 of decree No of May 12, 2010, which is a decree on sporting competitions, sports results and live, or in-play, betting. According to the article for each sport and for each category of events ARJEL, the gambling regulator, defines the types of results which can be bet. Paragraph III of this article specifies that these results can include any event occurring during the competition, therefore regulating in-play betting. The list maintained by ARJEL lists more than 40 sports, with each sport having the type of competitions allowed to be bet on (such as the UEFA Champions League), and the type of result able to be bet on (such as score at half time, next team to score, next player to score among others) Italy Italian licensees are permitted to offer in-play or live betting as betting is given a wide definition under Italian law which encompasses live betting. For instance, Decree 111/2006 defines a bet as anything agreed in advance between a bettor and an operator and therefore can include live or in-play betting. However, some variables are not permitted to be agreed to be bet on. To this end, the types of authorised in-play bets are published on weekly basis in a regulatory list called the Palinsesto, 23 with operators permitted to offer other wagers beyond this list subject to additional administrative procedures Spain Spanish licensees are permitted to offer in-play or live betting. Betting is generally defined in Law 13/2011 in Article 3 as: Article 3 (c) c) Bets. A bet is understood to be a gaming activity in which sums of money are risked on the results of a previously determined event, whose final result is uncertain and unknown to participants. The sum of the prize money depends on the amounts risked or other factors that are previously set by the regulation of the specific type of bet. However, live bets are limited to fixed-odds bets. According to Order/3080/2011 Annex I, Article 2 (12) live fixed-odds sports bets are defined as: 12. Live fixed-odds sports bet. These bets are placed while the sports event is taking place, either during the entire event or the part of the event established by the operator in their betting program Regarding marketing of live fixed-odds betting, online gambling operators are subject to the Code of Conduct of Commercial Communications of Gambling Activities. This states that operators are permitted to advertise their betting services which are being offered during the event, using the same media which is broadcasting the event, without the need for the broadcast to be interrupted. However, such advertising would be subject to Order/3080/2011 Annex I, Article 13 (7) which states that the gambling authority can restrict the schedules during which the promotions of fixedodds live betting can take place, in order to safeguard the public, the protection of minors or to prevent gaming addictions United Kingdom Operators active on the UK market can offer in-play or live betting. The legal base for this is found in the definition of betting in Section 9 of the Gambling Act 2005, which encompasses the final outcome of an event (such as the winner of a football match), but also a contingency during an event (such as next goal scorer) or some other event occurring during an event (such as winner of next tennis point): 1) In this act betting means making or accepting a bet on: (a) the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process, (b) the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring, or (c) whether anything is or is not true. (2) A transaction that relates to the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process may be a bet within the meaning of subsection (1) despite the facts that: (a) the race, competition, event or process has already occurred or been completed, and (b) one party to the transaction knows the outcome. (3) A transaction that relates to the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring may be a bet within the meaning of subsection (1) despite the facts that: (a) the thing has already occurred or failed to occur, and (b) one party to the transaction knows that the thing has already occurred or failed to occur. In addition to the general authorisation for in-play betting under UK law, the UK s technical remote gambling standards provides a requirement and guidance on in-running betting for UK licensees to adhere to (IPA 3 In running betting). The aim of the standard is to make the customer aware that they may not have the latest information available when betting on live events, and that they may be at a disadvantage to operators or other customers who have more up-to-date information. To this end an operator is required to comply with the following: Information must be made available that explains that live TV or other broadcasts are delayed and that others may have more up-to-date information. Main in-running betting pages must be designed to include this information where practicable. Guidance on this standard states that: a) Brief information should be included on main in-running pages or screens, such as the in- running home page or screen. More detail should be provided in help or how to or other product pages or screens. b) For telephone betting the information should be included 31

32 in the general betting or product information that is made available to and/or sent out to customers. c) Where a brief notice cannot be practicably included on the main pages or screens, the information should be provided on easily accessible help, how to or other product pages or screens. 3.6 Australia The Interactive Gambling Act, while prohibiting most form of in-play betting, 24 does permit some form and of course does not apply to land-based gambling. These are: In-play betting on horse, harness or greyhound racing events. This is because only sporting events where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event are excluded from being classified as an excluded wagering service under Section 8A of the IGA. In-play telephone betting. This is because a telephone betting service is not classified as an interactive gambling service under Section 5(3) of the IGA. Telephone betting service is defined in the Section 4 of the IGA as meaning: a gambling service provided on the basis that dealings with customers are wholly by way of voice calls made using a standard telephone service. 24 Particularly in-play sports betting where the service relates to betting on the outcome of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event; or the service relates to betting on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event. (Interactive Gambling Act 2001, Section 8A 2(a)(b)).The way these are termed in Australian legislation has given rise to a distinction between in-the-run betting (a bet on the result of an event while the event is taking place) and micro betting (on a contingency or variable in an event which is not the final outcome of the event). 32

33 GamblingCompliance is the leading provider of independent business intelligence to the global gambling industry; specializing in legal, regulatory, political and market information and data; elearning; and bespoke research services. Our independent and impartial analysis, delivered daily to a worldwide client base of regulatory bodies and top gaming executives, has ensured we are the essential information service for all industry stakeholders. We help clients and their advisors reduce exposure to regulatory and market risk by providing timely information on a web-based platform, allowing clients to monitor, track and receive updates on regulation, compliance, competitors and market developments around the world. The GamblingCompliance service gives you immediate access to in-depth country, state and provincial regulatory profiles from around the world, as well as extensive analysis across all gaming sectors. GamblingCompliance has staff based in Europe, Asia, the United States and South America, plus an established network of analysts and professionals representing all sectors of the industry, to ensure that our coverage is truly global. Our clients include regulators, lawyers, consultants, global online and terrestrial gaming operators, financial services firms, public lotteries, and software and payment providers. UK Office 91 Waterloo Road London SE1 8RT Tel: +44(0) Fax: +44(0) US Office 1250 Connective Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C Tel: Fax: [email protected] GamblingCompliance Research Services is a full service provider of legal, regulatory, political and business insight for the global gambling industry. Based in London, Washington D.C., San Francisco and Taipei, we offer existing market participants, regulators, governments and investors easily accessible and upto-date information on market realities, and a reliable and independent listening post to monitor legislative developments at local level. Tracking regulatory change across the global gambling industry is our core business, which means we can provide you with immediate access to an independent, cost effective and skilled team to deliver tailored research reports. Contact us to find out more: [email protected] 33