Response to Consultation on the Regulatory Future of Remote Gambling in Great Britain Respondent: Derek Webb Prime Table Games UK Regus House Herald Way Pegasus Business Park Castle Donington Derbyshire DE74 2TZ Tel: Fax: Date: 26 th May 2010 Dear Sirs Please accept the following Prime Table Games response to consultation document published on the 22 nd March 2010. We would welcome any further dialogue in relation to our response should you wish to discuss any of the points that we have raised. We give permission for our response to be made public. Yours sincerely Derek Webb Question 1: Do you agree with the Government s preferred option in relation to EEA and Gibraltar licensed operators? If not, please set out clearly your reasons and let us know if you consider any of the options, or any other option not considered in this paper to be more appropriate. We agree. However it is very noticeable that the fairness criteria considered seem much more concerned with the corporate social responsibility policies of the operators, rather than fairness to players. This causes an issue because it is the risk of operators acting unfairly towards players that has been identified by the DCMS as part of problem that may require government intervention. There is therefore a danger that the following unfair and deceptive remote gambling industry practices (unless they are stipulated in an explanation of standards, requirements and obligations mentioned in point 4.4) will still be allowed, contrary to the licensing objective of fair and open gambling and the licensing objective of protection of vulnerable persons.
a.) b.) c.) d.) e.) f.) g.) h.) i.) Sign-up bonuses with too extensive requirements to play. Higher player verification standards for withdrawal than for deposit. Players not being informed that affiliates such as gambling information sites may be sharing in up to 40% of their losses. Players not being informed of the true managing entity of the site. Players not being informed of the true beneficial owners of the site. Sites claiming seals of approval for fairness based on the percentage paybacks per decision, whilst ignoring the fact that players play at least three times faster at a remote table game than would be the case at a real casino table game and that subsequently remote table games are more addictive than live table games and that player losses at remote table game gambling are comparatively higher or faster or both. Players not being informed that certain games are being used without the permission of game inventors or rights owners. Bogus player testimonials. Free play that is biased so that it is more favorable than actual play In addition, there is a fear that the risk of crime in gambling is not being addressed, based on the following - j.) The majority of the remote gambling industry accessed US players, a criminal activity according to the US Department of Justice, resulting in US legal actions against this activity. k.) The majority of the remote casino gambling industry engaged in commercial theft by accessing US players with games protected by US intellectual property rights, such as Three Card Poker, without the permission of those rights owners. Question 2: Do you agree with the Government s preferred option b) above? If not, please set out clearly your reasons and let us know if you consider any of the options, or any other option not considered in this paper, to be more appropriate. We disagree. The government should choose option c. The UKGC has already suspended UK remote operating licenses, with at least one being related to alleged organised crime. The white-listed jurisdiction regulators have inferior background suitability standards to even the UK, do not have the same financial and manpower resources as UKGC, or the same access to quality police investigative resources as in the UK. Additionally the current white-list includes Antigua, demonstrating how low the white-list standard is. Antigua prosecuted an action in the World Trade Organization (WTO) against the US, related to US assertion of the illegality of remote gambling in the US. There is, however, a very strong argument that the Antigua remote gambling industry is in breach of WTO principles as it is not respecting signatory principles of respect for US intellectual property rights, as the Antigua based remote gambling industry accessed US players with illegal copies of games. As the WTO did not seem to consider this illegal aspect, it can be surmised that the WTO decision against the US is clearly flawed.
The action of Antigua and the remote gambling industry to persuade the EU to make representations to the US regarding compensation, based on the WTO decision, may be prejudicial to a stable trade relationship between the US and the UK, So taking these points into account, it is therefore absurd that Antigua should ever have been considered for whitelisting. Further, the government should not be concerned about a detrimental effect on white-listed countries as part of the remit for best UK regulation. White-listed countries include offshore tax havens that do not have a concern for their detrimental effect on the UK economy. Question 3: Do you agree with the Government s preferred overall option in relation to EEA, Gibraltar and white listed operators? If not, please set out clearly your reasons and let us know if you consider any of the options, any other combination of the options, or any other options not considered in this paper, to be more appropriate. We agree in part and disagree in part. Our answers to question one and two provide an explanation. Question 4: Do you agree with the twin triggers for requiring a licence? We agree. Either one of triggers should require licensing. Question 5: Do you agree with the definition of transacting with British consumers? We agree. Any of the three criteria should define a UK transaction. Question 6: Do you agree that the above definitions of advertising are appropriate? Gambling information sites that provide recommendations of sites are often affiliates who share in up to 40% of player losses. For the sake of the fairness being promoted, surely these sites should be required to identify this practice and these relationships in all advertising.
Question 7: Do you agree that direct mail and spam etc are a low impact and less successful form of advertising? The exception in our answer to question six should also apply. Question 8: Do you think we should permit the advertising of non-remote foreign gambling without the requirement for the operator to be located in a white listed jurisdiction or to hold a Commission licence? We agree in part and disagree in part. Where all the activity is foreign, such as a real casino in Monte Carlo or Las Vegas, then there appears to be no reason that UK advertising should not be permitted. Where only part of the activity is foreign, such as telephone betting from the UK with a Gibraltar bookmaker, there appears to be no reason that UK advertising should be permitted, without a UK license. Question 9: Do you agree with our initial assessment regarding approaches towards compliance of remote gambling operators that may be based wholly or partly overseas? In particular in relation to: a. additional fees b. MOUs or other agreements between regulators. c. Requiring some presence in Britain. If not, please state your reasons why as well as the approach you consider the Government should take. Our view is that until there is adequate UK regulation of the remote gambling industry then the licensing system will not be adequate. In particular at least all the points raised in our answer to question one should be incorporated into the regulatory and licensing system.
Question 10: Do you agree with the Government s proposals relating to offences as set out above? If not please clearly state your reasons why as well as your views on the approach you consider the Government should take. A new tax on gambling winnings could be introduced which would only apply to persons gambling with unlicensed providers. Gambling "information" sites that are affiliates that "recommend" gambling providers should be subject to advertising rules. Question 11: Do you think we have considered that above two restriction measures adequately? If not, please set out clearly your reasons and your views on the approach you consider the Government should take. If the new tax as in our answer to question ten is introduced and effective then there is no requirement for blocking. Without the new tax, our recommendation is that countries that allow their providers to access UK players without UK licensing should be advised that this activity is detrimental to their economic relationship with the UK. Without appropriate action by these countries, then FTB and ISP blocking should be applied. Question 12: Do you agree that the Government should consider taking powers in legislation to implement technological enforcement measures in the future in the event it became necessary and appropriate to do so? If not, please set out clearly your reasons and your views on the approach you consider the Government should take. We agree. Question 13: Do you agree with the proposed consumer awareness raising measures that we have proposed? If not, please clearly state why as well as the approach you consider should be taken. Consumer awareness should include addressing at least all the issues raised in our answer to question one.
Question 14: Do you agree with the Government s overall approach to enforcement as set out above? If not, please clearly set out the reasons why as well as your views regarding the approach you consider the Government should take. At least all the issues raised in question one should be incorporated into regulation, licensing and enforcement.