Gambling Commission delays decision on Financial Risk Assessments

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has delayed its decision on the future rollout of Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs). This happened following a board meeting held on 21 May.

The regulator confirmed in a statement that more time was needed to review the evidence gathered during the pilot process before any final decision could be made.

 “UKGC was presented with an extensive evidence base but has not yet fully completed its assessment of that evidence. We will communicate further in due course.” – The UK Gambling Commission

No revised timetable has yet been provided for when the regulator is expected to announce its final position.

Concerns over Financial Risk Assessments remain

Financial Risk Assessments form part of the gambling reform measures outlined in the government’s 2023 Gambling Act white paper.

The pilot programme launched in August 2024 and was designed to identify customers potentially experiencing financial harm without introducing fixed spending limits.

According to the Gambling Commission, the majority of customers would experience no disruption under the proposed model. The regulator previously estimated that 97% of active customers would pass through the process friction-free. Around 3% could trigger further intervention.

The commission has repeatedly stressed that  FRAs are not intended to function as traditional affordability checks.

The Gambling Commission’s Executive Director Tim Miller spoke about this at the Ethical Gambling Forum in London earlier this year. He said operators would not be expected to request additional financial evidence such as bank statements following an assessment.

However, concerns across the sector have grown. A YouGov survey commissioned by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) found that 65% of UK bettors would refuse to provide personal financial documents if doing so became necessary to continue gambling.

Industry and political opposition grows

Opposition to the proposed checks has intensified in recent months. Criticism comes from operators, racing stakeholders, politicians and legal experts.

Earlier this week, a cross-party group of MPs wrote to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and urged the government to abandon the plans altogether.

The letter focused heavily on the horseracing sector. It argued that these tighter financial checks risk damaging the long-standing relationship between betting and racing during an already difficult financial period for the sport.

Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, said unresolved concerns still remained around the reliability of data and the wider impact on consumers. She said: “The Gambling Commission had already acknowledged unresolved questions about the reliability of credit reference data, customer friction and the risk of driving customers to unregulated black-market operators.”

Kemp added that the delay appeared to suggest the pilot had not fully resolved those issues.

“The Gambling Commission cannot move forward with a decision of this significance without a reasonable assessment of their impact – and if it does, the case for judicial review is likely to be compelling,” she said.

Meanwhile, Ian Angus, the Gambling Commission’s director of policy, reiterated during a Clarion Payments Providers event this week that the proposed checks were not designed to determine what consumers could or could not afford to spend.

“Financial Risk Assessments are not affordability checks by another name.” – Ian Angus.

For now, the regulator has confirmed only that further analysis is ongoing before any final implementation decision is reached.