Operators: Are you sure all of your withdrawals processes are compliant?
With all the attention on the publication of the GSGB survey last week, people can be forgiven if they missed the Andrew Rhodes’ blog around the GC’s expectations concerning account withdrawals.
This is something which has cropped up for me several times over recent months, including discussions in the Industry Forum, regulator communications with Betsmart clients and, in a roundabout way, through references to the fair and open objective in the Commission’s 2024 – 2027 strategy which was published in April.
Following on from a similar blog post issued in July last year, the updated version provides much more detail around what the Commission expects, including worked examples which are very helpful. As this is a tricky topic to navigate for operators, it’s great to see the Commission reaching out and utilising various lines of communication to help support and guide the industry. However, this combined with the fact the article was published in Mr Rhodes’ name, also indicates they are very serious about addressing this issue and operators should consider themselves well and truly warned.
Blocking withdrawals to force a customer to provide documents, for any reason, is a dangerous game to play. The Commission has always been clear that it’s unacceptable to do so, if the document could have reasonably been requested before the withdrawal attempt was made. Unfortunately, this is where the line becomes blurred, and the decision-making process becomes increasingly grey.
There are countless reasons that documents could be required by an operator, most of which relate to managing bonus abuse, fraud or money laundering risk. It would be great, from a fair and open, and a customer experience perspective, to request all the documentation which will ever be needed at the beginning of the business relationship. However, in my view this isn’t always possible to do if operators are to maintain compliance with the MRLO’s mandated dynamic risk-based approach. It’s a very fine line to tread.
For me the most important element is around communication. Whilst operators must of course be wary of potential ‘tipping off’, they should be striving to fully and clearly outline why a customer has been requested to provide additional documentation. Customer facing messages should be tied back to simply drafted terms and conditions (which have ideally been legally verified for compliance with transparency and fairness requirements under the Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Reading between the lines it feels like the Commission is getting a little bit sick of getting the blame from disgruntled customers who’ve been told the reason for their blocked withdrawal is simply ‘regulatory purposes’. Review all withdrawal blocking processes within the business to ensure that errant teams haven’t decided to jump on the regulatory band wagon when requesting documentation for different purposes. Not usually one to cast aspersions, but in my experience, trading teams and fraud and risk departments are common culprits.
Aside from account withdrawal processes, I will leave you with the reminder that the Commission will be increasingly turning its focus to all things fair and open. Examples of what this could cover include but are not limited to complaint handling, RTP management, game rules, pay out limits and marketing. On that note, as we know from the 2018 CMA debacle, a partnership between the two regulators has the potential to generate an awful lot of work for operators, so everyone should beware of this initial shot across the bows.
Written by Kirsty Caldwell
As always, if anyone wants to get ahead of the game, Betsmart’s team of highly experienced consultants are here to help. Whether it be an overall assessment of your company’s fair and open framework or a deep dive into a targeted area, we guarantee that you’ll come out of the process better informed about your business and regulatory obligations than you entered it. Contact our team of experts today.