The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has stated that it would have ‘little choice but to consider legal challenge’ if the Gambling Commission (GC) proceeds with the next stage of the affordability checks proposals ‘without further scrutiny’.
Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs) could be approved as a means of identifying high-spending online gambling players who may be experiencing financial problems and offer them support when a Commission board meeting takes place this week on Thursday, 21 May 2026.
The GC has expressed that they have yet to decide whether FRAs will be introduced, but that any implementation would be carefully considered and evidence-led.
A stark warning from the BGC also includes its Chief Executive Grainne Hurst explaining the trade body’s FRAs frustration in a letter last month to the GC’s interim Chair Charles Counsell, Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Gambling Minister Baroness Twycross and the GC’s acting Chief Executive Sarah Gardner.
BGC ready to legally challenge FRAs
The GC says FRAs would be automatically triggered if a customer hits certain spending amounts and would utilise data from credit reference agencies. However, many industry stakeholders think customers could be reluctant to share their data and may instead turn to black market operators to avoid FRAs entirely.
FRAs are different from Financial Vulnerability Checks (FVCs), which use information that is already publicly available to spot customers that may be financially vulnerable. They are applied when a customer’s net deposit threshold of £500 is reached with an operator during a rolling 30-day period, with a lower threshold of £150 net deposits over 30 days now coming into effect.
In the letter, the FRAs were described by Hurst as “disproportionate and potentially open to legal challenge”, while also stating that a valid reason for their introduction needs to be determined.
The BGC also noted that operators claimed “serious failings” were signalled from the FRAs, including inconsistent data from credit reference agencies and possible black market growth with the loss of players to illegal operators.
The trade body doesn’t believe the assessments meet what was set out in the 2023 Gambling Act Review White Paper, as there are “significant problems with data relevance, accuracy and consistency” and “fundamental implementation issues”.
Hurst wrote: “The evidence from the pilot is that financial risk assessments are not fit for purpose.
“Accordingly, the BGC and its members would have to consider all available options should the Gambling Commission implement them without taking into account those findings.
“Such an approach would harm consumers, harm the regulated industry, harm the taxpayer, boost the illegal market, and, most likely, be irrational.”
‘Not frictionless’
Although the BGC told SBC that the letter hadn’t been shared with any journalist, a spokesperson said: “We want the Gambling Commission to properly review these proposals before taking any further steps.
“Evidence from the Commission’s own pilot shows these Financial Risk Assessments are simply not frictionless, with serious inconsistencies in the data and a real risk that large numbers of customers will face intrusive financial checks.
“We want the Gambling Commission to properly review these proposals before taking any further steps.”
Betting and Gaming Council spokesperson
“This has to work for all customers, but the evidence so far suggests these proposals are not fit for purpose and risk driving people away from the regulated market towards the growing illegal online black market, where there are no protections and no safeguards.
“Given the serious concerns raised by operators there is a real risk the industry could ultimately be left with little choice but to consider legal challenge if these proposals proceed without further scrutiny.”
‘Carefully considered, evidence-led’
When asked about FRAs implementation, a Gambling Commission spokesperson told SBC: “We reiterate that we are continuing to work on financial risk assessments, with one of the key focuses being on removing unnecessary friction for consumers. If introduced, the checks would apply only to a small proportion of the highest-spending accounts and would be frictionless for the vast majority of those assessed.
“No decisions have yet been made and we will shortly be putting recommendations to our Board on next steps. We are continuing to engage regularly with industry and other stakeholders as the pilot progresses, and will continue to provide updates as this work develops.
“Any future implementation would be carefully considered, evidence-led and introduced in a measured and proportionate way.”
Disagreement over GC’s data
Only 3% of customers would be subject to FRAs, according to recent data from the Commission. However, the BGC believes this figure would actually be 5%, climbing to 10% if only customers who bet monthly are included and again to 20% if players with a net annual spend of £200 per annum or less are removed.
Hurst stated: “Government ministers and Gambling Commission officials have consistently stated that the pilot is a testing and evaluation phase.
“If FRAs are not effective and would result in more customers playing with illegal operators to evade checks, or alternative approaches are available that meet the purpose set out in the white paper (including where such approaches are already in place), they should not be implemented.”