The petitions site is closed.

There will be a General Election on Thursday 4 July. This means that Parliament has been dissolved and that all parliamentary business – including petitions – has been stopped.

Find out more on the Petitions Committee website

Closed petition Stop the implementation of betting affordability/financial risk checks

We want the Government to abandon the planned implementation of affordability checks for some people who want to place a bet. We believe such checks – which could include assessing whether people are ‘at risk of harm' based on their postcode or job title – are inappropriate and discriminatory.

More details

The proposed checks could see bettors having to prove they can afford their hobby if they sustain losses as low as £1.37 per day. We accept the need to help those with problem gambling but more intrusive checks triggered at a higher threshold risks bettors moving to the black market where there are no consumer protections or safer gambling tools. We are concerned there will also be a negative impact on British horseracing’s finances due to a reduction in betting turnover and resulting fall in Levy yield.

This petition is closed All petitions run for 6 months

103,537 signatures

Show on a map


Parliament debated this topic

This topic was debated on 26 February 2024

Watch the petition 'Stop the implementation of betting affordability/financial risk checks
' being debated

Government responded

This response was given on 16 November 2023

We are committed to a proportionate, frictionless system of financial risk checks, to protect those at risk of harm without over regulating. The Gambling Commission will set out plans in due course.

Read the response in full

The government and Gambling Commission recognise concerns some have with the proposed system of financial risk checks for the highest spending online customers to help identify and tackle gambling related harm. We share the goals that the checks should not overregulate the gambling sector, should not unduly disrupt the millions of people who gamble without suffering harm, and should not cause unnecessary damage to sectors which rely on betting, in particular horseracing. The government is a strong supporter of horseracing, and recognises that it is not the job of either the government or the Gambling Commission to tell people how to spend their money. As outlined in the gambling white paper we are seeking to balance this freedom with the necessary action to tackle the devastating consequences which harmful gambling can have for individuals and communities.

Importantly, the proposals will represent a significant improvement for both businesses and customers compared to the current situation. While the Gambling Commission does not currently have specific requirements or thresholds, we know that operators are applying inconsistent ‘affordability’ checks on a number of customers, often without being clear on why the checks are happening, and normally requiring customers to provide data manually. We have challenged operators to be more transparent with customers in the interim, but the proposed system will be a significant improvement in having clear and proportionate rules which all operators are held to, and allowing for financial data to be shared seamlessly with operators instead of burdening customers with information requests. Both the government and the Gambling Commission have been clear that we would not mandate the checks proposed in the consultation until we are sure that they will be frictionless for the vast majority of customers who would be checked.

This careful targeting of interventions has been a guiding principle during the development of the proposed financial risk checks. We are seeking to protect those at the greatest risk of devastating and life-changing financial losses, and there is a clear need for specific requirements on online operators to prevent substantial unchecked spend. We recognise that this needs to be proportionate, which is why the proposed checks are only on the very highest spending online customers, conducted frictionlessly using data sharing, and do not come with blanket rules for operator interventions if there are no signs of harm. We estimate that the financial risk assessment using data from credit reference agencies will only impact those in the highest 3% of gambling losses. These factors significantly limit the risk of customers migrating to the black market as very few will have their experience in the licensed sector disrupted, either by the checks themselves or as a result of their findings. The financial risk checks are also intended to operate alongside existing requirements on operators to use a range of data to identify customers at risk of harm and decide whether or how to intervene.

The Gambling Commission’s consultation, which ran from 26 July to 18 October, received over 2,400 responses, many of which focused on financial risk checks. Those responses, and this petition, show the benefit of engaging the public ahead of implementing proposals. The regulator and government are working to ensure all views are considered as the proposals are finalised.

Finally, this petition raises the important link between betting and horseracing. The government recognises the enormous value of horseracing as both a spectator sport and through its economic contribution. The white paper’s estimate was that financial risk checks will reduce online horserace betting yield by 6% to 11%, which would in turn reduce racing’s income by £8.4 to £14.9 million per year (0.5% to 1% of its total income) through a reduction in levy, media rights and sponsorship returns. We are working with racing and refining that estimate. We have also commenced a review of the Horserace Betting Levy to ensure a suitable return to the sport for the future.

The government and Gambling Commission are working with the industry and others to ensure the checks can be implemented in an effective but proportionate way. We are also exploring the role of pilots or phased implementation to help ensure this. The Gambling Commission will set out details on its plans in due course.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport

MPs debate financial risk checks for gambling and Minister provides update

Financial risk checks for gambling debated by MPs

On Monday 26 February MPs took part in a debate on the petition you signed, relating to financial risk checks for gambling.

The debate was led by Christina Rees MP, a member of the Petitions Committee. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport, Gambling and Civil Society, Stuart Andrew MP, responded for the Government.

Minister provides update following debate

Following the debate, the Minister wrote to the Petitions Committee to provide an update on the Government's review of the Horserace Betting Levy, and some further reflections.

In his letter the Minister says that the new Financial Risk Checks only apply to those gambling online, will be frictionless, and the Government expect that 80% of online accounts will not go through the checks.

What is a Westminster Hall debate?

Westminster Hall is the second chamber of the House of Commons. Westminster Hall debates give MPs an opportunity to raise local and national issues and receive a response from a government minister. Westminster Hall debates are general debates that do not end in a vote.

Visual explainer: Westminster Hall debates

Get involved in the work of the UK Parliament

Sign up to the Your UK Parliament newsletter for the latest information on how to get involved and make a difference.