Gibraltar News

Social Responsibility and the Problematic Gambling Conundrum

Greyhound trainer Graham Calvert from County Durham in the North of England is suing bookmaker William hill for £2 million for allowing him to place bets after he had asked them to stop taking his business.

Calvert had requested that the company close his account under a self-exclusion scheme and was allegedly told that he would not be eligible to place bets for a minimum period of six months. Nevertheless, he was able to open new accounts with the bookmaker using different credit cards and lost a total of £2.1 million including almost £350,000 on a single bet when he backed the USA to win the 2006 Ryder Cup. William Hill told the High Court it could not be liable for these losses however Calvert claimed it was "irresponsible" of William Hill to "exploit [him] the way they did" and as such should be legally responsible for his debt.

The William Hill case highlights various social responsibility aspects affecting the gaming industry and in particular individual firms' policies regarding the prevention of problematic gambling behaviour. According to Calvert's solicitors, this case "… goes to the issue of how bookmakers treat people who have gambling problems [particularly] when they advertise themselves as offering self-exclusion and promoting socially responsible gambling." If the ruling goes Calvert's way, this case may open the legal floodgates, establishing for the first time that UK bookmakers owe a legal duty of care to compulsive gamblers. This could have a knock-on effect on Gibraltar's gaming industry, particularly in light of William Hill's recent successful application for a remote gaming licence on the Rock.

Gibraltar prides itself on having a robust regulatory system that offers maximum protection for its customers.
Amongst other things, licensees are required to comply with regulatory provisions promoting the idea of responsible gambling. According to Nicholas Macias of the Gibraltar Regulatory Authority's Gambling Division, "every Gibraltar licensed operator already has their own [responsible gaming] policy in place or is a member of an industry body that provides safeguards". Indeed, accreditation by approved testing houses such as eCOGRA or GamCare (which offer advice and practical help regarding the social impact of gambling) remain a requirement for all licensees under Gibraltar's Gambling Act.

Since the Act came into force at the end of last year, Gibraltar-based institutions have reacted appropriately, and continue to set the standard regarding issues of social responsibility. 888.com for example launched 888Responsible.com, a new website dedicated to, amongst other things, the issue of responsible gaming. In fact, many Gibraltar licensees have extended their staffing levels in this area, improving the level of protection offered to customers with gambling problems. The websites of all Gibraltar-based firms offer advice and information at varying levels on how to prevent problematic gambling behaviour, often even with contact points for addiction counselling.

However it may be that these measures are still not enough. Despite the bookmaker having many of these procedures in place, Graham Calvert was still allowed to gamble his life away almost unchecked. William Hill will "vigorously" defend allegations that it "monitored and manipulated [Calvert's] gambling disorder" to gain maximum revenue. Indeed you may sympathise with the position of gaming firms who block a person's credit card, only for them to open another account with a different credit or debit card. After all, there is a limit to how many checks a firm's security department can make.

Furthermore, if a gambler requests to have their account reactivated, there is very little which a bookmaker can do except subject him to the statutory 24 hour "cooling-off" period.

On the other hand, it could be argued that with the information already at their disposal, gaming firms should be able to detect behavioural patterns and take appropriate steps to suppress gambling problems when they are still in their infancy. This would be going far beyond the statutory requirements but would be the most effective way of offering protection to those who are most vulnerable. However it would perhaps be unrealistic to demand that gaming firms take pre-emptive measures of this nature. Asking their most active customers to bring their gambling to a standstill will always be at odds with the business plan of any bookmaker or gaming firm.

Tristan Cano lives and writes about the gaming industry in Gibraltar.