betfred fined 900k for NOT stopping someone losing 18 grand in a day. so which is it then

No, and that's one of the more uncomfortable parts of how this works. Settlements of this kind are normally directed toward socially responsible causes - research, prevention, treatment - rather than to affected customers. The individual whose losses formed part of the evidence gets nothing from it.
There's no compensation route through the Commission at all. If you believed an operator failed in its duty toward you specifically, you'd go to the operator's complaints process first, then their approved dispute resolution provider, then realistically civil litigation. Very few people get anywhere with that.
 
lets look at the angle nobody has raised. for betfred to have flagged that account at all they were already running behavioral monitoring on spend, time played and patterns of play. that[s not new, that's been a license requirement for years. so the profile already exists on every one of us right now
the commissions finding isnt that they were monitoring too much. its that they weren't acting on it. so the direction of travel from here is more automated intervention, triggered faster, off the same behavioral data they're already sitting on
whatever you think of that outcome, data collection was never the thing being argued about
 
@5.o.2 well thats the bit thats been nagging at me and you put it better than i could. i keep arguin about whether they should be allowed to look. they've been looking the whole time. the argument is only ever about what they do with it.

which makes a fair bit of what i've been saying for two years slightly beside the point
 
damn.. been running pub twenty odd years and theres a version of this i know very well. you can see when someone's had enough.you can absolutely see it. and there's a legal duty not to serve them and everyone behind a bar knows there is.
difference is im stood in front of the man. i can see his face. there's no seven day review, there's me deciding right now whether he gets another one. and ill tell you the honest thing, its still hard, and i still get it wrong sometimes, and that's with him three feet away. a bloke on a screen at three in the morning with a system that'll check on him next tuesday hasn't got a chance.
 
Patrick777 said:
damn.. been running pub twenty odd years and theres a version of this i know very well. you can see when someone's had enough.you can absolutely see it. and there's a legal duty not to serve them and everyone behind a bar knows there is.
difference is im stood in front of the man. i can see his face. there's no seven day review, there's me deciding right now whether he gets another one. and ill tell you the honest thing, its still hard, and i still get it wrong sometimes, and that's with him three feet away. a bloke on a screen at three in the morning with a system that'll check on him next tuesday hasn't got a chance.
Click to expand...
aye. thats it isnt it
 
worth adding what they were actually pulled up on technically. the breach is under social responsibility code provision 3.4.3, which requires remote operators to have effective systems to identify, act on and evaluate customer risk. the act on and evaluate parts failed, not the identify part.

that automated element is specifically what the commission called out and human review queue with a seven day lag doesn't satisfy the requirement because harm happens on a much shorter timescale than that. which is exactly what £17,900 in 24 hours demonstrates.
 
so realistically what changes for us. more automated popups mid session? tighter triggers? because thats where this ends up tho isn't it
 
probably yes to both, and applied across the licensed estate rather than just at betfred, because every compliance team in the country read that decision and asked whether their own review lag would survive the same assessment.
the awkward part is that operators overcorrecting on automated intervention produces exactly the experience people here complain about constantly. more interruptions, more friction, more prove-you're-fine moments. the enforcement was right on its merits and the downstream effect is a worse product for people gambling normally. both true, no obvious way round it
 
yeah 😒😒 ive been thinking about this since bill posted the list. four actions across the two entities. an external auditor brought in. nearly four million paid between them. and the failure this time was a queue length

at what point does the commission stop settling and start asking whether the license is appropriate. genuine question. is there a threshold or does it just go on
 
there's a license review process and suspension is available but its almost never used against operators this size. pulling the licence on a business with 1,300 shops and thousands of staff creates its own set of problems and the operator knows the commission knows that.
so it goes on. more or less indefinitely
 
closing thought and then im leaving it. i've argued for two years that the checks are the problem. after reading this properly i think the problem is they've built something that watches everybody and protects nobody. you get the friction of being monitored and none of the benefit of anyone actually being on the other end of it./

that's not an argument for more monitoring or less. i don't know what its an argument for. that's sort of my point
 
its an argument for the system existing to protect the operators licence rather than the customer and it always has been, the customer is just the material the compliance evidence gets made out of
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top