(AsiaGameHub) –   The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) is considering legal action against the Gambling Commission (GC) should it proceed with the next stage of affordability checks for players, as it believes one in five customers could be required to disclose financial details.

A board meeting at the Gambling Commission is set for Thursday, 21 May 2026, where Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs) may receive approval. These assessments aim to identify high-spending online gamblers who might be facing financial difficulties and offer them support.

The GC states that these assessments would be automatically activated once a customer reaches certain spending thresholds and would rely on data from credit reference agencies. However, many industry stakeholders fear customers may be unwilling to share their personal information and could instead turn to unregulated or black market operators to avoid FRAs altogether.

FRAs differ from Financial Vulnerability Checks (FVCs), which use publicly available data to detect customers who may be financially vulnerable. FVCs are triggered when a player’s net deposit exceeds £500 within a rolling 30-day period; a reduced threshold of £150 in net deposits over 30 days has recently taken effect.

BGC takes a firm stance on affordability checks

BGC Chief Executive Grainne Hurst sent 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. In her correspondence, she expressed the trade body’s concerns about the proposed Financial Risk Assessments.

Hurst argued that implementing FRAs would be “disproportionate and potentially open to legal challenge,” and questioned whether there was sufficient justification for their introduction.

The BGC also highlighted that operators reported “serious failings” with the FRAs, including inconsistent data from credit reference agencies and the potential growth of the black market as customers seek to evade such checks by gambling through illegal platforms.

“The evidence from the pilot is that financial risk assessments are not fit for purpose.”

Grainne Hurst, Chief Executive of the Betting and Gaming Council

Due to “significant problems with data relevance, accuracy and consistency” and “fundamental implementation issues,” the BGC contends that the assessments do not meet the standards outlined in the 2023 Gambling Act Review White Paper.

Hurst wrote: “The evidence from the pilot is that financial risk assessments are not fit for purpose.

“Therefore, if the Gambling Commission moves forward with implementation without addressing these findings, the BGC and its members must consider all available options.

“Such an approach would harm consumers, damage the regulated industry, burden taxpayers, fuel the illegal market, and, most likely, be irrational.”

Disagreement over the scope of data impact

Recent data released by the Commission indicates that only 3% of customers would be subject to FRAs. However, the BGC disputes this figure, asserting that the actual proportion would be 5%, rising to 10% if only monthly wagering customers are considered, and further increasing to 20% if those with an annual net spend of £200 or less are excluded.

Hurst stated: “Government ministers and Gambling Commission officials have consistently described the pilot phase as one of testing and evaluation.

“If FRAs prove ineffective and lead to more customers using illegal operators to avoid checks—or if alternative methods exist that fulfill the objectives set out in the white paper (including those already being implemented)—then they should not be introduced.”

‘Left with little choice but to consider legal challenge’

Although the BGC informed SBC that the letter had not been shared with any journalist, a spokesperson said: “We urge the Gambling Commission to thoroughly review these proposals before taking any further steps.

“Evidence from the Commission’s own pilot shows that financial risk assessments are far from frictionless, with serious inconsistencies in the data and a real risk that large numbers of customers will face intrusive financial checks.

This must work effectively for all customers, yet current evidence suggests these proposals are unsuitable and risk pushing people away from the regulated market toward the expanding illegal online gambling sector—where there are no protections or safeguards.

Given the serious concerns raised by operators, there is a real possibility the industry may ultimately be forced to consider legal action if these proposals go ahead without additional scrutiny.”

‘Frictionless for the vast majority’

A Gambling Commission spokesperson reiterated to SBC that the checks would be largely frictionless for most customers if introduced.

The GC spokesperson said: “We reaffirm that we continue to develop financial risk assessments, with one key focus being the removal of unnecessary friction for consumers. If implemented, the checks would apply only to a small number of highest-spending accounts and would be seamless for the vast majority of those assessed.

No final decisions have been made, and we will soon present recommendations to our Board regarding next steps. We remain in regular contact with industry and other stakeholders as the pilot progresses, and will provide updates as this work continues.

Any future rollout would be carefully evaluated, based on evidence, and introduced gradually and proportionately.”