Gambling Reform Advocate Raises Serious Concerns Over UK Affordability Checks

(AsiaGameHub) –   Dr. James Noyce, a prominent UK gambling reform advocate, has urged the government to halt affordability checks. He asserts that the Gambling Commission lacks transparency regarding the implementation of these measures. Additionally, he supported assertions from horse racing officials that the checks are harming an industry that is a vital component of British culture.

Yesterday, Noyce posted an open letter addressed to UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy on X. Previously, Noyce was a key proponent of introducing affordability checks, arguing they were essential to safeguard vulnerable individuals from gambling beyond their financial limits.

Now, however, he expresses concern that the current execution is ineffective and is negatively impacting the British horse racing sector.

“I am particularly alarmed by reports that these checks will prove unnecessarily burdensome to horseracing bettors, to the detriment of that sport,” wrote Noyce.

Last week, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) initiated a “Save our Bets” campaign to oppose the affordability checks.

Noyce concluded his letter by urging the Government to “pay heed to the BHA’s warnings, and to pause these checks until there has been adequate evaluation and scrutiny.”

What are the Controversial Checks?

The UK Gambling Commission has been conducting trials for enhanced financial checks on bettors. From August 2024 to February 2025, alerts were triggered when a customer’s net deposits—deposits minus withdrawals—surpassed £500 within a rolling 30-day window. Last February, this threshold was lowered to £150.

A key criticism is that the Commission has not released a report on the trial’s findings. Noyes remarked, “I am deeply concerned over the lack of transparency regarding these checks.”

Last year, the UKGC introduced an expanded Consumer Voice framework, designed to create superior, evidence-based gambling policies based on genuine consumer feedback. Nonetheless, Noyes claims the Commission is advancing with affordability checks despite broad opposition.

He pointed out that “a Gambling Commission survey of over 12,000 people found 77 per cent of respondents were opposed to financial risk checks.”

Checks Collect Personal Financial Data

“A financial vulnerability check must include at a minimum a customer-specific public record information check for significant indicators of potential financial vulnerability,” according to Gambling Commission guidelines.

The trial intended to assess whether these checks could be “frictionless,” meaning they could be applied without requiring users to submit financial data to continue betting.

Noyes backed the checks in 2020, but notes that circumstances have evolved, with users now increasingly cautious about sharing sensitive personal information.

“Since 2020, we have seen a global pandemic which has affected gambling consumer behaviour, we have seen a range of financial shocks and fiscal challenges, we have seen increasing concerns over the use and misuse of data in a changing digital landscape,” he stated in the letter.

The BHA observed that varying credit scores for the same individual would require operators to request documentation, such as payslips and bank statements, from some users.

What’s the Alternative?

Gambling firms have come under fire for permitting or even incentivizing users to deposit large sums into betting accounts. In the UK, bet365 was recently linked to the death of a 19-year-old, where the user’s gambling addiction was ruled a decisive factor in his suicide.

Should affordability checks be paused, as Noyes recommends, platforms might be less likely to intervene in similar cases in the future. Without verification of a user’s financial status, it is unclear how a company can determine if a user is gambling money they cannot afford.

While losing thousands or even millions of dollars may be acceptable for some, for others, losing even a trivial amount can have devastating consequences for an individual’s life.

In the bet365 case, the 19-year-old’s account was technically in profit, but a coroner found that he had “exhausted all viable funds and credit” available to him. Could stricter affordability checks have prevented this tragedy?

The public backlash against the checks highlights the difficult balance regulators must maintain between consumer protection and individual liberty.