Why affordability checks are inevitable (and not just in gambling)

It’s always nice to enjoy coverage in the press, particularly when it is as comprehensive and positive as the story covering ClearStake in the Racing Post this Tuesday. That publication understands, as do we, that whether most bettors like it or not ‘gambling harm’ is not a problem that is going away. Given that is the case, managing it is of central importance to operators.

Based on a few responses to the piece on social media, not every punter understands this situation. That isn’t necessarily surprising. We understand why affordability checks as an abstract concept strike some as unnecessary and invasive. If you are, as I am, a relatively low-stakes bettor who is in it for the sport, then the whole subject of sharing your financial data in order to bet may seem absurd.

But if you are one of those people, the chances of ever coming across one of these checks is extremely low. In fact, many are probably unaware that checks involving the sharing of financial information already happen today. They have to: international money-laundering laws and regulatory guidance demand it. And both the operators and the customers they affect know just how frustrating they can be. 

Make no mistake, this isn’t a new thing - it is a current requirement. In this light, proper affordability checks can be seen as an additional piece of analysis added to a current process. We are not creating unnecessary processes, simply offering a much better way of doing that which is already done today whilst preparing operators and their customers for any increase in regulatory demands.

Besides, operators are not cheerleading for additional affordability checks. They understand their social responsibilities of course, and they are actively engaging to ensure their product produces as little social harm as possible. But do they want to check the finances of every customer? Absolutely not.

In other words, the idea that operators are pushing for these checks, in order to get more data on their customers or use them as an excuse to close accounts, is miles off target. 

Most operators we speak to want to see as little data as possible, or most accurately, as much data as they need to make a decision, and no more. Many are keen to get to a point where a tight API integration with their own platform returns a recommended decision from a third-party platform like ClearStake and they ‘see’ nothing at all. And I don’t think I am giving away any trade secrets when I say that risk departments already have the ability to restrict or close customers for any reason they choose. 

So why are affordability checks happening? For the simplest and most obvious reason in the world:

Because they have to.

In the UK, both the Government and the regulator agree that when it comes to gambling, it is important to be sure that consumers are able to afford to bet in the way they do. And can you blame them? You would have to be living under a rock to still believe that gambling is an entirely benign activity that has no potential to cause serious harm: to individuals, to t