Politics Home Article | Gambling checks must be frictionless or they’ve gone too far

There’s a simple principle that should guide any new regulation: does it actually work, and does it make people’s lives better? Right now, serious questions are being asked about whether the Gambling Commission’s proposed Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs) meet that test. 

Let me be clear from the outset. Protecting vulnerable people and ensuring strong consumer safeguards are vital. Where there is clear evidence of problem gambling, intervention is justified and necessary. But effective regulation must also be practical, proportionate and grounded in reality, balancing protections with the need to keep millions of customers safely within the regulated market. 

We should also recognise how much has already changed in recent years. Since frictionless checks were first proposed, the regulated sector has introduced a wide range of tougher safeguards, from vulnerability checks and stricter online stake limits to improved monitoring, earlier interventions and better protections for young adults. These measures are already making a huge difference. 

That is why serious questions must now be asked about whether an additional layer of financial checks is still necessary or proportionate. 

Most people who enjoy a bet do so safely and responsibly. They deserve protection where problems arise, but they also deserve to be treated fairly and proportionately. 

That is why the row over gambling checks matters. When the Government promised new financial risk checks, the deal with the public was clear: they would be frictionless. No hassle. No ordinary punter being asked to hand over private documents just to enjoy a bet. 

I support sensible measures to protect people from gambling harm. Where someone is clearly in trouble, operators should act. But that is different from letting a regulator press ahead with wide-ranging checks without clear evidence or transparency. 

The Gambling White Paper promised frictionless checks, and Ministers have repeated that commitment. My colleague Stuart Andrew MP, then Gambling Minister, was clear the system should only be rolled out once it had genuinely met that test. 

The current Minister has also backed “frictionless, near-instantaneous checks” that would work for customers, the betting industry and racing. 

The Gambling Commission consulted on these checks in 2024 and began a pilot afterwards. Yet we still have not seen a full public explanation of what that pilot has shown. 

Ministers have quoted headline figures in Parliament, including the claim that 97% of checks would be frictionless. But that framing risks understating the real impact. In practice, the proportion of active customers affected is likely to be significantly higher and across millions of accounts, that means a substantial number of customers being interrupted or asked to provide personal financial information. That’s why the current direction of travel on FRAs is so concerning. 

Of course, where there are clear signs that someone is suffering harm, operators should step in and support must be available. But that does not justify creating a system where large numbers of law-abiding adults risk being subjected to intrusive financial scrutiny simply for taking part in a legal activity. 

We were told these checks would be “frictionless”, but in reality a customer placing a bet may suddenly be flagged by an automated system, asked for more information, or even told to hand over private financial documents such as bank statements, payslips or proof of income before they can carry on. That is not a light-touch safeguard it is intrusive, confusing and completely out of proportion to having a legal flutter. 

This is not just about inconvenience. It is about trust. If people feel they are being excessively monitored for engaging in a legal activity, confidence in the system begins to erode. 

There is also a more serious unintended consequence that cannot be ignored. 

If regulated betting becomes too complicated or intrusive, some customers will inevitably look elsewhere. The illegal gambling market is already growing, and it thrives on exactly this kind of frustration. Unlike licensed operators, black market sites offer no consumer protections, no safeguards, and no accountability. 

That is a lose lose situation. The very people these measures are designed to protect could end up in far riskier environments, beyond the reach of UK law. 

So the question must be asked: what is the evidence that an additional layer of checks will deliver better outcomes? 

So far, that case has not been made. 

Ministers have been clear that any new system must be proven to work before it is rolled out. It must be genuinely frictionless in practice, and it must strike the right balance between protecting those at risk and respecting the freedoms of the wider public. 

On all three counts, the current proposals fall short. 

This is not an argument for doing nothing. It is an argument for getting it right.