Who is responsible for the reduction of gambling-related harm?

Gambling has always been an activity associated with negative connotations, especially when thought of in the context of a casino or a local bar's slot machine. Who does not have a story from someone they know about slot machines being rigged and people losing their savings? Despite these presumed dangers, risk-taking and reward patterns in our brains can become mixed, leading to addiction and causing a lot of harm.

Gambling in today’s world and the nature of risk-taking in the Internet age

In the past, most gambling activity was limited to a physical location or a specific gambling machine. Not anymore, as online gambling has been accelerating rapidly over the past four years. Now, gambling is just a few clicks away, always at our disposal, along with the potential harm.

All this raises the question - if gambling is harmful, why hasn’t it been banned? History records show that people have been gambling for centuries, and for many, it is a leisure that causes little harm. Unfortunately, that does not mean it is safe, and it brings us to a central question: who is responsible for reducing gambling-related harm?

The history of responsible gambling as a measure to decrease gambling-related harm is not long and is driven mainly by regulation. Initial efforts focused on informing consumers about addiction and asking them to be cautious when they gambled.

Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider an individual’s capacity for self-regulation. Given the nature of all addictions, the effectiveness of this message remains limited. We have now reached a point in the industry where we are shifting toward a safer gambling model where the responsibility for preventing potential harm is increasingly placed (through regulation) on the operator of gambling activities.

Specifically, this involves monitoring and interacting with at-risk players to prevent harm. The primary responsibility appears to rest on the shoulders of the regulators, prescribing effective measures to their license holders.

However, it is not that simple, especially in the online world. Online gambling is regulated state by state, and in principle, citizens of one country should only gamble with locally licensed operators.

In reality, gamblers are easily able to find opportunities to gamble with foreign operators, which might not have the same provisions for safer gambling as their local regulator has mandated.

Similarly, if responsible gambling measures intended to protect customers end up limiting the consumer experience, there’s a risk that consumers may seek less restrictive alternatives.

Shepherding gambling behavior to protect consumers remains an elusive goal

That being said, it is not yet entirely clear what the exact combination of player motivations and regulatory limitations is to decrease the risk of harm effectively.

There is already a lot of quality research in various areas, but structuring an ideal setup remains challenging. Besides the proactive approach by operators, some jurisdictions are prone to limit the exposure togambling by reducing advertising capabilities.

Others are still focused on implementing measures to self-limit as part of a consumer’s regular gambling session, and some believe that the right way to address this issue is to implement blanket limits for wagers or overall spending.

Combining all of this results in a peculiar situation where every good intention of change by the regulators (and policymakers) comes with the risk of failing to be effective in the real world. In other words, changes that consumers do not accept could have unintended and possibly harmful consequences. Hence, the responsibility cannot lie solely on the shoulders of the regulators. There are way too many nuances connected with online gambling for regulators to address the issue on their own adequately.

So, where do operators come in this mix? Reasonably speaking, they are the ones who stay in touch with the players. They can see their activity (spending and behaviours) and interact, motivated by a desire to help reduce potential harm. The technology for detecting possible gambling harm is quite advanced, but an effective interaction with players to reduce it remains a puzzle. The limitations of success then boil down to theplayer's decision on what comes next.

We understand gambling-related harm but need to act sooner

As if things weren't already too complicated, the road from here is influenced by several external factors: access to information, support infrastructure, stigmatization, and public perception. The decision to do something about harmful gambling habits is not immediate. Statistics show that it takes 10 years on average from the point of experiencing the first signs of gambling harm to seeking treatment and help.

Reducing harm caused by online gambling is indeed a complex issue that cannot be successfully addressed as a one-dimensional problem; it requires more than just one stakeholder or group of stakeholders to tackle effectively.

The scientific answer for this issue possibly lies in the Reno model, developed by a trio of leading researchers in 2008 when online was not developed yet. It is a shared responsibility between all stakeholders involved in the gambling activity, including the player.

If we accept this premise as truthful, then, we ought to be asking ourselves the question: How can we influence players to be proactive in reducing gambling harm? But this is a discussion for another time.

Image credit: SBC