Is it fair? Operators limiting player accounts
The Gambling Commission (UKGC) has revealed that more than 4% of player accounts had restrictions placed on them by operators in 2024.
Protecting players by limiting certain accounts is important, but 4% – nearly 650,000 accounts – is a lot of players! These stats, published in a blog by the Commission’s CEO Andrew Rhodes, appear to highlight a problem facing many players.
The contentious issue is that many of these restrictions aren’t being placed on accounts to protect players – they’re being used to limit successful players. This begs the question: just how fair are operator restrictions?
What do we mean by player account restrictions?
In the 2024 calendar year, 643,779 player accounts had some sort of commercial restriction placed on them – amounting to 4.31% of all active British gambling accounts.
‘Player account restrictions’ are limits on specific gambling activities on a specific platform. Despite the fact that they may ultimately cost the operator in terms of profit, they are used for a variety of reasons.
Controversy
The most controversial reason why an operator might restrict a customer is because the customer is simply doing too well. This, understandably, is very unpopular with players, who have been aware of this practice for some time. When this happens it’s about reducing the operator’s loss / increasing the operator’s profit margin by restricting a successful player’s ability to win, or to win big.
Player protection
Another reason is player protection. This is for legitimate reasons and involves identifying and monitoring at-risk accounts to ensure they’re not gambling irresponsibly.
However, the stats suggest a significant discrepancy between the number of problem gamblers in Britain and the number of restricted accounts.
Player violations can result in restrictions too, which is fair; operators need to protect their interests. Activities such as opening multiple accounts, exploiting bonuses and using certain strategies will result in restrictions or a ban. Anything that points to, or suggests, fraud will likely have a similar effect.
What types of restrictions are there?
Player account restrictions come in all shapes and sizes. Here are some of the most commonly forms of operator restriction:
Stake factor restrictions
Stake factor restrictions are the most commonly taken measure when an operator wants to limit a successful player’s account. This is a simple per-wager limit, often as low as between 1% and 9% of the limit set for non-restricted accounts. In 2024, 36.22% of restricted accounts had stake factor restrictions on them.
Market betting restrictions
Some sportsbook operators have banned player accounts from wagering on specific markets. This restriction applied to 5.72% of restricted accounts in 2024, and is likely a measure to minimise losses.
Account closure
Accounts can be permanently closed if the operator deems it appropriate. This penalty tends to be reserved for more severe infractions such as bonus abuse or fraudulent behaviour.
Bonus restrictions
Players who exploit bonuses by opening multiple accounts or violating terms and conditions may be subjected to bonus restrictions. This prevents players from claiming either all bonuses, or specific types.
Can restrictions benefit players?
Yes, restrictions can benefit players. One of the most defensible uses of restrictions is to prevent irresponsible gambling. For a small minority of players, intervention is sometimes necessary, and commercial restrictions are a way for operators to do this directly.
Are stake factor restrictions fair?
Casinos use stake factor restrictions to curtail accounts that are performing better than they’d like – those winning more than most. This of course boosts profitability and reduces risk.
While this has been apparent for some time, the extent of it was only revealed in the recent UKGC update where Rhodes revealed that 25.42% of active accounts are in profit, whereas this figure reaches 46.78% for those which are restricted.
Looking at it another way, 72.54% of active accounts are in loss, but this falls to 51.29% for restricted customers, suggesting that many were restricted because they were in profit. These figures don’t include player accounts which were restricted as a result of being closed.
Operators are, of course, profit-driven enterprises, and it is ultimately up to them which accounts get restricted. Perhaps restrictions are more understandable in the case of say, sports bettors where an operator may suspect the bettor has inside information or is playing the markets unfairly.
But, in a situation where gambling is fair, transparent and underpinned by carefully moderated random number generators to ensure there’s no bias, is it fair to punish those who are simply luckier?
To many players, this will sound absurd, and you couldn’t blame them for being irked. The notion of punishing players for playing the game, within the rules established by the operators, seems pretty unreasonable.
Implications of restrictions for players
For most players, being landed with a stake restriction is an inconvenience, but it’s not going to stop them from placing that bet. In most cases, they’ll simply open an account at another casino or sportsbook and go ahead anyway.
However, if it’s an established, loyal player’s account, especially one which is funded or has accrued loyalty points, players are likely to be frustrated. In many cases, restrictions will sour the player’s opinion of the operator concerned, especially if the player was chastened simply for placing a smart bet or getting lucky by hitting a jackpot.
With so many casinos out there, you’d think that reputation should be important to operators, but many seem to feel that increased profitability outweighs any negative PR they might get for banning winners.
UKGC position
Rhodes is aware of the controversy, and referred to UK discrimination law to explain it. He stated that operators “may take commercial decisions providing they do not discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics. Being a successful bettor is not a protected characteristic in discrimination law".
Discrimination law or no discrimination law, the reality is that restricting players’ accounts in this arbitrary way and for these reasons is not a good look for the industry, and it’s something the UKGC should look to tackle. Operators doing this and getting a reputation for it will find players walking away.
Final words
The UKGC’s blog post reveals an ugly trend. Some commercial restrictions are valid and sensible, but operators are also restricting many accounts for being too successful, even if no rules are broken.
Unfortunately, the UKGC is deflecting the issue towards broader discrimination legislation. Therefore, operators have little motivation not to simply restrict or ban accounts that cost them money, and keep the ones that lose money consistently, even if this does sound cynically exploitative.
Perhaps these latest revelations will trigger a backlash that forces the regulator to make some changes, or at least lobby for amendments to existing laws.