Limit-setting in online gambling: a comparative policy review of European approaches.

BACKGROUND

Online gambling products involve a heightened risk of harm, but there are some possibilities to prevent and reduce these harms. Notably, mandatory identification in online gambling environments allows for a range of pre-commitment tools such as limit-setting. Previous research has found that limit-setting tools can be helpful, but effectiveness depends on how policies are outlined and implemented. Limits can be financial or temporal, voluntary or mandatory, and system-level or operator-based. The current paper presents a policy review of European approaches to limit-setting in online environments.

METHODS

We first compared legal provisions on pre-commitment and limit-setting in N = 30 European countries (27 European Union Member States, Great Britain, Norway, and Switzerland). Data were retrieved from Vixio Gambling Compliance country reports and verified against original legal texts. The analysis focused on financial, temporal, maximum wager limits, and any other limits pertaining to online gambling. Second, based on the policy review, we produced a more in-depth analysis of limit-setting provisions in countries with system-level pre-commitment (Finland, Norway, Germany).

RESULTS

Results show important divergence in terms of limit-setting across Europe. While almost all countries (n = 27) have some form of limit-setting, implementation details vary. Financial limits can include loss limits (n = 15 countries), deposit limits (n = 18), and wagering limits (n = 14), with the majority of countries providing several types of financial limits. Temporal limits were available in ten countries. Eleven countries had some mandatory limits, in other countries operators were expected to provide the option to set limits. Statutory maximum limits and lower limits for young adults were not common, but available in some countries. Germany was the only country with a system-level limit-setting scheme that covered multiple licensed operators.

CONCLUSIONS

Contextual variations in pre-commitment and limit-setting policies are likely to impact effectiveness in terms of preventing and reducing harm. Our review shows some promising practices, including system-level regimes, mandatory policies, reasonable maximum caps on limits and wagers, the possibility to set limits for various time periods, lower limits for young adults, and coupling limit-setting with other duty-of-care obligations. Learning from other jurisdictions can constitute good practice for future policies on pre-commitment.