Despite Duty of Care, Gambling Operators Place Responsibility for Gambling-Related Harm on Individuals

When the Swedish gambling market was re-regulated in 2019, licensed gambling operators were given a statutory duty of care, obliging them to protect gamblers from excessive gambling by monitoring individuals’ gambling behaviour and taking action to reduce gambling when needed.

Part of the responsibility for preventing gambling-related harm was thus placed on the gambling companies.

But how do gambling operators interpret this responsibility?

Researchers at the Department of Public Health Sciences at Stockholm University have analysed 52 duty of care action plans submitted by licensed online gambling operators to the Swedish Gambling Authority (Spelinspektionen) in 2020. The action plans describe how the operators intend to fulfil their statutory duty of care.

The study finds major differences in how operators interpret this duty. In many cases, duty of care is barely mentioned. Twelve of the 52 action plans do not mention it whatsoever, while 19 mention it without clearly defining what it entails.

Instead, gambling operators often use terms such as “responsible gambling” and “social responsibility”. Many action plans also focus on other legal requirements, such as age verification, self-exclusion, deposit limits and gambling self-assessment tests.

Responsibility Largely Placed on Gamblers

The researchers find that gambling-related harm is primarily described as an individual problem caused by the way a person gambles, rather than as a risk associated with the gambling product itself. Although gambling operators acknowledge that gambling can cause harm, this is generally regarded as being limited to a small group of individuals who are considered to have “lost control”.
This perspective has consequences for the measures operators describe.

These measures often involve providing information, “responsible gambling” tools and options for gamblers to set limits. The underlying assumption is that individuals who gamble should use these tools to control or change their own behaviour.

“Gambling operators’ interpretations of duty of care essentially place responsibility for gambling-related harm on the individual. This stems from the concept of ‘responsible gambling’, where individuals are expected to take responsibility for and control their own gambling,” says Maria Persson, PhD student at the Department of Public Health Sciences at Stockholm University. “The ‘problem’ is primarily seen as an issue of individual behaviour rather than something linked to the products offered by the gambling operators. Therefore, the focus is on giving individuals information and tools to manage their own gambling”.

The researchers highlight that the measures described by gambling operators in their action plans are largely passive and reactive. Rather than preventing harm before it occurs, they often involve identifying gamblers who already show clear signs of problematic gambling behaviour and subsequently encouraging them to change how they gamble.

The researchers also find little difference between Swedish and foreign operators operating under a Swedish licence.

Major Differences When Operators Intervene

Gambling operators use a range of indicators to identify potentially problematic gambling. These typically include deposit and loss limits and changes to them, deposit frequency, bet sizes, cancelled withdrawals, chasing losses, and time spent gambling. Indicators can also include gamblers mentioning self-harm or mental health problems when communicating with the company.

However, the thresholds for intervention vary considerably between operators and can be very generous.
For example, the action plans specify daily loss levels that operators consider acceptable. These range from approximately SEK 20,000 to SEK 80,000. Some of these thresholds are therefore higher than the average monthly income in Sweden.

“When operators contact gamblers only after identifying large financial losses or signs of mental health problems, this suggests that measures are taken too late, after harm has already occurred. Although the Swedish Gambling Authority has issued guidance on the action plans, operators are still left with considerable room for interpretation, and it is clear that they interpret the concept of excessive gambling very differently. This, in turn, affects when they consider intervention to be warranted,” says Maria Persson.

The researchers also find major differences in how far operators are prepared to go in fulfilling their duty of care. Some describe measures such as contacting gamblers with information about how to gamble “responsibly” and how to use responsible gambling tools. Others impose restrictions, set limits, or close accounts, with substantial differences in when such measures are taken.

In some cases, intervention may occur only after a gambler has mentioned mental health problems or self-harm, or after they have lost large sums of money. Some operators go further and focus on risks associated with the gambling products themselves, for example by removing features that allow automatic spins or introducing mandatory deposit limits.

From Regulatory Compliance to Prevention

According to the researchers, the results highlight that operators primarily interpret the duty of care through already established practices for “responsible gambling”. They argue that there is a risk that the statutory duty of care becomes a mere formality.

The study therefore points to the need for clearer regulation. In particular, it should be clearer what constitutes excessive gambling, including the types of harm gambling operators are expected to prevent, as well as which preventive measures they should take and when.

The researchers emphasise that gambling operators have the ability to monitor individuals’ gambling behaviour and intervene at an early stage. The issue is therefore also how operators themselves choose to interpret this responsibility.

A more preventive interpretation of duty of care would help shift responsibility for gambling-related harm away from individual gamblers and towards the gambling industry and the products offered, though this requires moving away from the concept of “responsible gambling”, where responsibility is placed on the individual, Maria Persson says.

“We need a stronger public health perspective that focuses not only on individual gambling behaviour, but also on how gambling products are designed and offered. The Swedish Gambling Authority has just circulated new instructions on the content of the duty of care action plans, amongst other things, which we at the Department of Public Health Sciences welcome,” she says. “At the same time, we see a risk that these instructions, like the previous ones, will leave licensed operators with considerable room for interpretation when it comes to defining excessive gambling and determining what measures should be taken.”

Håkan Soold