Compliance Updates
Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain
![Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain](https://europeangaming.eu/portal/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/gsgb-.png)
The guidance set out here is designed to help anyone who wishes to use data from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) to ensure it is reported correctly, this could include policy makers, academics, the gambling industry, the media, members of the public and any other interested users. It is produced in accordance with the Code of Practice for Statistics, Value 3.4 Clarity and Insight.
We have published this guidance because the official statistics from the GSGB are new and they are collected using a different methodology than previous official statistics. The guidance takes on board the recommendations from Professor Sturgis’s independent review of the GSGB and his analysis of the impact of the change in methodology.
We are aware that official statistics on gambling have previously been used in ways that they were not intended and, in some cases, the data was misused. Therefore it is important that users understand how the new official statistics from the GSGB can be used, what they should not be used for and where some caution should be applied. There are slightly different approaches for statistics relating to gambling participation and the consequences of gambling because of the smaller base sizes and greater margins of error for the statistics relating to the consequences of gambling.
Gambling participation
The GSGB can be used:
- to look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups
- to assess future trends and changes in gambling participation, measuring changes against the 2024 baseline
- to compare patterns in gambling participation for England, Scotland and Wales and regionally where sample sizes allow.
The GSGB can be used with some caution (until further work is completed):
- to provide estimates of gambling participation amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain
- to gross up gambling participation estimates for the whole population.
The GSGB should not be used to provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys.
Consequences of gambling
The GSGB can be used:
- to look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups
- to assess future trends and changes in consequences of gambling, measuring changes against the 2024 baseline
- to compare patterns in consequences of gambling for England, Scotland and Wales and regionally where sample sizes allow
- to describe the range of consequences that someone may experience as a result of someone’s own gambling and as a result of someone else’s gambling.
The GSGB can be used with some caution (until further work is completed):
- to provide estimates of Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain
- to provide estimates of the prevalence of consequences of gambling amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain.
The GSGB should not be used:
- to provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys
- as a measure of addiction to gambling
- to calculate an overall rate of gambling-related harm in Great Britain
- to gross up the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling to whole population (until further work is completed).
Comparability with previous surveys
Direct comparisons between the GSGB and previous surveys should not be used to assess trends over time
Due to differences in the way data for the GSGB is collected in comparison to prior gambling or health surveys, the GSGB is not directly comparable with results from previous surveys and direct comparisons should not be used to assess trends over time.
That said, some limited comparisons are useful to assess differences between study methodologies. All surveys are subject to a range of potential biases which may affect results. The GSGB, the prior health surveys and gambling surveys are no different.
The changes that have been made to the GSGB are outlined in the following table and include:
- collection mode
- questionnaire content
- age coverage.
Factor | Gambling Survey for Great Britain | Health Survey for England (HSE) | Quarterly Telephone Survey |
---|---|---|---|
Collection mode | Self completion: Push-to-web survey with paper-based alternative | Interviewer led with self completion elements: Face-to-face (gambling questions asked in a self completion module but with interviewer and other household members present) | Interviewer led: Telephone |
Questionnaire content | Gambling | Health | Gambling |
Age coverage | Adults aged 18 and over | Adults aged 16 and over | Adults aged 16 and over |
Sample size | 10,000 (Year 1) 20,000 (Year 2 onwards) |
7,100 (HSE 2018) | 4,000 per annum |
Response rate | 19% (Year 1) | 59% (HSE 2018) 36% (HSE 2022) |
Data currently unavailable |
Geographic breakdown | England, Wales and Scotland | England | England, Wales and Scotland |
The annual GSGB report will be published 25 July 2024 and will represent the first year of a new baseline, against which future annual data from the GSGB can be compared. Smaller and more frequent publications will be available on a quarterly basis based on the data collected in the previous wave only. These ‘wave specific’ publications can be used to compare wave on wave trends throughout the year.
Impact of new methodology
There is a risk that the GSGB may overstate some gambling behaviours and therefore estimates should be used with some caution.
Further investigation of the possible reasons for this is needed to better quantify the scale and direction of impact upon the GSGB estimates and until this is completed, the statistics relating to the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling should not be grossed up to whole population.
Whilst the move to a push-to-web survey was endorsed by Professor Patrick Sturgis in his independent review of the GSGB methodological approach and will enable to better detection and understanding of patterns and trends in gambling behaviour, he also urges due caution with the new statistics, “being mindful of the fact that there is a non-negligible risk that they substantially over state the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population”.
There are several potential reasons for this increase in PGSI estimates as outlined by Sturgis in his review. This may relate to the lower response rates that the push-to-web design achieves. People who gamble, and those who gamble more heavily, may be more likely to complete the GSGB than those who do not gamble. As PSGI scores are higher for those with more gambling engagement, a lower response rate, potentially over representing those who gamble, would serve to increase reported PGSI scores.
Alternatively, prior surveys may have under-estimated PGSI scores and/or underestimated online gambling behaviours as a result of socially desirable responding. Sturgis noted that “there [were] good grounds to suggest the presence of an interviewer (as used by the [British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS)] BGPS and [Health Survey] HS series) induces a downward bias on estimates of the prevalence of gambling harm”.
It may also be that PGSI scores have actually increased in the population over time. Online gambling is strongly associated with elevated PGSI scores and gross gambling yield from online gambling has increased substantially since 2018. These changes in the gambling market could affect the PSGI scores estimated in the survey. All these things could be true, either alone or in combination.
In summary, as Sturgis notes, the two studies which have investigated possible factors for these changes in estimates were unable to come to a definitive estimate about the magnitude of the errors, and therefore uncertainty remains around which estimates (the GSGB or prior studies) are closer to the truth. Further investigation of the possible reasons for this is needed to better quantify the scale and direction of impact upon the GSGB estimates and until this is completed, the statistics relating to the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling should not be grossed up to whole population.
Be careful reporting base numbers
Correctly reference whether statistics are based on all participants, or whether they are a subset of all participants such as people who have gambled in the last 12 months or participants who completed the online version of the survey.
The GSGB asks a range of questions some of which are applicable to all participants and some which are only applicable to people who have gambled.
Care should be taken when reporting statistics, particularly those relating to the PGSI to make sure you are correctly stating if the results are based on the views of all participants, or if they are based on people who have gambled. This is an area where we have previously seen misreporting.
This distinction is important as the first group includes people who have not gambled on any activity in the past year whereas the second group is based only on people who have gambled in the 12 months. In the report we have also included a third group which excludes people who have only taken part in lottery draws. This is because lotteries are so much more popular than any other form of gambling, so it can mask patterns of what’s going on with other types of gambling. For this reason, in the report we sometimes present findings excluding the people who have only taken part in a lottery draw and not taken part in any other type of gambling.
Through our stakeholder engagement we know that stakeholders are interested in multiple ways of presenting the data, for example at a population level including people who do not gamble and based on people who have gambled.
It is also worth noting that new questions in the GSGB about the wider consequences of gambling are all presented as a proportion of participants who have gambled in the past 12 months or as a proportion of participants who know someone close to them who gambles, so should be reported in this way. This is an example of how you should report the data:
“Of those who know someone close to them who gambles, x percent had experienced relationship breakdown because of someone else’s gambling.”
To ensure we can include all of the relevant content within the GSGB, core questions are asked on both the online and paper version of the survey whereas some topical or modular questions are only asked on the online version of the survey. The Commission will clearly label any statistics which are based on online responses only, and users should do the same.
Survey estimates
All surveys produce estimates rather than precise figures, users should be aware of confidence intervals.
The GSGB, in common with other surveys, collects information from a sample of the population. Consequently, statistics based on the survey are estimates, rather than precise figures, and are subject to a margin of error, also known as a 95 percent confidence interval. It would be expected that the true value of the statistic in the population would be within the range given by the 95 percent confidence interval in 95 cases out of 100. Confidence intervals are affected by the size of the sample on which the estimate is based. Generally, the larger the sample, the smaller the confidence interval, which results in a more precise estimate.
Confidence intervals should be taken into consideration by users, this is particularly true for PGSI estimates where base sizes can be small. We have provided confidence intervals for PGSI estimates within the data tables. Where differences are commented on in the annual report, these reflect the same degree of certainty that these differences are real, and not just within the margins of sampling error. These differences can be described as statistically significant.
Annual versus wave specific data
In a typical year there will be four wave specific publications from the GSGB plus an annual publication. Where possible, the annual data should be used as the priority with wave specific data being used when you want to look at patterns of gambling participation within a year, or where modular questions have only been asked in certain waves.
The GSGB collects data continuously throughout the year. Survey data will be available:
- on a quarterly basis via wave specific publications
- annually where data for the calendar year will be combined to provide a more detailed breakdown.
Annual datasets will be published to UK Data Service (opens new tab).
We recommend using annual data as the default as this will be based on a large sample size (10,000 in Year 1 and 20,000 from Year 2 onwards) and will allow for more analysis at sub population level. This is also how we will track trends over time. Annual publications will include findings on the consequences of gambling.
Wave specific data should be used if you need data for a specific time period, and to track trends or patterns within a calendar year. These publications will focus predominately on participation in gambling in that time period.
Language
Use a person centric approach when reporting statistics about gambling.
Do not stigmatise or victimise those people experiencing adverse consequences from gambling.
Do not describe PGSI as a measure of gambling addiction.
The language we use matters. People who gamble are defined by more than their actions when they gamble. That is why we recommend a “person-centric” or “person first” approach. Whilst taking this new approach may use more words, it is important in lowering stigma and barriers to people seeking help for gambling addiction.
For example, instead of writing “x percent of gamblers…”, you can write “x percent of people who gamble…”.
The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) consists of nine questions which measure both behavioural symptoms of gambling disorder and certain adverse consequences from gambling. The PGSI should not be confused with a measure of gambling addiction. More information on how the PGSI is measured can be found here.
Wider evidence base
The GSGB is one source of data in the Commission’s wider evidence base.
The Gambling Commission uses a range of data, research and insights to inform the decisions that we make and provide advice to the Government about gambling behaviour and the gambling market. To be the most effective regulator possible, we require a robust evidence base. The GSGB forms one source of evidence for our evidence base and should be considered alongside a wealth of other evidence and information which we use to fill our evidence gaps and priorities 2023 to 2026.
If statistics are used incorrectly
We encourage people to use our statistics to support understanding of important issues related to gambling.
We expect that anyone using our official statistics should present the data accurately and in accordance with the guidelines presented here. This includes ensuring that the data is not taken out of context, manipulated, or presented in a way that could materially mislead others.
Compliance Updates
The Danish Gambling Authority Has Had 79 Illegal Gambling Sites Blocked
![](https://europeangaming.eu/portal/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/3-2.jpg)
On 22 August 2024, the court in Frederiksberg ruled in favour of the Danish Gambling Authority to have 79 websites blocked that offered illegal gambling to Danes.
Among the blocked websites are sites that are particularly aimed at children and young people.
Every year, the Danish Gambling Authority blocks websites that offer gambling products and services to Danes without a licence. The blocks are an important part of the Danish Gambling Authority’s work to protect the players and at the same time ensure a fair and legal gambling market in Denmark.
In 2024, the Danish Gambling Authority has blocked the access to a total of 162 illegal websites that offer gambling to Danes. This is the highest number of blocks in a year so far. Since 2012, a total of 438 websites have been blocked so that they cannot be accessed via a Danish telecommunications provider.
The decision to block websites is made by the courts, and the Danish Gambling Authority has been in court twice this year to have illegal gambling sites blocked. In February, 83 pages were blocked.
The Danish Gambling Authority’s option to block access to the illegal sites is done via a so-called DNS block. This means that the connection between the player and the gambling provider’s website is blocked by the player’s telecommunications provider. If the user tries to access a blocked website, they are greeted by a page stating that the site is illegal and blocked by the Danish Gambling Authority.
“We know that some players will try to bypass the DNS blocks. Therefore, it is very important to us that the information you come across is clear and makes the players aware that they are trying to access a site without a licence. These sites do not have the same level of consumer protection and it can be very risky for a player to use them,” Anders Dorph, Director of the Danish Gambling Authority, said.
Sites without a licence from the Danish Gambling Authority do not necessarily meet the same requirements as sites with a licence, and therefore players do not get the same consumer protection and security on the illegal sites.
It is, for example, impossible to play on a site with a licence if you are under 18 or if you are registered with ROFUS (Register of Voluntarily Excluded Players).
The blocked sites offer different types of gambling such as online casino, online betting and skin betting.
In the latest block, three of the 79 sites contained a new type of skin betting. Here, players can, among other things, use “Robux” as stakes as well as win Robux which is the virtual currency in the computer game Roblox.
“We pay particular attention to this new type of site. Roblox is a game that is very popular among children and young people under the age of 18. Our children should not be introduced to gambling when they play video games, so I am very pleased that we have blocked access to these sites,” said Anders Dorph.
When the Danish Gambling Authority assesses that a website offers gambling illegally without a licence, the Danish Gambling Authority asks the gambling provider to stop the illegal offering. If they do not stop the offer, the telecommunications providers are asked to block their customers’ access to the websites. If this does not happen, the Danish Gambling Authority will proceed with the case and ask the district court to order the Danish telecommunications providers to block the websites.
In the past, only telecommunications providers with membership of the Teleindustrien have been involved in the Danish Gambling Authority’s blocking processes.
In this round of blocking, however, three telecommunications providers who are not members of the Teleindustrien have also blocked access to the illegal sites.
All three telecommunications providers have blocked access to websites with illegal gambling offerings that were part of this blocking process as well as websites covered by previous rulings.
“We are very happy that three more telecommunications providers have closed access. This ensures that even more players are protected from being able to access the illegal sites,” said Anders Dorph.
Compliance Updates
Google Updates Gambling Ad Policy for Germany
![](https://europeangaming.eu/portal/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/5-2.jpg)
Google has announced significant changes to its Gambling and games policy specifically for the German market. The update, set to take effect on September 25, 2024, introduces stricter requirements for gambling operators and brokers seeking to advertise on Google’s platforms in Germany. This policy revision aims to align Google’s advertising practices with German regulations and ensure compliance with local gambling laws.
According to the announcement, which came exactly one month before the implementation date, only gambling operators and brokers licensed by the Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) will be eligible to apply for advertising certification for gambling products outlined in Google’s Gambling and games policy. The GGL, which translates to the Joint Gambling Authority of the German Federal States, is the central regulatory body overseeing gambling activities in Germany.
This policy update represents a significant shift in Google’s approach to gambling advertisements in the German market. Previously, a broader range of gambling-related services could potentially advertise on Google’s platforms. However, with the new policy, applications from advertisers of online gambling services who do not meet the GGL licensing criteria will no longer be accepted. This change extends to services offering gambling aggregation, such as websites that link to multiple offers from different operators on their landing pages.
The implications of this policy update are far-reaching for the online gambling industry in Germany. Existing certifications for services that do not meet the new criteria will be revoked on the policy’s effective date, September 25, 2024. This revocation will prevent these services from running gambling ads targeted at the German market through Google’s advertising platforms.
To understand the full impact of this policy change, it’s essential to delve into the technical aspects of Google’s advertising ecosystem. Google Ads, the primary platform for advertisers to reach Google’s vast user base, operates on a complex system of policies and certifications. The Gambling and games policy is a crucial component of this system, designed to ensure that gambling-related advertisements comply with local laws and regulations.
The certification process for gambling advertisers on Google involves several steps. Advertisers must first ensure they meet the eligibility requirements for their specific country or region. With the new policy update, this eligibility in Germany will be directly tied to GGL licensing. Once eligibility is confirmed, advertisers must complete an application process, which includes providing detailed information about their gambling operations and licenses.
Google’s policy update reflects the evolving regulatory landscape of online gambling in Germany. The country has implemented stricter controls on online gambling in recent years, culminating in the establishment of the GGL as a centralised regulatory authority. This move towards centralised regulation aims to create a more consistent and controlled environment for online gambling across all German states.
The policy change also highlights the challenges faced by multinational technology companies in navigating diverse regulatory environments across different countries. Google, as a global platform, must balance its business interests with compliance with local laws and regulations. This often results in country-specific policy updates, as seen in this case for Germany.
For gambling operators and advertisers, the policy update necessitates a reevaluation of their digital marketing strategies in the German market. Those without GGL licensing will need to explore alternative advertising channels or pursue licensing if they wish to continue advertising on Google’s platforms. This could potentially lead to a shift in the competitive landscape of online gambling advertising in Germany.
It’s worth noting that Google’s policy update aligns with broader trends in digital advertising regulation, particularly in sensitive sectors like gambling. Regulatory bodies and technology platforms are increasingly focused on ensuring that online advertisements for gambling services are responsible and comply with local laws.
The timing of this announcement, coming exactly 30 days before the implementation date, provides a window for affected advertisers to adjust their strategies. However, given the complexity of obtaining gambling licenses, this timeline may pose challenges for operators not already in the process of securing GGL licensing.
Google’s policy update also raises questions about the future of gambling advertising on other digital platforms. As major tech companies often follow similar regulatory trends, it’s possible that other advertising platforms may implement comparable policies in the German market or other jurisdictions with strict gambling regulations.
From a technical standpoint, the implementation of this policy will likely involve updates to Google’s ad review systems.
Compliance Updates
Swedish Regulator Gets Increased Powers for Online Gambling Intervention
![](https://europeangaming.eu/portal/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/5-1.jpg)
The Swedish government has confirmed that its gambling regulator, Spelinspektionen, has been granted further control over licensees.
As a result of the intervention, the Spelinspektionen will be enabled to directly step in when it feels necessary with cases of excessive online gambling.
The government in the region said: “This decision represents a tightening of efforts against gambling problems and strengthens consumer protection.”
It enhances the control and governance of the regulator as it can now set the license holders’ action plans aimed at combating excessive gambling.
Starting from 1 October, Spelinspektionen will have the authority to modify the action plans of individual licensees to meet duty of care requirements.
The Gambling Act requires Swedish online gambling operators to have an action plan that outlines their duty of care procedures, protocols and routines.
However, Spelinspektionen informed the government that its oversight revealed significant differences in how licensees’ action plans protect customers from excessive gambling.
In response, Spelinspektionen requested the power to set specific requirements for these action plans. It emphasised that “all license holders should clearly describe in their action plans their guidelines for gambling responsibility and how these are to be implemented.”
Minister of Financial Markets Niklas Wykman, supporting the expanded powers for Spelinspektionen, added: “There must be order in the gaming market. The new requirement should lead to more detailed action plans, making it clear how gambling companies take responsibility for counteracting gambling-related risks.
“This strengthens Spelinspektionen’s ability to prevent people from being affected by the negative aspects of gambling.”
-
Industry News5 days ago
Gaming Innovation Group welcomes Andreas Söneby to the GiG Platform Board
-
Asia5 days ago
BETBY STRENGHTENS 4RABET PARTNERSHIP WITH STRATEGIC AGREEMENT FOR ASIA EXPANSION
-
Gambling in the USA5 days ago
Gaming Americas Weekly Roundup – August 26-September 1
-
Asia5 days ago
Skyesports Unveils 2025 CS2 Esports Roadmap With INR 14.68 Crore Prize Pool: Four Events Set To Take Place In India.
-
Eastern Europe5 days ago
EGT Digital at Entertainment Arena Expo 2024: All roads lead to the company’s stand
-
Latest News5 days ago
Spinomenal scores new deal with 711
-
Africa5 days ago
Amusnet Announces Strategic Partnership with BetFounders
-
Balkans5 days ago
EGT is ready for another memorable Entertainment Arena Expo show