Who should adjudicate on disputes?

IBAS was pleased to be invited to participate in the Player Protection debates at the SBC Summit in Lisbon; a gambling industry event featuring an impressive range of topics and speakers. Our invitation related to a Panel Discussion on gambling disputes and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Our Chairman, Andrew Fraser agreed to take part. The theme of the session was: ‘Who should adjudicate on disputes? Should that body be responsible for resolving all gambling disputes, from minor disagreements, disputes about data provision, complex terms and conditions issues and player safety failures?’

Andrew set out the advantages of a single body handling disputes in terms of consistent decisions with detailed explanations, in line with IBAS’s current approach. There is anecdotal evidence that not all ADR services with a focus on the international gambling industry take the same rigorous approach; he also outlined the concern that IBAS has historically lost some UK-licensed operators to schemes which seemed at times to challenge fewer areas of concern in operator practice and deliver relatively operator-friendly outcomes. This is sometimes referred to as ‘ADR shopping’ and is one of the reasons why, in the UK and Ireland, the Ombudsman Association supports the principle of one ombudsman or ADR provider per sector.

Andrew explained that there was no good reason why a single body for disputes could not consider all aspects of a complaint and reach an holistic view. IBAS has expressed a willingness to tackle the challenging but important and currently neglected area of ‘social responsibility’ disputes; but in the UK this is prevented by the existing rules for gambling ADR providers.

Should this change, as recommended by the Government’s Gambling Reform White Paper (April 2023) , Andrew stressed that IBAS stood ready with transition plans and the expertise needed to extend its service to provide independent review of complaints that currently are left unscrutinised.