In a blog post on Wednesday the Gambling Commission (UKGC) provided further details into the data gathered from its financial risk assessments (FRAs) pilot, carried out between 2024 and 2025.
Senior executives Helen Rhodes and Sarah Webster highlighted deficiencies in ID verification practices by gambling operators, which had undermined the pilot.
They also worsened consumer experience by increasing friction, complaints and regulatory risks.
The Commission revealed in its blog that failures during customer onboarding, specifically the collection of incomplete or inaccurate personal details, were a key reason why some customers could not be matched to credit reference agency records during the FRAs pilot.
The Commission deemed such matching as essential to the pilot’s goal of delivering a ‘frictionless’ financial risk assessment.
The rollout of the FRAs will be phased, with the Commission confirming the timeline for phase one following further engagement with the industry over the summer.
Why the failures?
The pilot depended on the ability of operators to verify customer identities accurately against third-party data sources. Where matching failed, customers were categorised as ‘unmatched’ and thereby subjected to more cumbersome assessment processes.
Although unmatched cases only represented a small minority, the Commission analysed these instances closely and uncovered recurring issues.
These included the use of initials instead of full names and nicknames replacing legal forenames. It also included the submission of commercial rather than residential addresses.
These inaccuracies not only reduced matching success but also served to impair the effectiveness of key protections such as GAMSTOP. It also elevated the risk of fraud and money laundering.
Importance of the update
The update provided further information on the data from the Commission’s 2024 FRA pilot scheme. Tim Miller, outgoing executive director of the Gambling Commission, confirmed at iGBLive that further updates on the data would not be made available until September.
Industry leaders and other connected sectors have hit back at the checks described them as “self-harm on an immense scale”.
Various stakeholders have urged the Commission to publish its full data report from the pilot scheme. Grainne Hurst, CEO of the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), expressed frustration that a full evaluation of the scheme had not been released, despite the Gambling Commission formally announcing the introduction of the full scheme.
“The Commission has yet to publish a full evaluation of the pilot, so neither the industry nor the public has seen the evidence needed to justify introducing these checks,” she noted. “These checks cannot be described as genuinely frictionless if they produce unreliable outcomes.”
Reminding customers
The Commission has reminded operators that under Licence Condition 17, they must verify that a customer exists. This includes that name, address and date of birth all match the same individual before permitting gambling.
According to the blog, more than 25% of complaints received by the Commission’s Contact Centre relate to identity verification problems. This remains a leading cause of disputes escalated to Alternative Dispute Resolution services.
A reactive approach
Casework overseen by the regulator indicates a persistent industry issue where identity flags and financial risk alerts are only investigated at the point of withdrawal. The Commission criticised the deferring verification until withdrawal requests for causing customer frustration and contributing to complaints.
This reactive approach not only increased customer friction but also risked contravening licence conditions and anti-money laundering legislation.
The Commission emphasised that it does not expect enhanced due diligence on every customer at registration. It did, however, urge operators to apply robust checks to verify unique identities.




