Is player protection fair to casinos or too much responsibility?

[Questat]

Now I understand what player protection really means. I thought it was just some compliance wording that players agree to in the TOS, but in countries that strictly regulate the gambling industry, it is actually something serious. According to the news, some gamblers were already showing risky behavior, like staking huge amounts and gambling for hours. That could already be a sign that the gambler is losing control, so the casino or betting platform should have stepped in and tried to stop or limit the player before it got worse.

This was posted 5 months ago, but i just want to talk about this "player protection", so we all understand this.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/17/paddy-power-betfair-settlement-failing-to-protect-users-gambling-commission

Paddy Power and Betfair have reached a £2m settlement with the gambling industry regulator over social responsibility failings, including allowing one customer to bet for nearly eight hours solid.

It is quite tricky though, because normally casinos would not want to stop a gambler who keeps betting, since they are also after profit. But in these regulated countries, there are actually laws that require them to protect players, not just take their money. So if someone is gambling irresponsibly in that country, can they complain against the casino for not stopping them when they were clearly betting in a reckless way? Is this kind of rule really fair to the casino, or is it just part of the responsibility they accept when they operate in a strictly regulated market?

Just wondering, because this is a very different view of gambling compared to places where casinos mostly leave players on their own.

[Cointxz]

Physical casino has strict implementation of responsible gambling because regulators are very strict when it comes to cases related to this. They have a lot to lose compared to online casino that can setup another website with different brand later on.

Also, it’s easier to file lawsuit on physical casino compared to online casino that has license provider from Curacao and Anjouan so they usually comply as much as possible to avoid legal issue that will damage their reputation.

Some online casino that regulated properly such as US and EU regulators have strict implementation too.

[Ruttoshi]

I believe that it's part of the responsibility that they accepted during the time of regulation. But the fact is that, most casinos don't abide to the law and they allow gamblers to gamble recklessly because they want to make more money.

I believe that majority of gamblers don't know that they can sue a casino for this reason if not, some would have done it. Sometimes, the body in charge of monitoring the casinos that they abide to the strict regulations are only after their pockets. If the casino gives them fat envelopes, everything is going smoothly.

[Questat]

Physical casino has strict implementation of responsible gambling because regulators are very strict when it comes to cases related to this. They have a lot to lose compared to online casino that can setup another website with different brand later on.

I don’t believe that, because many times I made some stupid bets like chasing my losses and ended up losing big, but I never heard from a casino rep advising me to chill out.

They did not intervene or block my account temporarily either.
I think it depends on the regulators, not the casino, because if regulators are strict then casinos will comply.

Also, it’s easier to file lawsuit on physical casino compared to online casino that has license provider from Curacao and Anjouan so they usually comply as much as possible to avoid legal issue that will damage their reputation.

Some online casino that regulated properly such as US and EU regulators have strict implementation too.

That's what the news is all about, its regulated in EU so its more strict.

I believe that it's part of the responsibility that they accepted during the time of regulation. But the fact is that, most casinos don't abide to the law and they allow gamblers to gamble recklessly because they want to make more money.

I believe that majority of gamblers don't know that they can sue a casino for this reason if not, some would have done it. Sometimes, the body in charge of monitoring the casinos that they abide to the strict regulations are only after their pockets. If the casino gives them fat envelopes, everything is going smoothly.

That is an exception, because even if the rules are good, if those who will implement the rules are corrupt then it will never be implemented fairly.
But in the UK or US, I don’t think it will happen.

[Cointxz]

Physical casino has strict implementation of responsible gambling because regulators are very strict when it comes to cases related to this. They have a lot to lose compared to online casino that can setup another website with different brand later on.

I don’t believe that, because many times I made some stupid bets like chasing my losses and ended up losing big, but I never heard from a casino rep advising me to chill out.

They did not intervene or block my account temporarily either.
I think it depends on the regulators, not the casino, because if regulators are strict then casinos will comply.

You know that casino will not intervene just because of losing streak since that’s very common on every gambler and it’s the only way casino made some profit.

I don’t know what’s the full extent of the regulator rules in there but probably they have a limit and specifics on how to determine problematic gambler.

How much you are wagering when you chase lose? The story you attached is showing a high roller bet for a small time frame.

[freedomgo]

That is an exception, because even if the rules are good, if those who will implement the rules are corrupt then it will never be implemented fairly.
But in the UK or US, I don’t think it will happen.

Because these are not corrupt countries, or safe to say the corruption is lower compared to other countries.

So that is the reason why most casinos do not acquire licenses from these countries, because they know the regulation is strict, the capital requirement is high, and the document requirements are also heavy. While there are other license providers that offer easy processing and documentation, the problem is if they acquire it there, the oversight is low and therefore player protection is not implemented well.

So it is just up to us if we will be careless in gambling, or we will be responsible enough to avoid getting addicted.

[YOSHIE]

Is player protection fair to casinos or too much responsibility? 

As far as I know, before a gambling license is issued, they must be responsible for several points, such as player protection, game fairness, guaranteed legality for players, But on the other hand, it's a different story, even though each casino must be responsible for fair protection and liability, negative things still happen that players don't want.

So, here who is at fault, the casino or the player, we understand that casinos have official Certificates from official authorities, to comply with legal standards as I mentioned above, in my judgment any legally valid casino what is in the official License rules is not a burden or excessive for them, Casinos should prioritize loyalty to players and be responsible for all of that.

[Questat]

Physical casino has strict implementation of responsible gambling because regulators are very strict when it comes to cases related to this. They have a lot to lose compared to online casino that can setup another website with different brand later on.

I don’t believe that, because many times I made some stupid bets like chasing my losses and ended up losing big, but I never heard from a casino rep advising me to chill out.

They did not intervene or block my account temporarily either.
I think it depends on the regulators, not the casino, because if regulators are strict then casinos will comply.

You know that casino will not intervene just because of losing streak since that’s very common on every gambler and it’s the only way casino made some profit.

I don’t know what’s the full extent of the regulator rules in there but probably they have a limit and specifics on how to determine problematic gambler.

How much you are wagering when you chase lose? The story you attached is showing a high roller bet for a small time frame.

Huge amount on my part, but maybe not huge for other people since we all have different financial standings in life. But the loss could really impact me and they did not intervene, maybe because it was an overseas casino and I have not heard of them doing something like that.

I don’t know how they will determine it, but for a casino to agree with the rules of the regulators, they should know from the very start how to spot a problematic gambler and it should already be embedded in their system as a requirement. But like I said, it could only work in those countries with strict implementation, not in countries where the implementation is lax.

[Wakate]

Regulators could see this as serious offense and that is why the casino that is involved decided to settle the case before it becomes serious. It is unfortunate that many casinos do not care about gmablers spending hours on there platforms gambling frequently without restricting them to reduce how often they have to be betting every day.

[Dunamisx]

Now I understand what player protection really means. I thought it was just some compliance wording that players agree to in the TOS, but in countries that strictly regulate the gambling industry, it is actually something serious. According to the news, some gamblers were already showing risky behavior, like staking huge amounts and gambling for hours. That could already be a sign that the gambler is losing control, so the casino or betting platform should have stepped in and tried to stop or limit the player before it got worse.

I won't dispute this that it is happening, but how many casino can we see in making decision to take effect on it happening, when everyone is being concerned about how they could gain traffic and encourage gamblers to gamble the more.

Secondly, on what basis are we going to assume that the gambler is already losing control or being intentional about how he is gambling, because, that he uses huge amount of money to gamble does not mean that he is not in his best mental position to gamble or losing control over gambling as a result of addiction, there is no cognitive measure to use as why such Gambler should be prevented from gambling and established a fact about his behavior.

[mindrust]

It is not casinos responsibility to keep players away from gambling. It is oxymoron. How about alcohol and tobacco companies? Would they spend money so people drink and smoke less? It doesn't make any sense. If people want to harm themselves they will do that, nobody can stop them. But those harmful habits are not that harmful if you don't get addicted to them. Say I smoke only once a month, that can't do too much harm on my body. Same with gambling. If you gamble occasionally, you won't go bankrupt.

[Pandu Geddon]

Is this kind of rule really fair to the casino, or is it just part of the responsibility they accept when they operate in a strictly regulated market?

What can an online casino really do in a case like that? Punish customers who bet recklessly by freezing their accounts? Gamblers might just switch to another casino to keep playing. 
Even though that rule exists, I don't think the casino should be blamed in a case like that. It's not about business profit, I think it has more to do with a person's mindset.

[xenomorfo]

It is not casinos responsibility to keep players away from gambling. It is oxymoron. How about alcohol and tobacco companies? Would they spend money so people drink and smoke less? It doesn't make any sense. If people want to harm themselves they will do that, nobody can stop them. But those harmful habits are not that harmful if you don't get addicted to them. Say I smoke only once a month, that can't do too much harm on my body. Same with gambling. If you gamble occasionally, you won't go bankrupt.

Exactly, that's their job, offering games.
It would be like saying that the innkeeper has to ensure that people don't get drunk, it doesn't make any sense.
The players must set themselves limits, the most obvious and wisest thing at the same time.

Unfortunately that's how it works.

[Hispo]

It is quite tricky, because even if in those regulated countries casinos are supposed to have some responsibility on the protection of their costumers/gamblers, it is also true that each one of those people have the right to do whatever they have with their money though.

This is the kind of regulation on gambling which I would never expect to see in countries in which individual freedom and choices are held as a priority by government, like in the United States, where it does not manner whether you show signs of serious addiction to gambling, you can continue gambling away all your salary with nobody stopping you from doing so.

When suing a casino claiming the house did not stop one is not a valid point when comes to USA and most of the western gambling regulation.

[Hatchy]

Just wondering, because this is a very different view of gambling compared to places where casinos mostly leave players on their own.

We might not have seen such cases but it's most likely going to happen because we do have similar cases with online casinos, where players after requesting to have their account blocked but the casino failed to do that and now they lost more money to gambling.  In such countries where there's regulations, I would assume that if the gambler files a case against the casino then he might be able to win but it depends. The only reason the casino would fail to do their duty in such regulated cases would be because they don't want to lose profits or their customers. It basically would be a major setback for their business and if they have to send every player away because of excessive gambling, then players might refuse to return to play on their casino..

[DiMarxist]

My question is the said money that is been fined to the company will it be given to the customers,  talking about the gambler's. If the money is not given to the real people who were affected by the unregulated manner in which the casino operated, I don't see the essence of the fine. But looking at this case holistically I feel that the gambling regulatory commission in this case, acted too harsh if you ask me. No casino will point a gun to any of their customers to place more slips, and continue to top up money to play it all clearly a matter of choice.

[Dunamisx]

I doubt if majority of the casinos will make move to restrict gamblers from gambling irrespective of the condition that is attached, every Gambler is expected to be responsible for their actions and the casinos are not enforcing us in making decision or to gamble at all cause, but everyone is deciding on how he gambles and to the extent or length at which gambling takes place, so I don't think it's a good idea for the casinos to restrict gamblers irrespective of the condition within.

[robelneo]

So if someone is gambling irresponsibly in that country, can they complain against the casino for not stopping them when they were clearly betting in a reckless way? Is this kind of rule really fair to the casino, or is it just part of the responsibility they accept when they operate in a strictly regulated market?

Just wondering, because this is a very different view of gambling compared to places where casinos mostly leave players on their own.

We don't have this kind of law in our country; whether it's an online or offline casino, players are left on their own, and the casinos just remind their players to play responsibly, all the actions depend on the responsibility of the players, maybe because the casinos are being run by the government and the government is the winner here if gambler is losing a lot of money or playing iresponsibly.

[Cryptomultiplier]

Is player protection fair to casinos or too much responsibility? 

As far as I know, before a gambling license is issued, they must be responsible for several points, such as player protection, game fairness, guaranteed legality for players, But on the other hand, it's a different story, even though each casino must be responsible for fair protection and liability, negative things still happen that players don't want.

So, here who is at fault, the casino or the player, we understand that casinos have official Certificates from official authorities, to comply with legal standards as I mentioned above, in my judgment any legally valid casino what is in the official License rules is not a burden or excessive for them, Casinos should prioritize loyalty to players and be responsible for all of that.

Are you guys aware that a player can actually sue a casino for not restricting them from gambling so much to no foreseeable end?

Yes, because in a country like the Netherlands and UK and even Germany, licensed casinos have the right of duty of care and player protection which is quite different from what the players agreed to in the TOS.

These legal casinos owe it to the customers to regulate their playtime and bankroll so as they don't overspend both time and money and feel guilty at the end of the day, all because the casino wants to make more money at the detriment of the gamblers.

You may see it not as fair to the casino platforms, but they can be fined huge amounts for the mistake of not helping gamblers gain control over their gambling habits which has somehow gotten out of hand.

[Stepstowealth]

can they complain against the casino for not stopping them when they were clearly betting in a reckless way? Is this kind of rule really fair to the casino,

I think as it is common with many gamblers to always look for someone to blame, casinos will always be at the receiving end of blames in countries where there are regulations for casino to be interested in protecting players from becoming serious addicts. Players will take advantage in most cases, but they will not win in all cases. I think there will be rules that guide against players taking advantage of casinos and there will be strong criteria to fault a casino for negligence on that social responsibility.