Is player protection fair to casinos or too much responsibility?

[JiiBs]

[/size]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?

I find this to be a very tricky one;

Given the human behaviour where, should the casino had stepped in some point, the gambler would feel they just want to keep him from winning which was eventually coming by and the gambler would bring up issues like them being comfortable with him having to loss and didn’t interfere in time and just when his close to start winning, they start getting involved.

There would be more of these kind of propaganda

Then again, you wouldn’t know what a gamblers wallet is like, whom they are in life and what their bank size would be so, to go about trying to interfere with a gamblers betting patterns can result in the gambler having what to say in court against the casino.

Either way, the Casino gets to be in trouble and that doesn’t seem really fair to them.

[AmoreJaz]

Sounds very much in line with government type regulation and oversight, guardrails they would frame it as but also its counter intuitive.
    One part where it does make sense is you want the best experience for customers.  Playing while tired etc. is not going to turn out to be a good experience so encouraging people not to over do it could be justified by a general sense of respecting the long term health of players.  To some extent it does make for good business to keep people within a reasonable line of usage so that they keep coming back not burn out over doing it.

It depends on the level of player's protection per se. Because the site can only do so much for its players. But the players have their own prerogative to follow thru with their set boundaries.

[Free Market Capitalist]

It depends on the level of player's protection per se. Because the site can only do so much for its players. But the players have their own prerogative to follow thru with their set boundaries.

That’s the problem. I’m all for responsible gaming measures—they need to be implemented, and all casinos should do so. We don’t want the cases mentioned in the OP to happen. But as you say, the casino can only do so much; ultimately, the gambler also bears some responsibility.

You can self-exclude yourself from a site, and even if that site works as it should and prevents you from playing for a set period of time, nothing stops the player from depositing at another site and losing a lot of money there.

At land-based casinos, these measures work at least on a national level as far as I know, but online, you can always find another place to deposit and gamble.

[Darker45]

I think it's just fair for casinos to implement a maximum number of hours per session. 8 hours straight is obviously too much. A casino following strict regulations could have easily implemented such limit. And I'm sure the casino mentioned here isn't penalized over something they aren't even aware of. If they're really compliant, they should know it's something they shouldn't have allowed.

In fairness, this doesn't take away the player's responsibility. The individual user has responsibilities but so are the casinos. Otherwise, gamblers would be gambling all day long down to their last penny without anybody stopping them.

[Insanity]

Player protection is a delicate subject because what the casinos are obligated to prevent is actually what they love to see in their platform because that is how they make more profits.  It requires strict regulation and enforcement for the casinos to act when they see a player showing signs of addiction which is why the topic is difficult to address. In unregulated casinos, such term are just formalities because the casinos don't act when they notice a player going astray. They will only act when the player uses options like self exclusion and by then they will admit knowledge of a troubled player.

Are those laws really active and enforced, or are they all just written up in agreement papers? If they are really active and enforced when necessary, we should not be having records of addicted gamblers losing money to casinos from time to time without that law making the casino step in and stop them, or are only unregulated casinos the ones harbouring addicted players?

I feel that in many markets, player protection laws are not just a reality, they actually work, but they're not strong enough to protect every gambler from gambling addiction. While casinos are able to track problematic gambling, provide self-exclusion options and promote responsible gambling. The player still has the ultimate say in their decisions. The problem is that the addiction to gambling may be a lingering problem that doesn't become noticeable until substantial losses have been suffered. While regulated casino operators are less of a worry, unregulated casinos are a larger danger due to their limited responsibilities.

[maydna]

They can complain casino doesn't responsibility to their customer, allow them gambling for too long. But the real problem come from the gamblers. Why they gamble for too long and spend too much money?

Gamblers will be reckless if they do that and shot the blame to the casino, pretending the mistake from casino allow them to keep gambling. But if casino following the regulations and stop gamblers playing too long, they will not get a problem as they following the rules while gamblers not.

The case will point out the gamblers because they can't responsible to their gambling habit. They losing controls and should get punishment by prohibiting them enter to any casino.

[viljy]

If you look at this regulation objectively, it's just a restriction of human rights. It's one thing if a gambler, for example, has declared self-exclusion. It is quite another matter to determine when a gambler should be restricted. That is, in fact, the regulator forces the casino to assume the functions of a guardian and limit the legal capacity of a gambler according to not very strict criteria. But in general, only a court can limit a person's legal capacity. So strict regulation is a double-edged sword. This is always a violation of the basic rights of the individual.

On the other hand, indulging the claims of deeply addicted gamblers in terms of accusing the casino of allowing such a gambler to lose (hardly any will complain about the winnings) serves as the foundation for fraudulent lawsuits. The problem lies precisely in the vagueness of the criteria. Perhaps regulation was created in this form intentionally in order to make money from such "agreements". In fact, regulation is a hidden tax, a sword of Damocles. In fact, I believe that officials from the regulator are completely indifferent to the state of mental health of gamblers.

[rojan]

They can complain casino doesn't responsibility to their customer, allow them gambling for too long. But the real problem come from the gamblers. Why they gamble for too long and spend too much money?

Gamblers will be reckless if they do that and shot the blame to the casino, pretending the mistake from casino allow them to keep gambling. But if casino following the regulations and stop gamblers playing too long, they will not get a problem as they following the rules while gamblers not.

The case will point out the gamblers because they can't responsible to their gambling habit. They losing controls and should get punishment by prohibiting them enter to any casino.

I believe that protection of the player is important but it shouldn't take away any responsibility of personal accountability off the gambler. It is the adult's choice to gamble, and each adult must know how to manage their bankroll, how to set limits and when to stop playing. If players exceed those limits and they lose money. It is not a casino fault. Casinos should also ensure adherence to casino regulations and offer responsible gambling features like self-exclusion, deposit limits. And cooling-off periods. Don't forget that it takes effort from both sides to create a fair system. Player protection should complement, rather than take the place of, player responsibility.

[Julien_Olynpic]

Here, the casino finds itself in a very difficult position. On the one hand, it's clear that the casino wants to maximize its profits. Therefore, it's in their best interest to have players behave as irresponsibly as possible. But overall, there needs to be some kind of harmonious, consensual solution that satisfies all parties. Obviously, playing for eight hours straight and placing huge bets is a sign of mental instability. But I believe that casinos and bookmakers that adhere to slightly more socially responsible policies have a better chance of surviving in the long term.

[noorman0]

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?

This should be a priority regulatory measure, and from any perspective, it's perfectly fair. Casinos understand that every user is bound by player protections under any regulatory framework, even if in practice, these protections are merely formalities without any concrete legal enforcement. . The reason player protection regulations are rarely enforced is because most cases involve small amounts.

[yahoo62278]

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.

Personally I feel like a person should be responsible for themselves and an establishment shouldn't have to worry about policing their patrons. Unfortunately that's not the way it works in some industries. Take a bar for example, if a bartender serves a person too much alcohol and that person leaves and say gets in a car wreck that kills a person. The bartender can be charged for overserving the customer and potentially be held responsible for the death of the person in the crash.

I don't 100% agree with either scenario but I also don't make the laws. The establishments should be aware of the laws if they are going to operate their business.

[TedMosby]

IIRC, a few months ago, there was a thread about a user that wanted to activate this responsible gaming [1] thing. So this user wanted to use the self-exclusion [2] feature because he thought gambling was already harmful to him and he wanted support to stop gambling. Usually, the user's account will be frozen, and the user can't log in in any way. However, the casino seems to have failed to fulfill the user's request about it and ended up with the user still being able to log in, play, and lose thousands of dollars again.

Not sure if the case has been resolved or not, because I can't access the thread anymore. In this case, IMO, the casino can be sued if the user already requested it in the right way, especially if the casino clearly states about the responsible gaming and self-exclusion on their website.

I actually didn't know before that responsible gaming works for both sides. I thought it only applied to the user.

For people who are not familiar with it...

Responsible gaming refers to the practice of gambling in a way that minimizes the potential negative effects that gambling can have on individuals and society. This includes recognizing and managing the risks associated with gambling, as well as promoting safe and healthy gambling practices.

However, I also think users can do everything they want if they are already addicted to gambling, like registering themselves on other casino platforms. Even if game providers block them, they can still find decentralized gambling platforms. CMIIW.

Source:
[1] https://www.acgcs.org/articles/responsible-gaming-what-it-is-and-what-casinos-need-to-do
[2] https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/public-and-players/page/self-exclusion

[mirakal]

In this case, IMO, the casino can be sued if the user already requested it in the right way, especially if the casino clearly states about the responsible gaming and self-exclusion on their website.

I actually didn't know before that responsible gaming works for both sides. I thought it only applied to the user.

How is the process for this? If it is a request through email or from the website itself, that is not automatic approval, so as long as the gambler can still access the account as normal, it means the request was not granted yet.

I have this casino I am using now, it is a local casino and it is direct to the point, I just click self-exclusion, choose 1 year, and then I cannot gamble anymore, maybe that is the kind of self-exclusion feature that should be implemented since it is automatic.

[Ishicryptic]

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?

This should be a priority regulatory measure, and from any perspective, it's perfectly fair. Casinos understand that every user is bound by player protections under any regulatory framework, even if in practice, these protections are merely formalities without any concrete legal enforcement. . The reason player protection regulations are rarely enforced is because most cases involve small amounts.

I think that the bulk responsibility lies on the gamblers because they are the ones that the regulations are trying to protect, what the casino and a government signs is just paperwork if a government doesn't know about a casino breaching their agreement and there is nothing they can do.

A casino might decide to allow a Moneybagg that is losing heavily to continue because they are making profit off him even though that they know that they are going against the regulations. If such a gambler is ignorant of such restrictions or he doesn't care it means that the government won't know about it. Except maybe there is somehow that the government would be monitoring the activities of the casinos in their country.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

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.

I don't know very much how gamblers protection works in online casinos, I only read that mostly in terms and conditions but do not understand or know how it works, but I've seen the user's protection rule on full action and enforcement on physical casinos, where a player played for more than five hours and betting all along, the casino security got the report and had to send the user away and banned him from entering the casino for two days.

Another incident I read was a player who won over $500k from playing slot, after the whole celebration and all, the casino paid him but instead of going home to celebrate with his family, he sat and continued gambling until the who money was gone, the casino upon this discovery set the user out and banned him from ever entering to gamble on that casino again, this they did because according to the law, if the government or regulatory body learns about the incident and saw that the casino took no serious action on the player, the casino might get in serious trouble.

So, gamblers protection is actually a responsibility of the casino and it's one every casino sign up for so long as they are in the business, but I doubt if online casinos actually does enforce this.

[Awaklara]

I think that the bulk responsibility lies on the gamblers because they are the ones that the regulations are trying to protect, what the casino and a government signs is just paperwork if a government doesn't know about a casino breaching their agreement and there is nothing they can do.

A casino might decide to allow a Moneybagg that is losing heavily to continue because they are making profit off him even though that they know that they are going against the regulations. If such a gambler is ignorant of such restrictions or he doesn't care it means that the government won't know about it. Except maybe there is somehow that the government would be monitoring the activities of the casinos in their country.

That should be doable through a bank transaction mutation. But still, I'm sure no government is going to deal with that. The most reasonable reason is when gamblers sue casinos over those rules. If there's none, then the government won't consider anything. And the casino will still make its profits. Gamblers have to protect themselves, including self-control, so they don’t go crazy with the game.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

The issue is that casino taking this as responsibility will be difficult, even if they do not as much as a gambler need to protect himself, because the sole called purpose is to make profit, they won't be to protective to restrict you from not spending where them will make their money, everyone that gamble is meant to have some personal protection never to be allowed to be addicted to the system because depending on the casino to take the responsibility is like cutting down their ways of making their profit except it's solely in ground of not revealing ones personal that but on stopping gambling not to continue after several losses is impossible.

[sompitonov]

The issue is that casino taking this as responsibility will be difficult, even if they do not as much as a gambler need to protect himself, because the sole called purpose is to make profit, they won't be to protective to restrict you from not spending where them will make their money, everyone that gamble is meant to have some personal protection never to be allowed to be addicted to the system because depending on the casino to take the responsibility is like cutting down their ways of making their profit except it's solely in ground of not revealing ones personal that but on stopping gambling not to continue after several losses is impossible.

Of course, casinos are just trying, but it's best to think about your own protection and try to improve it to limit your losses in the game. It's also important to understand that we will always want more and more in the game, so we need to work on our mental gameplay. Otherwise, we can start to suffer from depression when wagering and losing money, which is beyond our control. Frankly, I don't really want the casino to take care of me, because I can take care of myself.

[swogerino]

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.

Even in unregulated countries one time in a crypto casino I deposited ten times in a row and lost it all, when trying to deposit for the 11th time then the casino popped up a message to me saying "maybe it is time to take a break, you played long enough for today and reached daily deposit limit" so this mechanism of stopping compulsive gambling is also in online casinos that have their licenses abroad like in Curacao for example. Still though when the gambler wants to play he goes to another casino and start over, there is no player protection here.

[cryptoaddictchie]

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

Im wondering if this player protection works in the Philippines. Likely not, as those authorities might let those gamblers keep playing and if they losing big money their likely wanted it to happen. Most of the casinos in PH are privately owned and I never heard such news that there were stoppage happened prior to this rules of players protection.

But this rule if followed is likely a good one and I admire owners or management that stepped up to fully stop anyone who are into gambling so badly.