Pfizer ingestible bills with wireless signal when taken.... imagine the compliance

Curve flattened 2weeks
Circuit breakers
Mystic meg models
Pizza,burgers for jabs
Zager & Evans
Fixed

They are hiding their intentions in plain sight.

pills that you swallow? omg what next? food that you eat?

Miles you travel will happen soon. The more you travel they more they will take from your bank.

The amount you bet as well. Lose more that a few hundred a month and limits could kick in.

frog1000 • May 21, 2022 6:19 PM BST
Miles you travel will happen soon. The more you travel they more they will take from your bank.

Not sure about the UK, but over here it has long been the way that using a train or plane serve for a longer travel is associated with higher fares.

Quite rightly too.

How outrageous frog

First there is an idea that doctors have information about when their patients take their prescribed medication. Before we know it the bookies actually have to behave.
OMG so they may need to actually look at the people behind the accounts they have highlighted for special “VIP” treatment. If somebody wins 5 bets on obscure handicaps they will be looked at , yet lose £5k in a month on slots, bingo, and the Brazilian ice hockey league & they are sent a bar of chocolate and a £100 free bet.

Some flatearth school failures actually believe Bill Gates is the nasty guy in all this, obviously without providing any evidence.

All the bookies are businesses. If someone was caught taking money regularly from your business, you would stop them somehow and they would be right to do so. Exchanges are different.

£500 a month that is. Good luck being a young matched bettor or arbing starting out with those regs.

There are only two bookmakers that will still accept my bets, one of which restricts me, the other is fine. It doesn't stop me betting, trading, arbing etc because I just use the exchanges.

How is it possible to restrict you on the exchange also? Do they add up all your money placed in Flutter companies including the Betfair exchange?

It's the online fruit machines, blackjack, roulette etc that is the problem.
However no way they will give up that cash cow

https://igamingbusiness.com/flutter-launches-500-loss-limit-for-under-25s-in-uk-and-ireland/

Flutter Entertainment's UK & Ireland arm today (6 September) launched a new £500 (€583/$692) maximum monthly deposit limit for all customers under the age of 25.



Designed to strengthen protections for younger players and encourage sensible spending, the new measure will apply across Flutter’s Paddy Power, Betfair and Sky Betting & Gaming brands in the UK and Ireland.

Flutter said the limit is based on a recognition that early adulthood is characterised by a range of major life changes. It aims to bring its operations in line with businesses in other areas that recognise this, similar to the way finance and car insurance companies recognise younger customers have a higher risk profile.

The operator said its own research suggested support for the scheme, with 77% of regular gamblers approving additional measures for younger people, while 78% of 18-24-year-olds polled backed the new restrictions.

Flutter added that the deposit limit could be removed for certain customers who are able to demonstrate income to sustain an increased level of spend, though they would be subject to a detailed process before an alternative limit could be set.

This, it said, forms part of its Affordability Triple Step, a risk-based framework that uses real-time data to monitor customer activity and behaviours to ensure that gambling remains safe and enjoyable.

“People under the age of 25 are likely to be experiencing a number of significant life changes, such as gaining independence for the first time and learning how to manage their finances,” Flutter UK & Ireland chief executive Conor Grant explained.

“We want anyone who decides to gamble when they come of age to get in the habit of setting sensible spending limits and this measure is the latest we are introducing to help make this happen.”

Grant added that it would share details of the scheme with the government to support with the review of the 2005 Gambling Act, with the aim of providing further ideas, evidence and potential solutions for future laws.

“The review provides a once in a generation opportunity to bring gambling rules into the digital age, and while we believe that the changes it will bring are critical, we won’t wait to implement ground-breaking policies that will make a difference for our customers,” Grant added.

Peter Webb of Betangel talks through it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSUu1sIVt8

How can any bank stop them withdrawing their money from their account then walking across the road and placing their bets in a high street bookmakers shop?

Affordability checks probably make it a lot harder to come back under new accounts registered with the details of someone else, so I can understand why some people in this thread are strongly opposed.

When it starts to effect you and your life you will finally realise that your insistence that governments and corporates are doing these things for your own good will be over.

As cash is phased out? From going in to a bookies? Nope.

https://www.gamblinginsider.com/news/10343/analysis-what-could-an-100-affordability-limit-mean-for-uk-operators

Analysis: What could an £100 affordability limit mean for UK operators?

Earlier this week, the Gambling Commission launched a new consultation looking for feedback into a set of new measures for online operators. The 10-week consultation will see both industry members and consumers come together to give their take on regulatory reform. As part of this consultation, participants will reportedly consider introducing a £100 ($130) per month affordability threshold for all customers of UK online operators.

With the Government set to review the Gambling Act 2005, it is clear the Commission is aiming to introduce new regulation itself. Although this might be concerning for operators in the short term, it could see the UK industry avoid more intense restrictions under the directive of the UK Government.

Already this year, we have seen the effect of a similar consultation into VIP betting in the UK. This saw the Commission publish a series of checks which must take place before an operator makes a customer a VIP, including funds, occupation and identity verification. Operators are also now expected to assign a senior executive to oversee VIP schemes, making that individual personally accountable for the safety of customers.

If this VIP reform is anything to go by, this most recent consultation could see some serious and permanent changes for online operators; so with that in mind, does the industry need to be worried?

According to the Commission, the current thresholds for customer protection action are too high to be effective in preventing harm to vulnerable customers. For that reason, the new requirements will dictate affordability measures with thresholds set out by the Commission. Other requirements will also be debated, such as mandatory time limits for gambling – after which customers must be contacted to question their behaviour.

While the Gambling Commission has suggested some online operators are already meeting its standards for customer protection, or have made efforts in an attempt to do so, the regulatory body has deemed new restrictions necessary to bring the whole industry into line.

A statement from Gambling Commission executive director Tim Miller read: “While some operators have continued to improve their customer interaction processes, our evidence shows that many online operators are not setting thresholds for action at appropriate levels. We are clear on the need for gambling companies to take further action and that the Commission must set firm requirements to set consistent standards.”

According to consultation documents seen by The Daily Telegraph this week, the Commission has deemed thresholds of “tens of thousands of pounds” ineffective in combating gambling-related harm. The Commission is also quoted as describing a £2,000 limit as “neither realistic nor appropriate.” Instead, as a result of evidence-based research and lived experience, the Commission is considering the introduction of loss limits as low as £100 per calendar month before action is necessary.

It is important to consider the Gambling Commission’s reasoning for this. According to the consultation documents, this minimum threshold amount is based on the fact 50% of the UK population has a “discretionary” £250 per month of spend after all other monthly bills are paid. The regulatory body has said any affordability threshold must take into account other spend such as travel, sport and leisure.

While it might be shocking for operators to see a potential £100 spending limit dominating newspaper headlines, it is also important to take stock of the facts. Rather than limiting all customers to £100 per week, this is the spending limit before action would be necessary to assess whether a customer was at risk. Once deemed not at risk, it is assumed a customer can be permitted to spend more in the month. This is also the lowest limit the Commission is considering, meaning it would be a worst-case-scenario for online operators; equally, it would be a loss limit not a deposit limit, so handle could still remain high if customers wagered £500 and got £450 back.

Ultimately, rather than being significantly detrimental to operator revenue, it seems these new requirements would cost more in terms of operational efforts. Operators may have to employ more staff to ensure they are meeting the customer protection standards set out by the Gambling Commission. There will undoubtedly be more frequent customer contact and this will make life more difficult for operators – particularly those who currently invest very little in responsible gambling. But if the result is genuinely greater player protection, this is no bad thing.

The only real financial cost other than this may come from customers frustrated by the greater number of account blocks and frequency of communication. This could see operators lose customers, particularly those who have considerably more than the “discretionary” £250 per month to play with. If a bettor’s recreational funds are closer to £10,000 each month, they will not be best pleased if they are asked for proof of funds after they spend £100 on a bet.

That said, it is also true that the Commission will only introduce any limits after the 10-week consultation. Certainly those industry minds partaking in the consultation will have a thing or two to say about such a low limit of affordability – and it is clear the Commission is willing to take all opinions into consideration. Ultimately, while a regulatory consultation may seem daunting, it doesn’t seem the industry has too much to be concerned about just yet.

Are they going to put a £500 per month deposit limit on the ingestible pills?