Study: UK credit card ban failed to fundamentally change gambling behaviours

The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) has suggested the credit card ban in the UK has not resulted in a change to patterns of gambling behaviour.

The report, which serves as an analysis of the measure implemented in April 2020, noted that while there were qualitative appreciations and acknowledgements of the ban, the reality is that fundamental changes are yet to be realised.

NatCen noted that those with moderate or high levels of “problems from gambling” were most likely to be aware of the ban and that the implementation was viewed as a “positive change”.

However, researchers noted that despite the added “friction” of a credit card ban, patterns of play hadn’t been impacted to a significant degree.

The report reads: “The increased friction imposed by the credit card ban did not always result in changed patterns of gambling. Most people who gamble reported that their borrowing behaviour did not change post-ban, and nearly all continue to avoid illegal forms of borrowing.

“There was no change in the likelihood of being aware of safer gambling tools.”

NatCen also pointed to the added complications of studying the success of the scheme, given the Covid-19 pandemic ran alongside the implementation of the credit card ban.

The ban, implemented in April 2020, prevents players from using credit cards to deposit money with operators.  

NatCen’s report analysed results from a series of tracker surveys undertaken by market research company Yonder, commissioned by the Gambling Commission, between 2015 and 2023, which sampled 2,000 UK adults.

For the purpose of the survey, Yonder interviewed people who had gambled with a credit card, people affected by someone else’s credit card gambling, and organisational stakeholders such as support providers and gambling operators. 

The report showed that around a quarter of those surveyed became aware of the credit card ban approximately 18-20 months after it was implemented.  

Players exhibiting a moderate or high level of problem gambling were more likely to be aware of the ban (57%) compared to people with low levels of problems from gambling (29%), those with no reported problems from gambling (23%) and people who did not gamble at all (11%). 

Although players were made aware of the ban through different channels such as emails from gambling operators, pop-up messages on gambling websites, and social media, the interviews indicated consumers felt the ban could have been advertised through wider channels in order to reach different population groups. 

The findings showed that Covid-19 had a siginficant impact on the ban’s introduction, as gambling operator staff were forced to work from home and use untested ways of working while trying to establish the ban.  

The ban was “perceived to be a positive change” for those affected, who understood why the ban was put in place, while some organisational stakeholders thought the ban could have addressed other types of borrowed money to be more effective. 

Of the survey participants, 60% said the ban hadn’t affected their borrowing habits, 21% were less likely to borrow and 9% said they were more likely to borrow money to gamble in future. 

Among players experiencing a moderate or high level of problem gambling, 30% said they were less likely to borrow more money than they could afford to pay back as a result of the ban, and 23% that they were more likely to borrow more.

Speaking on LinkedIn, Melanie Ellis, partner at Law Firm Northridge Law, questioned whether that statistic meant that the ban could be considered a success so far.

She said: “One interesting finding, that I hope the GC will give due consideration, is that those experiencing high levels of problem gambling were more likely to use a credit card for gambling after the ban compared to before.

“Further, once results were adjusted and stratified, no significant reduction in the use of borrowed money to gamble was found for those with moderate to high PGSI [Problem Gambling Severity Index] scores.

“Can the credit card ban be labelled a success, when it has apparently not changed the behaviour of those it was implemented to protect?”

Overall, the report found the credit card ban was more likely to be effective for people with minimal gambling issues, rather than for more high-risk players, and that banning further forms of borrowed money could be more helpful for the latter cohort.  

An excerpt from the report read: “Our evidence indicated that the ban was effective in creating some ‘friction’ and may be more effective among those with low gambling problems, as opposed to those with moderate/high gambling problems. 

“The banning of other forms of borrowing to gamble may further increase this ‘friction’ which in turn further helps reduce credit-related gambling harms. It has also been recognised that a broader system-wide approach and multi-sectoral efforts were vital to tackle different levels of gambling and gambling-related harms.” 

Speaking on the evaluation results, Tim Miller, Gambling Commission executive director of research and policy, noted: “We welcome the publication of this independent evaluation of the credit card ban introduced in April 2020.   

“We are pleased that the evaluation has found that the ban was successfully implemented, increased friction in gambling with credit as intended and was perceived to be a positive change. 

“We will closely examine the entire report’s recommendations to consider how they may inform discussions for the development and implementation of any future policies.”