William Hill faces fine after giving incorrect data to Gambling Commission

[The Buzz]

William Hill could be fined after it allegedly submitted incorrect data to the UK Gambling Commission, forcing the regulator to "tear up its analysis" of the impact COVID-19 has had on betting habits.

From The Guardian:

Responding to concern that successive lockdowns could drive people to bet too much online, the Gambling Commission has published regular updates since March 2020 on how much customers of big firms such as William Hill are losing.

But in an update published on 23 December, the regulator said it had discovered that William Hill provided “incorrect datapoints” for the 16 months between March 2020 and September 2021. As a result, the commission said it would have to re-analyse all its data and would not be able to publish correct information until February.

The regulator’s statistical bulletins during Covid-19, which rely on submissions from firms with 80% of the UK market, are seen as a key resource for academics and health workers trying to assess how the pandemic affected gambling-related harm. The commission said it was now “reviewing any regulatory consequences of William Hill’s failure to submit accurate data”.

The regulator’s powers allow it to suspend or revoke gambling operators’ licence, although in practice it does so only in extreme cases. However, it frequently reaches financial settlements with companies that transgress the terms of their licence to offer gambling services in Great Britain.

The risk of a penalty comes as William Hill’s UK operation is in the process of a £2.2bn sale, after London-listed 888 Holdings bought it from the US casino operator Caesars Entertainment.

Read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/business...a-to-regulator

[chaumi]

Hmm well I guess it's kind of worded to imply that WH misreported the figures for their own ends (ie to imply that gambling had not increased, and therefore to divert attention from the regulating body that they might have to take even more stringent action..and potentially affect future profits negatively).

But the article doesn't actually say that, and the real result may be they misreported either way (if in fact they did). With the sale behind it all, you might be forgiven for thinking that if profits had dropped (ie gamblers were gambling less) then there might be some benefit in 'encouraging' that fact to be a little hazy.

Smoke and mirrors perhaps, or maybe even a 'legitimate' error (or series of errors).

[The Buzz]

Here is a response from the UKGC:

The data was supplied by a number of large operators who represented approximately 80% of Britain’s online gambling market including William Hill. As a result of a query raised by the Commission during the data quality assurance process, William Hill has now informed the Commission that the data they supplied between March 2020 and September 2021 contained incorrect datapoints.

As a result, the Commission is working to quality assure corrected data, re-run the analysis and republish the corrected data in early February 2022. We are also reviewing any regulatory consequences of William Hill’s failure to submit accurate data.a

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u...19-data-supply

[potentialeight]

Here is a response from the UKGC:

https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.u...19-data-supply

Yeah this is really reading to me like the article in The Guardian was a bit click baity. Have any other operators that were a part of the "number of larger operators who represented approximately 80% of Britain's online gambling market" put out there that their data may have been inaccurate?