Finland’s gaming proposals have been criticised as lacking understanding when it comes to the emergence of AI, as the consultation period from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’s Gambling Harm Risk and Harm Assessment Group continues.
Nordic Law shared its concerns around the proposal’s understanding of artificial intelligence, stating that the recommendations say that “machine learning models to predict and identify problems is not at a sufficient level, and that the models should not be given significant weight in compliance with statutory obligations”.
The firm said that this conclusion is “not based on independent sources, but on the assessment team’s own policy” and that licences should be encouraged “to develop and implement artificial intelligence-based risk identification systems and require their open documentation and reporting to the authorities”.
The group also feared that a market too strictly regulated would have a significantly negative impact on channelisation rates and enable the black market to thrive.
“The channeling rate is already further weakened by several restrictions included in the new regulation, such as the ban on affiliate marketing, restrictions on social media marketing, the ban on bonus play money in customer acquisition and the complete ban on cryptocurrency gambling.
“The latter in particular puts licensed operators in a competitively unequal position, as unlicensed operators are free to offer cryptocurrency gambling and attract these players. The measures recommended by the Ministry of Health further weaken the channeling rate, and this cumulative effect has not been assessed at all in the recommendations.”
Nordic Law is going as far as to call for a delay to the introduction of certain restrictions and measures so that Finland can build up its channelisation rate and keep players with licensed operators.
The firm claimed that the deposit and loss limits should differentiate between different game types to take into account how each game plays – fast-paced slots and slow-paced sports betting.
Proposed loss limit of €25 are too low, Nordic Law argued, and could see players “repeatedly exposed to risk warnings, the relevance of which would weaken over time” and thus reducing their effectiveness.
Nordic Law also argued that the proposals may be unconstitutional, as the banning of marketing to 18–24-year-olds might violate freedom of expression guaranteed in section 12 of the Constitution.
Mixed reviews
The latest contributors also include the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA), payment service provider Trustly Group, gambling harm support service Peluuri, the Western Uusimaa Welfare Region, the Ownership Steering Department of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Päijät-Häme Welfare Region.
The most recent participants had varying degrees of stances regarding the player protection proposals, following on from viewpoints earlier this year by Wildz Group, SkillOnNet, Jari Vähänen of the Finnish Gambling Consultants Oy (FGC), Vana Lauri OÜ (VL) and Sininauhaliitto ry (Blue Ribbon Association).
Support towards the proposals was shown by the FCCA, Peluuri, the Western Uusimaa Welfare Region and the Päijät-Häme Welfare Region, backing evidence-based recommendations, protecting young people and a centralised loss limit across operators.
Support
While Peluuri considers the recommendations acceptable, it highlights the proposal’s definition of duty of care, stating that ‘not enough attention has been paid to its more detailed definition in the law’ and it needs to be organised by a centralised entity.
The organisation stated: “The measures taken under the duty of care and the definition of identifying harmful gambling have been left too much to the discretion of individual companies.
“Peluuri reminds us that the task of companies is to generate the highest possible profit, so without a strong obligation, they do not have sufficient interest in restricting the gambling of their most profitable customers and possibly weakening their position in a competitive market through measures.”
Peluuri believes that company-specific limits would not be useful as it fails to track a player across multiple platforms and so they could still be at significant risk of gambling harm. It also thinks that if a company-specific model is to be used, the limit thresholds per individual company need to be “very low”.
Interested parties can still submit their thoughts on the proposals until 24 February.
