Customer friction in gambling can arise when checks take too long, return inconclusive results or lead to requests for information that is not needed. It can also arise when inaccurate or overwhelming open-source intelligence (OSINT) contributes to a customer being declined. For operators, the pain is losing customers through a process that still has not established a reliable understanding of risk.
Keeping the customer picture current is only useful if the information informing it can be trusted and understood.
My last 2 blogs explored finding your way through endless OSINT results and recognising changing behaviour. The next question is whether the checks supporting a decision clarify that picture or introduce more uncertainty.
Customer friction in gambling grows when checks do not resolve the question
Consider a fictional customer whose financial review returns an inconclusive result. More information is requested, but it does not answer the issue that prevented a conclusion. The customer faces another hurdle while the reviewer remains uncertain.
In another fictional case, an OSINT search returns an adverse article about someone with a similar name. If the identity match is assumed, an unrelated finding could influence a decision to decline the customer. A large volume of search results can make the same problem harder to spot: the presence of material can be mistaken for the strength of evidence.
These are different problems, but both require reviewers to establish what the evidence actually supports before asking the customer for more or reaching an adverse decision.
Reduce customer friction in gambling with clearer evidence
Start with the purpose of the check. What risk is being assessed, what would resolve the question and what can the result establish? An inconclusive outcome needs a defined next step, including how to handle an unavailable result or uncertain match.
Before requesting additional information, identify the specific concern it will address. Is the evidence insufficient for a relevant risk decision, or is uncertainty coming from the check itself? A request should have a clear purpose and be proportionate to the issue. More information is useful when it resolves that issue.
For OSINT, confirm that the material relates to the customer, assess the source and its date, and distinguish allegations from established findings. Filter irrelevant results and duplication without removing material risk information. A summary should retain source links and uncertainties so reviewers can verify what matters. Where evidence is disputed or inconclusive, provide a clear route to review before treating it as grounds for decline.
Different stages need different information
Onboarding identity verification is distinct from later financial-risk reviews. For in-scope remote operators, Licence Condition 17.1.1 requires identity verification before a customer is permitted to gamble. It also says customers should be told, before depositing, what information may be needed and in what circumstances. Information that could reasonably have been requested earlier must not be demanded as a new condition of withdrawal, subject to other legal obligations.
The Commission’s reminder on identity verification reinforces the importance of checking identity as early as practicable to avoid unnecessary friction and withdrawal delays.
Financial vulnerability checks under have their own scope and triggers; they are not a universal onboarding requirement. Their findings must be considered with other permitted customer information, followed by proportionate action where risk is identified.
Source-of-funds enquiries serve a different purpose again. A smoother process depends on knowing why information is needed at that stage, rather than treating every request as interchangeable.
Measure the quality of checks alongside customer outcomes
Track check turnaround times, inconclusive outcomes, additional information requests and customer drop-off. Review the reasons for declines and sample the underlying OSINT matches. These measures can help distinguish decisions supported by relevant evidence from friction caused by delays, weak matches or unnecessary requests.
A quicker result is valuable when it supports a sound decision. Relevant, reliable intelligence helps analysts focus their judgement and gives customers a clearer route through the process where progression is appropriate. Genuine risk must still receive timely action.
Are your checks clarifying risk or creating avoidable customer friction?
Find out more about Scout® and how it can help
