Could Australia Follow the UK’s Lead on Financial Risk Assessments?
In July 2026, the UK Gambling Commission announced that it would introduce a requirement for operators to carry out Financial Risk Assessments (FRAs) on certain customers through a staged implementation process. This marks a shift in the approach to assessing gambling harm by requiring operators to consider customers’ financial circumstances alongside existing indicators of gambling risk.
The decision comes after more than two years of consultation, policy development and pilot testing following the UK Government’s 2023 White Paper, ‘High Stakes: Gambling Reform for the Digital Age’ and has been highly controversial. Industry feedback has centred on three broad issues being privacy, customer friction, and fears of migration to the black market. The Betting and Gaming Council and the British Horseracing Authority have been particularly forthcoming in their critique of the reforms.
As the phased rollout in the UK progresses, a question arises as to whether Australia could adopt a similar model at some point in the future. This prospect seems more remote given that Parliament did not determine to implement affordability checks as part of Australia’s own recent online gambling regulatory shakeup despite affordability checks forming part of the recommendations in 2023’s You Win Some, You Lose More Report. Nonetheless, we are keeping a keen eye on the UK developments and their capacity to influence local policy design.
What are FRAs?
FRAs will use limited information held by credit reference agencies (such as Equifax, Experian and TransUnion). Operators will receive an overall financial risk assessment, including a financial risk score and information concerning four indicators: defaults, multiple arrears, significant arrears and whether the customer is subject to a Debt Management Plan (a debt repayment arrangement with creditors).
Importantly, the primary trigger for carrying out an FRA will be linked to a customer’s net deposits. Net deposits are the amount a customer deposits into their account, less any withdrawals over the relevant rolling period. They therefore measure the flow of money in and out of the customer’s account rather than how much a customer necessarily wins or loses. The UK Gambling Commission has emphasised that reaching the net deposit threshold is not, in itself, an indication of financial distress. Rather, it is simply the trigger for obtaining further financial information and making an assessment.
The credit reference information will be used alongside information the operator already uses to assess gambling harm to determine whether the customer may be experiencing financial difficulty and whether any action is appropriate.
Net deposit threshold
An FRA will initially be triggered when a customer’s net deposits exceed £5,000 (approx. AU$9,562) within a 24-hour period for customers aged 25 years and over. For customers aged 18 – 24, the threshold will be lower, at £2,500 (approx. AU$4,779).
Once fully implemented, the thresholds will drop to £1,000 within 24 hours or £3,000 over a rolling 90-day period for customers aged 25 years and over. Lower thresholds of £750 and £2,000, respectively, will apply to customers under 25.
The Commission also anticipates interim stages between the initial stage and full implementation, with the applicable thresholds to be settled following further stakeholder engagement.
The staged implementation means that, initially, only the largest operators will be required to carry out FRAs. The UK Gambling Commission has not yet confirmed when the regime will be implemented across all operators or when the lower thresholds will take effect.
Australian context
The UK reforms raise an important question as to whether Australia could adopt a similar approach.
Australia already has a substantial, multi-layered harm-minimisation framework for online wagering. The National Consumer Protection Framework and jurisdiction-specific requirements include zero-day identity and age verification, behavioural monitoring and customer interaction, deposit limits, activity statements, BetStop (the National Self-Exclusion Register) and restrictions on advertising and inducements.
The key difference with the UK approach is the mandatory use, at specified thresholds, of information relating to a customer’s broader financial circumstances as a distinct additional source of information in assessing gambling harm.
Any proposal to introduce FRAs to Australia would require careful consideration of the privacy and credit reporting regimes.
Privacy implications
Under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act), ‘credit information’ is classed as ‘personal information’, and its collection and use are subject to the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs). Credit reporting bodies, credit providers and specified recipients are also subject to additional credit-reporting rules in Part IIIA of the Privacy Act.
APP 3 limits an organisation’s collection of personal information to what is “reasonably necessary” for its functions or activities. The OAIC treats this as an objective test, with proportionality and data minimisation implicit in the requirement. Relevant considerations include whether the function could be performed without collecting the information, whether less information could be collected and whether the privacy impacts are proportionate to the benefits of collection.
For gambling operators, the question is whether obtaining financial information is reasonably necessary for their responsible gambling functions or activities. APP 3.6 also applies where information is obtained from a third party, such as a credit reference agency. It generally requires personal information to be collected directly from the individual unless it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so. The OAIC makes clear that inconvenience, time or cost alone does not excuse indirect collection, unless the resulting burden would be excessive in all the circumstances.
APP 6 also regulates how the information is used, including whether financial information collected for one purpose can be used for responsible-gambling risk assessment. Any Australian FRA framework would also need to address the more specific credit reporting rules in Part IIIA of the Privacy Act. These more prescriptive rules mean that even if an operator could satisfy the APP requirements, it would not necessarily authorise a credit reporting body to disclose such information to the operator.
Credit reporting implications
Credit reporting information presents a separate issue under Australian law. Part IIIA of the Privacy Act and the Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2025 (Cth) establish a specific framework governing the disclosure and use of credit reporting information and credit eligibility information. The framework permits credit reporting bodies to disclose information only to specified recipients, including credit providers, mortgage insurers and trade insurers in circumstances specified under Part IIIA.
There is presently no express equivalent provision permitting a credit reporting body to disclose such information to a wagering operator for gambling-harm purposes. If Australia were to introduce FRAs, changes to the existing credit reporting laws would likely be needed to enable credit reporting bodies to provide the relevant information directly to wagering operators.
Conclusion
While Australia's responsible gambling framework continues to evolve, the introduction of UK-style Financial Risk Assessments would require more than operational changes by wagering operators. Significant questions would arise regarding privacy, the collection and use of credit information, and whether existing credit reporting laws should be amended to permit access for gambling-harm purposes. The growth of the illegal offshore market has also been highly-publicised of late and the potential for such reforms to shift customers at risk of gambling-related harm to unregulated or less regulated jurisdiction also presents as an important consideration. As a result, any Australian move towards FRAs would likely require legislative reform and broader policy debate before implementation could be contemplated.
About Senet
Senet is a multidisciplinary Australian firm specialising in gambling and gaming law, regulatory compliance, and business advisory services. We are the largest specialist team in Australia and based in Victoria. Recognised globally as experts in our field, we understand Australia’s complex gaming legal and regulatory landscape, enabling us to guide clients through their compliance requirements across each state and territory. Our clients range from start-ups to publicly listed global operators, both nationally and internationally. Our team is deeply immersed in the industry, often sharing insights at public speaking events, and our principals have held executive roles in a global ASX-listed entity and a 'Big Four' advisory firm, giving us a unique perspective on the challenges our clients face.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the topics covered in this article, please contact the team at Senet.
