(PRESS RELEASE) -- The question of who is responsible for player protection – the operator, the regulator, or the player themselves – has long moved beyond professional debate. Today, it shapes how licensing conditions are written, how compliance processes are structured, and how the industry justifies investments in safer gambling initiatives to boards of directors.
Leading global bookmaker
1xBet, together with SBC Media, conducted a large-scale study to examine approaches to this issue. Data from the International Player Safety Index Series show consensus on only one point: no single party is solely responsible.
Safer gambling is only possible through collaboration between operators and regulators.
Before discussing the distribution of responsibility, it is important to understand its legal nature. As Andy Danson, a partner at Bird & Bird, explains, the relationship between an operator and a player is contractual. It means that the operator’s primary responsibility is to the regulator, ensuring compliance with licensing conditions, rather than to the player directly. Violating these conditions does not automatically give a player the right to claim compensation for losses in court.
In other words, in most jurisdictions, there is no general duty of care toward the player. However, this is precisely where the industry is moving faster than the law: practical standards are increasingly outpacing what legislation formally requires.
What numbers say: Three perspectivesThe International Player Safety Index Series reveals an interesting distribution of opinions among operators. When it comes to who should bear primary responsibility, none of the three candidates – the player, the operator, or the regulator – receives an absolute majority. However, the figures clearly show where the industry’s disagreements lie.
The player. 71% of operators believe that players should take greater responsibility for safer gambling, while another 14% strongly agree. Only 2% disagree. It is the clearest result across the entire set of questions regarding responsibility.
The operator. 50% believe that primary responsibility should rest with operators. At the same time, only 7% strongly agree with this statement. A telling gap: many are willing to agree in principle, but few are prepared to commit to the corresponding obligations.
The regulator. The statement that regulators should bear primary responsibility also receives 50% support. However, in this case, 21% strongly agree. When operators consider who should lead player protection efforts, regulators are perceived as a more natural holder of this responsibility than the operators themselves.
Finally, 96% of operators agree or strongly agree that safer gambling is only possible through collaboration between operators and regulators.
“I would like to see the industry move toward more personalized and data-driven player education,” said a representative of one Spanish operator. In their view, simplifying communication is key – education should be transparent, engaging, and easy to understand. Practical actions that players can take should also be clearly outlined.
“Move beyond generic messaging and focus on education that actually changes behavior,” urged the Head of Compliance at another leading operator. He also believes that the concept of high-quality operator support needs to be standardized through consistent terminology and shared principles.
Legal context: Why responsibility is “shared, but unequal”While the legal framework remains relatively stable, regulatory practice is changing rapidly and becoming more stringent. Three jurisdictions demonstrate just how differently the concept of sufficient operator responsibility can be interpreted.
Brazil. A local court ruled that simply providing a self-exclusion tool is not enough. Operators are required to actively block compulsive players. In other words, they must not wait for the player to use the tool; instead, they must act proactively. It marks a fundamental shift: from a reactive model to a preventive one.
The Netherlands. The regulator goes even further, requiring live interventions – phone or video calls with players who display signs of problematic gambling behavior. In this case, the operator transforms from a provider of tools into an active participant in direct dialogue with the player.
Italy. Here we can see the mandatory real-time behavioral monitoring with automatic alerts for at-risk players. Technology is no longer an option, but a licensing requirement.
All three examples share one common feature: regulators are consistently shifting the boundary of the minimum acceptable standard toward a higher level of player protection and care.
A notable perspective comes from the President of a South American safer gambling campaign group: “We would like to see the industry move from performative compliance toward genuine commitment, embedding player education directly into the product experience, from onboarding to every moment of play, so that informed decisions become the norm rather than the exception”.
The most effective tools and why players don’t use themThe paradox of responsibility for safer gambling becomes especially apparent when looking at data on the effectiveness of responsible gambling tools. The industry already has solutions that work. Yet the players who need them most are the least likely to use them.
The most widely used tool is deposit limits: 89% of operators report player usage of this feature. It is understandable: limiting spending is the least alarming measure and does not require the person to acknowledge having a problem.
The most effective tool is cross-operator self-exclusion with 48.7% support. This solution closes the main loophole – the possibility of registering with another operator after self-excluding from one.
The least effective tools are self-assessment questionnaires: 22% consider them ineffective, while another 38% say they are only rarely effective. It is no coincidence: a tool that requires players to recognize and admit they have a problem performs worst precisely because most people with problematic behavior do not perceive themselves that way.
That is where the central fault line of the entire shared responsibility model emerges: the players who need help the most are the most resistant to using protective tools and the least likely to view their behavior as problematic. Placing primary responsibility on them in this context means relying on voluntary participation from the very people least inclined to participate voluntarily.
“This report makes one thing clear: safety is a three-way conversation between operators, regulators, and the players themselves. While the law remains contractual and a general “duty of care” hasn’t been established, we cannot hide behind legalities. Some 96% of us agree that real safety only happens when we stop working in silos and start cooperating with regulators”, says Simon Westbury, Strategic Advisor at 1xBet.
Responsibility as a strategyDiscussions about responsibility are often framed in ethical and regulatory terms. However, there is also a purely commercial dimension that the industry is beginning to articulate openly. 69% of operators acknowledge that a player who gambles safely is more profitable in the long term. It means that investments in player protection are not merely compliance costs. They are about retention, lifetime value, reducing reputational risks, and ultimately ensuring the sustainability of the business model.
This argument fundamentally changes the nature of the conversation. Once safer gambling shifts from being a regulatory obligation to becoming a business strategy, the question “Who bears responsibility?” gains another answer: whoever wants to remain in the market.
The data from the International Player Safety Index Series paints a picture of broad but superficial consensus. Operators and regulators agree that they must work together; 96% support this idea. However, when it comes to who should actually lead these efforts, there is no unity: opinion is split 50/50 between operators and regulators, while 85% believe players themselves must also contribute.
Legally, the operator’s responsibility is primarily tied to the regulator. In practice, however, regulators are steadily expanding this responsibility toward proactive, personalized, and technology-driven interventions. The tools exist and can be effective, but not where they are needed most.
The real shift will occur only when the third party, the player, becomes not merely the object of protection, but an active participant in the system. Until that happens, even the most sophisticated collaboration model between operators and regulators will function at only half strength. Shared responsibility without meaningful player participation is essentially two parties carrying responsibility for a third. It is difficult to call such a model sustainable.