KSA openly acknowledges that the current approach to risk analysis has significant shortcomings.

The Dutch Gambling Authority, known for being one of Europe’s toughest industry regulators, stands out in its field with a thoughtful and reflective way of operating. Unlike many others, the KSA has taken the lead in regulatory efforts through a method grounded in solid evidence. As Tim Miller, the head of the UK Gambling Commission, acknowledged, the KSA has not only set a high standard but has also built a commendable track record that speaks for itself.

In early August, KSA faced the reality that its tax hike had unintentionally put the legal market at a disadvantage, inadvertently boosting offshore and black-market activities. Now, the regulator has come to another sobering realization: its risk analysis mandates for license holders have also missed the mark. In a revealing statement on its website, the regulator admitted: Our investigation shows that the current risk analysis system in the regulations isn't working as intended. Moreover, these risk analyses demand significant effort and expense from online providers, yet seem to provide little extra protection for players. As it stands, the system isn't operating efficiently, the KSA noted, pledging to bring this issue to the Ministry of Justice and Security. They are actively seeking to reshape the regulatory framework surrounding risk assessment through collaborative discussions. Initially, these measures were designed to combat gambling-related harm and addiction, known under the banner of a duty of care. However, real-world application has exposed the shortcomings of this strategy. The KSA readily admits that these requirements have placed additional financial burdens on operators, compromising their competitiveness, while the benefits to consumer protection remain questionable.

The KSA's latest investigation reveals that risk analyses often fail to deliver consistent results. This inconsistency persists when comparing the same games from different providers, and sometimes even the same games from a single operator. The regulator clarifies that the operators are not to blame for this issue. Such variability complicates the process of comparing all the performed analyses. Furthermore, it's observed that online providers typically conduct risk analysis at the category level instead of evaluating each game individually. The KSA acknowledges this as a major flaw in the system and is committed to re-examining and addressing the issue.