This story is sponsored by BetfairBetfair has dismissed as “speculation” a claim by lawyers Olswang that professional punters trading on betting exchanges now require a Gambling Commission licence.
According to new Gambling Commission guidelines on changes which came into effect on 6 April, “non-licensed traders” will now need to apply for a new “general betting (standard) (remote trading platform) licence” and pay an application fee of £198 and an annual fee of £280, with licensed retail and on-course bookmakers being exempt from the charge.
Referencing the note in an email circulated yesterday, David Zeffman, a partner at law firm Olswang, wrote: “Many traditional bookmakers will see this as an important victory, having argued for many years that exchange users who carry on a bookmaking business through Betfair ought to be licensed and they will see the DCMS/Gambling Commission’s conclusion as vindication of their campaign against ‘unlicensed layers’”.
Zeffman added that the British Horse Racing Authority (BHA) and William Hill, claimaints in the current judicial review against the UK Horserace Betting Levy Board’s Consultation on customers of betting exchanges “will be hoping that the Court, like DMCS and the Gambling Commission, conclude that these exchange users can be required to pay the [Horse Race Betting] Levy.” Olswang is acting for Hill’s and the BHA in the case, to be heard on 4-6 July.
When contacted by Casino Choice however, Betfair denied that the Gambling Commission had created an additional licensing category for betting exchange users. “The intention of this new licence category is that anyone who has a business (e.g. rails bookmakers or a retail shop) and conducts some part of their business via a remote platform (e.g. for hedging purposes) needs a further licence beyond their existing bookmaking licence.”
The betting exchange’s chief legal and regulatory affairs officer Martin Cruddace added in a statement issued to Casino Choice: “It is of note that that speculation comes from Olswang LLP who are the solicitors acting for the BHA and William Hill in the judicial review against the Levy Board’s Consultation on customers of betting exchanges and are perhaps frustrated that none of its substantive legal views were followed by the independent QCs instructed by the Levy Board. One can but admire their tenacity.
“Unfortunately Olswang are mistaken because the Gambling Act 2005 does not give the Secretary of State power to introduce the licensing obligation, seeking to apply to all remote betting operators, to which Olswang refer. Some may argue that Olswang’s update could more usefully speculate on how the BHA could legally challenge the failure of William Hill online to pay a penny in the levy for its on line operations. William Hill Online is after all Britain’s largest non-levy paying bookmaker. However, William Hill are helping fund the BHA’s action so perhaps we should not hold our breath waiting for such speculation.”
