James Noyes Pushes for Pause to UK Financial Risk Checks

(AsiaGameHub) –   Tension is mounting regarding UK gambling financial risk checks. Dr. James Noyes, an early supporter of affordability checks, is now calling for the policy to be put on hold until the pilot program undergoes a thorough review.

Good to Know

• Dr. James Noyes has pressed the government to pause UK financial risk checks.
• His reasons include a lack of transparency, ambiguous pilot outcomes, and potential damage to horse racing.
• The UK Gambling Commission states its work remains focused on maintaining frictionless checks.

Noyes Demands Pause Amid Growing Pressure Over UK Financial Risk Checks

A new challenge has emerged in the discussion around UK gambling affordability regulations. In an open letter to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Dr. James Noyes has called for financial risk checks to be suspended until the pilot program receives what he terms a proper evaluation and examination.

Noyes’ voice carries weight here because he was one of the early public proponents of affordability checks when the concept first came up in 2020. As a senior fellow at the Social Market Foundation, he supported the policy in reports issued in 2020 and 2021, and multiple of his ideas later featured in the gambling reform white paper published in April 2023. Now, he is cautioning that the current iteration is sparking significant concerns.

The UK Gambling Commission launched its pilot for what it refers to as financial risk assessments in September 2024. The goal was to test a two-tier system that could identify potential gambling harm while remaining frictionless—meaning customers wouldn’t need to submit financial documents to continue gambling. However, since spring 2025, the regulator has not released any public updates on progress or a final report. Meanwhile, recent media stories have indicated the commission’s board might consider approval as soon as next month.

This lack of clarity is at the heart of Noyes’ worries. In his letter, he stated he is “deeply concerned over a lack of transparency” and is “seeing more and more reports that the pilot program has included inconsistent data, vague results, and unnecessary friction.”

He also linked the issue directly to horse racing. Noyes expressed that he is “particularly alarmed by reports that checks will be unnecessarily burdensome for horse racing bettors, harming the sport.” Racing officials have already been making this argument, claiming the checks could impact bettors in that sector more severely than others and cost the racing industry tens of millions of pounds if customers decline to share information and turn to the black market instead.

Noyes emphasized that the government has “a duty to listen to the [British Horseracing Authority’s] warnings and take appropriate action to safeguard such a vital part of British cultural and social life.”

Support Was Conditional

His letter also clarified that his earlier support was never without conditions. He noted that affordability checks were “a worthy idea in principle” when first suggested, but only if proper safeguards were in place. He highlighted the need for a gambling ombudsman to protect consumer rights and provide redress, a non-intrusive model, and a framework that would prevent severe harm without barring most people from using their own funds in a legal activity.

He summarized his current position plainly:

“The current state of financial risk checks is raising significant questions that the government should address before the policy moves forward. I am therefore urging the government to take note of the BHA’s warnings and pause these checks until there has been sufficient evaluation and scrutiny.”

The Gambling Commission isn’t backing down—at least not right now. A spokesperson stated the regulator is “continuing to work on financial risk assessments, with one of the key priorities being to eliminate friction for consumers.”

The spokesperson added:

“If implemented, consumers won’t need to provide documents to complete the checks. Like any regulatory measure, we will consider the potential effects on consumers and businesses before deciding on financial risk assessments—including how they would function in practice if rolled out.”