“Storm in a teacup.”

LAW firm Olswang has defended a recent client briefing note on changes to gambling regulations that the UK Gambling Commission has dismissed as a “manufactured storm in a teacup”.

In a statement, the Commission said: “There is no change in policy as we and the DCMS for have made clear – this is a manufactured storm in a teacup. The new fee sub-category is simply a technical amendment to avoid having to charge bookmakers the remote licence fee which starts at £13,529.

“While, for completeness, a minimal fee is specified for those without existing non-remote licenses no income is forecast from this fee sub-category.

 “Finally, the implication in the Olswang commentary that the Commission might feel compelled to act if, as a result of the current judicial review proceedings, exchange users were to become liable to pay the levy is wrong.”

The briefing, by media partner David Zeffman, is titled Exchange Users to require a Gambling Commission license after all, and follows a consultation by the Gambling Commission and the Department for Culture Media & Sport (DCMS) which Olswang said meant the fees would be charged by the Gambling Commission from 6 April.

Online gambling company Betfair also criticised the firm’s briefing, stating that Olswang is “mistaken” in its opinion.

However, in a response issued on Friday (13 April), Olswang said: “On the basis of the consultation document and the regulations issued by the Commission, it is plain that the Commission considered that: 1) operators using remote platforms (including betting exchanges) acting in the course of business are required to hold a remote gambling licence; and 2) provision should be made for there being such operators who do not currently hold any other form of gambling licence, since a different fee was in place for operators who held another form of gambling licence and those who did not.”

“Both of these positions are new and worthy of comment. We do not understand why the Commission considers our update note which accurately set these matters out to be in any way ‘manufactured’.”