20 PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2022 strategy of the monopoly holder in the light of all the relevant circumstances. While the advertising practices of the monopoly holder will continue to be taken into consideration, the state policy which manages the overall dynamic assessment of the games-of-chance operator must analyze the wide variety of factors that impinge on the issue of channeling play and protecting the consumer. Among the elements relevant for assessing the coherence of the dual system of the organisation of the market, which include the increase in the commercial activities of the monopoly holder but also the advertising practices of other operators (such as aggressive advertising practices by private advertisers in favour of illegal activities, or the use by them of new media such as the internet). So therefore, advertising practices of the lottery monopoly holder that are aimed at encouraging active participation in gambling, for example by making gambling trivial, by giving it a positive image through the use of the revenues for activities in the public interest, or by increasing its attractiveness through eye-catching advertising messages, do not in themselves constitute a violation of the EU treaty. You will remember that during the last EL congress held in Antwerp, a resolution was adopted which stressed the importance of subjecting more risky games of chance to stricter rules in terms of advertising. Perhaps it would be useful to work on an update of this resolution in light of this jurisprudence, emphasizing that the regulation of advertising requires a differentiated approach and that, in addition to the risk level of games of chance, numerous other aspects must also be taken into account, such as • market organization, 100% monopoly or a dual organization, • the existence of illegal gaming providers and the effectiveness of regulators to fight against it, • the marketing policy of a gambling provider, • the rules on responsible gambling that are applied, • are there any playing limits used or not, etc. The Legal & Regulatory WG would like to explore this in the coming months with the Marketing and Communication working group and the CSR and responsible gaming working group. The Risks involved with building a sustainable business model on Apple's & Google's ecosystems This topic of advertising brings me to a second topic that I would like to address. To the extent that public advertising via paid media for lottery games would become heavily restricted, owned media or direct communication with players becomes all the more important. One of the means of doing so is communication via apps. Many lotteries have invested in this type of communication in recent years, as has the National Lottery of Belgium. Timeline of Google Play Store • 2008: Launch of Google Play Store • 2012: Belgium Lottery launches its lottery app. • 2016: Google opens access for gambling in its play store, but it is limited to four countries. • 2021: Google opens access for gambling apps in the play store in an additional 15 countries, including Belgium. From then on, the difficulties arise, because Google imposes a number of conditions. Google Gambling policy requirements: • Approved gambling application form • App target audience is 18+ • App downloadable and usable in region/country covered by licence • An Adult Only content rating (PEGI 18) should be used. Therefor there is a Google Age verification. The Google Age Verification process functions like a black box. It's not clear how it works and/or if it's treatment of the app users is consistent and systematic, or random and arbitrary. Some users are confronted with questions or requirements that others are not. But for those who are confronted with it, the age verification process is an inconvenient journey. There are in fact two ways of doing it. The first possibility is to use a credit card. In that case, the user must provide the number of his credit card with CVC code and expiry date, after which Google will check the correctness of these data by performing a small transaction. For many users, this is not a comfortable feeling. Certainly not in a time of fishing and other forms of digital fraud. But there is a second possibility: ID verification. In this case, the user must take a picture of his ID card that clearly shows the date of birth. The ID card will then be analysed by Google verification services against fraud and abuse. What happens to the user's data afterwards is not clear. Also this process does not give a comfortable feeling in the light of strict privacy rules. In other words, there is a real chance that this will have a huge impact on the willingness of users to continue using the Google app. And all this while lotteries are already subject to strict rules in our own countries regarding age verification. Why should tech platforms impose their own control process and insert themselves into the position of our regulators and governments who oblige us to use more effective and accurate systems of age verification? The importance of a well-functioning app is profound, especially in the light of stricter advertising restrictions. Today the Belgian Lottery app represents 500,000 monthly app users on 9 million 18+ inhabitants, with 14% of retail draw sales (Lotto & EuroMillions) being scanned for results via the app. There is no play-in app yet. We are studying the efficacy of launching a play-in app, but it is very hard to make profound economic and strategic tradeoffs knowing that tech platforms can decide to change the rules overnight without us having a say in it. It is quite difficult to enter into dialogue with them and it seems that their requirements are very formalistic.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTg4MTM=