The wave of financial sanctions being imposed on the industry continues to gather pace. However, one common theme is evident from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. A repetition of failure.

Monetary penalties, under many guises, are a consistent theme, with the lessons for such punishments seemingly not being learned. This begs one key question. Why?

For eyeDP CEO, Warren Russell, the answer is a relatively simple one. It boils down to one very simple point, risk versus reward and the overwhelming need to compete with the unregulated sector. 

“The industry is generally able to ride these fines as they look to protect their turf. If they get hit by half a million here or £5m there, it can often pale in comparison to the revenues lost to unregulated operators.

“I don’t believe  it’s deliberate disregard for the regulations, I think that it’s more that ‘we’re doing enough. Let’s just protect our revenues and tick along’. 

“Nobody’s deliberately saying ‘oh, we have to do this. Let’s not’. They’re doing just enough to  service it. I think you’ve also got the problem now that the tax regimes in countries are getting so high that operators are more worried about that than the fines that they get. 

“I think there’s still a big gap whereby people think that just by deploying a tool that’s enough”

“It’s a bit of a complicated one, but fundamentally I think the operators balance their risks and apply resources appropriately to mean they cover the bits that can really hurt.”

This is a theme that continues upon being pressed on whether due diligence processes are up to scratch on an industry wide basis. 

In simple terms, Russell issues a firm no due to the sheer amount of regulatory action being witnessed. But looking ahead, the industry must adopt the right combination of process, solution and output all working together. 

“It’s all well and good having the best fraud detection tool in the world and it tells you X has just committed a load of fraud, but if you don’t do anything with that information, you may as well not have it,” he says.

“I think there’s still a big gap whereby people think that just by deploying a tool that’s enough. You’ve got to actually work with the tool and use the information that is output.”

This leads down the logical path of assessing the major challenges associated with due diligence. Especially when it comes to the consistent level of similar failures that are being witnessed across geographies.

In essence, this boils down to a myriad of different legislative environments, which is especially relevant for those that occupy a space in multiple countries and must deal with differing regulations. 

“…the baddies are moving quicker than the goodies within this arms race of AI”

“You’re never going to get a set of regulations across the entire world for an industry,” Russell elaborates. “That’s a big challenge. 

“The fact that you’ve potentially got to have one process in one country that’s completely different to a process in another country. I think the ability to achieve what is asked for differs massively as well from country to country.”

Adding: “The fact that this industry grows a lot through acquisition, you’ve got brands that have multiple silo data centers covering their players and they don’t all talk to each other. 

“In addition to that, the baddies are moving quicker than the goodies within this arms race of AI.”

With overall implementation of all necessary protocols labelled as a “nightmare”, attention duly switches to how due diligence processes can be amplified to the level that we should expect.

This, it is said, comes down to automating “all of the bog standard stuff”, which would duly allow the human element to be directed towards much more important tasks. 

“Can we get a minimum standard of regulation across Europe, the US, the UK etc, I don’t think that’s feasible, but that would be a big win,” Russell explains. “I think what the industry can really do is collaborate. I think there’s a lot of people that aren’t really that sharing.

“Maximising the happy path for the people who aren’t trying to rip you off is relatively easy to do”

“You can do as many of these roundtable chats, but nobody really shares information. Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion exist to help the banks work together and fight fraud and financial crime and overindebtedness, but you don’t really have the same in the gambling sector. 

“The credit bureaus absolutely are used for KYC and affordability checks, but there’s a lot of other information in the sector that could be really useful. I don’t think that’s exploited in the best way that it could be.”

As the conversation drew to a close, artificial intelligence was perhaps unsurprisingly placed in the spotlight. Despite being a popular industry buzzword across recent times, it could be said that usage has failed to live up to lofty expectations.

However, 2026 could prove to be a pivotal year in this regard. Russell concludes by looking at the role that this technology could play in heightening the level of customer verification across the industry.

“It’s quicker, cheaper and smoother,” he says. “It can massively do that. Maximising the happy path for the people who aren’t trying to rip you off is relatively easy to do through intelligent routing of processes and checks, setting up a rules based engine that can learn and adapt and look at the at behaviours.

“…one thing I really do want to get across is that AI should never replace compliance functions”

“I guess the next move we go through is agentic based compliance departments. You’ve got one human and 25 agents doing all the work for them.

“I think the one thing I really do want to get across is that AI should never replace compliance functions. It should assist and speed them up to get to the right decisions quicker. 

“You can’t outsource your compliance to an AI company, but you can get it to help you and get you moving quicker.”