Post by @fonix232@fedia.io

2026-10-04 22:23 UTC

Having worked in the industry, there's actually an explanation that is only half predatory. Most of those addicted to gambling can't and won't shake it. They refuse to seek professional help, and the decision to quit only lasts the "temporary embarrassment" phase of losing all their money. Meaning: most gamblers who decide to quit (and we've got statistics on this), about 80-85% on average, is back to their favourite gambling service within 60 days. At the company I worked at, the primary reasoning for having a cooldown period instead of instant deletion was the following: the cooldown period can already be linked with our lockout service which blocks the person from using the service for X days, so if they REALLY wanted to, they could block themselves for the entire time (and it surprisingly is being offered as part of the cooldown period) if there's a regulatory block (meaning you got formally diagnosed by a doctor, and that doctor, with your consent, reached out to the local regulatory body and requested a blacklist entry for you), the service is blocked either way the users who do come back, don't want to lose their "stats" - their previous bets, wins, losses, etc. would all be gone with a new account. In fact, the number one complaint from returning users was that their data was gone. Basically the idea is "if they're coming back anyway, we might as well make it easy for them". Now the thing is, for all the regulations... Gambling services are unfortunately not responsible for the addiction they cause. In my opinion they should be, just as a doctor would be held responsible if they fed into a patient's painkiller addiction. And for all the regulatory crap... most people in gambling companies aren't interested in compliance that much. It's very much a "do it then say sorry and fix it in post" attitude from the leadership and higher management. So while the above might be the "official" explanation, I have zero doubt that the decision makers don't give a fuck and are specifically doing it to psychologically pressure people into coming back.

Replies (5)

@nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works 2026-10-05 00:11

…just as a doctor would be held responsible if they fed into a patient’s painkiller addiction. Yeah! Like all those doctors who got in trouble for the opioid crisis!

Open ##4997074
@pidgey@lemmy.world 2026-10-05 01:21

I mean gambling is shitty but we don’t hold folks that make alcohol responsible for folks getting addicted to alcohol. I’m not familiar with legal gambling, but theoretically there is a percentage of users that partake casually for fun - yes? And others who get addicted. Same with booze. Obviously the overall experience of gambling is more predatory/distasteful, but I’m not sure that means they should be legally responsible for the folks who get addicted. If the booze makers and sellers are not responsible for providing a potentially addictive product, why are they?

Open ##5002949
@majster@lemmy.zip 2026-10-05 06:34

most people in gambling companies aren’t interested in compliance that much. It’s very much a “do it then say sorry and fix it in post” attitude from the leadership I’ve worked in gambling (they like to call themselves “gaming”) as well and this isn’t true. Before you can enter any market the local regulator has to approve you. Also for any changes you make after you are in. Exception are markets with lax regulators, which is often the case for online casinos.

Open ##5005888
@porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2026-10-05 07:24

Basically the idea is “if they’re coming back anyway, we might as well make it easy for them”. What exactly is the non-predatory half of that?

Open ##5008238
@arc99@lemmy.world 2026-10-05 07:50

There have been various stories in the Irish & UK press of people bombarded with enticements by the likes of Paddy Power to gamble even when they were obvious problem gamblers. This all comes out in court when the person ends up stealing from their employers but clearly for every prominent case there must be dozens, hundreds of less prominent ones. These companies obey the law but the law isn’t strong enough so there is plenty of scope for them to abuse it, encouraging gambling addiction and not shutting down problem gamblers. There are plenty of ways it could be regulated effectively but governments don’t have the stomach to do it. e.g. maintaining & enforcing an industry list of problem gamblers, putting limits on the amount anybody can bet, banning comps & perks, banning advertising & sponsorship, and heavy fines for failure to comply.

Open ##5009008