UK Bans Withdrawal Limits for Online Gambling Websites
The UK has recently told online casinos that they will need to remove any form of withdrawal restrictions for players. Following a report by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), it has been determined that players must be allowed to withdraw their money whenever they decide to. The investigation by the CMA occurred following some gamblers complaining about the withdrawal restrictions imposed by certain gambling sites.
UK Determined to Prevent Unfair Practices
Following the report by the CMA, the UK Gambling Commission agreed with the CMA’s findings. It issued a statement saying that any operator who continues to engage in withdrawal practices that are deemed to be unfair to the player, will be punished. The CMA’s investigation took place over the course of two years. During this time, they found certain sites with unfair terms and conditions. These included seizing a player’s funds if their account was inactive for a certain period of time or confiscating funds if proof of ID wasn’t provided within a stipulated timeframe.
Many sites also limited the amount of money that could be withdrawn at a time, which the CMA determined was simply to keep players gambling. Another find was that some operators would selectively impose their anti-money laundering controls on winning accounts, to delay the withdrawal.
UK Gets Tough On Gambling Operators
In the report, the CMA named two companies that operate a number of casino and bingo sites. These were Jumpman Gaming and Progress Play. They were named for only allowing players to withdraw their winnings in incremental stages. Both companies have already announced that they have removed this policy and will work closely with the UK Gambling Commission and the CMA to ensure they comply with regulations.
The UK’s gambling market was once quite liberal. However, in recent years, the Gambling Commission has tightened regulations. Operators who breached regulations have been hit with severe fines. The total fines issued to $23 million in the 2017/2018 fiscal year, from $2 million in the previous period.