Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 37, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(2) The Authority shall consider existing and emerging practices in certain activities by non-licensees, which, while not constituting gambling activity, may operate in manner sufficiently similar to gambling and constitute sufficiently similar risk as to merit future identification as gambling and ultimate, appropriate regulation by the Authority.”.

Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 relate to issues of concern that the authority shall monitor and review. Amendment No. 68 inserts a clause stating that the authority shall consider existing and emerging practices in certain activities by non-licensees that may not be considered gambling activity but operate in a similar manner and should fall under appropriate regulation by the authority. In the context of this amendment, it is important to talk about cryptocurrencies. There are clear similarities between investing and gambling. Cryptocurrencies represent a particularly volatile investment option, which much more closely resembles a gambling product. The Financial Conduct Authority in the UK found that the most popular reason for consumers buying cryptocurrency was as a gamble that could make or lose money, with 68% of young traders comparing investing cryptocurrencies and other high-risk products with gambling. The Gambling Commission in the UK has considered and researched these emerging trends and found that there are correlations between problem gambling and risky investing. In its research, it found that problem gamblers are much more likely to own cryptocurrencies than are non-problem gamblers. According to its data, 43% of respondents agreed that investment products can be addictive and 51% of those who have invested in cryptocurrencies have done so because they think it is fun and thrilling. Technology facilitates the addictive nature of this activity. Mobile trading apps allow users to check their balances and make daily transactions with ease. There are elements of the gamification of investment in these platforms, causing it to further resemble gambling activity. It is this type of activity that would be captured under amendment No. 68. We have concerns that this sort of activity falls outside of the criteria listed in subsection (1) and we hope it may be considered to be included in this context.

Amendment No. 69 relates to subsection (2) of section 32. This subsection relates to issues of concern where the law or code of practice, as applied, is detrimental to the public interest or is giving rise to an increase in compulsive or excessive gambling. Our amendment would insert a new paragraph concerning issues of concern that may arise from the law, giving rise to an increase in the number of children and young people being exposed to gambling activity. One of the functions of the authority is in relation to the protection of children. There are strong provisions in this Bill as it relates to advertising, but we are concerned there may be oversights in areas with regard to emerging trends of gambling-like activity and gaming. Loot boxes, as we previously mentioned, are a typical example of this. These are in-game containers that mask their contents, which are entirely random. Players send money or in-game currency to receive one of those random items. They gamble as to what they might receive. This is giving children who play these games direct access to a gambling-like activity. If the authority is to take seriously its role in the protection of children from gambling harm, it has to give genuine consideration to these types of activities. If these games are giving children a legal mechanism to engage in what is essentially a form a gamified gambling, then this should be considered under section 32(2).