Technology has changed the game across many aspects of the industry, and safer gambling monitoring is no different.
Ahead of appearing on a panel on the Regulation and Compliance Stage titled ‘Innovation in Tech: How Can Technology Keep Players Safe from Harm?‘, Super’s Head of Technical Compliance Scott Burrows spoke to iGaming Expert about the evolving role of tech in bringing a personalised approach to responsible gambling across the player spectrum.
Firstly, can you tell us about the role of tech in ensuring safer play and protecting players?
Tech has moved safer play from a reactive function to a predictive one. We’re no longer waiting for a player to self-report harm or for a manual review to catch something weeks later.
Real-time monitoring means deposit patterns, session length, loss-chasing, and time-of-day shifts get flagged as they happen. That shift alone changes what protection actually means in practice.
It also means we can personalise the response rather than blanket-applying it. Tiered risk scoring lets us match the intervention to the individual, which is both a better outcome and a better player experience. But I’d always caveat that tech is necessary, not sufficient, it’s only as good as the humans and the culture acting on what it surfaces.
Why can tech advancements help operators be quicker off the mark when it comes to identifying players at risk?
Speed is the whole point. Real-time data pipelines close that gap; behavioural signals get scored and flagged the moment they occur.
Catching the first point gives us the lead time to intervene while the intervention is still easy.
Are there any specific tech advancements that have helped operators stay ahead of risky behaviours?
Machine learning-based risk models are the clearest one, moving beyond static rules (‘player deposited X in 24 hours’) to models that learn a player’s own baseline and flag deviation from it.
Beyond that, affordability and source-of-funds checks have become dramatically less intrusive thanks to third-party verification tools, so we’re getting better information without the friction that used to push players toward less protected, unlicensed operators.
Natural language processing on customer service interactions is another one worth a mention, spotting distress language in live chat that a human agent might miss under volume.
When it comes to ensuring player safety, why is a nuanced approach so important? How can you remain flexible with the approach given to each player?
Risk isn’t a single line you cross; it’s a spectrum, and it looks different for every player. Flexibility comes from having enough data points feeding the model, and enough optionality in the response, that we’re not stuck choosing between ‘nothing’ and ‘account closure’.
Soft nudges, cool-off suggestions, limit-setting prompts, direct human contact and escalation – that whole ladder needs to be available and triggered by the individual’s pattern. The moment we say ‘same journey for everyone’, we’ve lost the main point on what player protection is actually for.
Why must regulators keep up with the latest developments in tech in terms of ensuring player safeguards?
Regulation that’s built around yesterday’s tools risks either falling short of what’s now possible, or worse, mandating an approach that’s already been superseded by something more effective. If the rulebook only recognises static, rules-based checks, it can actively discourage investment in the predictive models that work better.
It also matters for a level playing field. Operators investing seriously in this space shouldn’t be regulated identically to those doing the bare minimum, and regulators need enough technical literacy to tell the difference. That’s a two-way street though; we as an industry have a responsibility to bring regulators along with what’s actually achievable, not just wait to be told what’s required.
How much can tech help adapt the approach to different markets in terms of compliance and maximising player protection?
Quite a lot, and it’s becoming essential. Every market has its own affordability thresholds, verification requirements, and definitions of what “at risk” looks like. Trying to run that manually across multiple jurisdictions doesn’t scale.
Configurable rule engines mean we can apply a consistent underlying methodology while tuning the specific triggers and thresholds to each market’s regulatory expectations. That’s the only realistic way to maximise player protection everywhere without either diluting standards to the lowest common denominator or building an entirely bespoke system per country.
Can you tell us more about the importance of SBC Summit in Lisbon as an event in terms of developing player safety strategies?
Lisbon’s one of the few places where regulators, operators, and tech providers are all in the same room at the same time; that mix is what actually moves player safety forward, because none of us can solve it alone. The regulator needs to see and hear what’s technically possible, the tech providers need to hear what’s practically enforceable, and operators need to hear both and be involved in those discussions.
It’s also just a good forcing function. These conversations tend to surface “what’s working elsewhere” before it becomes “mandatory anywhere”, so you leave with a sense of where the bar is heading, not just where it currently sits. That’s worth more than any single session on the agenda.
What I’d add is that the format itself helps; the panel content at Lisbon tends to be genuinely conversational rather than a lineup of scripted keynotes. You get real disagreement on stage, people pushing back on each other, which pulls out the nuance you don’t get from a polished slide deck. That’s where the honest, useful stuff actually comes out.
Learn how to integrate responsible gaming into your marketing strategy with a masterclass led by Arjan Korstjens on Thursday 1 October. Get yourself a conference pass by visiting https://sbcevents.com/sbc-summit/masterclasses/
