BAGO’s commitment to safer gambling in the digital age

Faced with the rapid expansion of online gambling, the issue of player protection has become a central public policy concern. In Belgium, BAGO’s operators defend a model based on the duty of care.

Protecting players where action can be taken

According to operators in the legal sector, protection is only effective when it is exercised within an approved framework, where rules can be applied and behavior monitored. The idea is not just to react to proven dependency situations, but to identify weak signals well before a problematic spiral takes hold. It’s not just a question of regulating the supply of gambling, but of integrating vigilance directly into its operation.

The duty to supervise thus represents a voluntary commitment by authorized operators to identify risky behavior at an early stage and intervene in a proportionate manner.

Behind this concept lies another pillar often overlooked by the general public: channelling. This policy aims to steer gamblers towards the legal offer rather than clandestine platforms. Unlicensed sites are exempt from all control obligations. No monitoring of gambling behavior, no preventive measures, no possibility of intervention: protection simply disappears.

The figures put forward by the industry are worrying: for every two players present on a legal site, around three play on illegal platforms. Strengthening the attractiveness and credibility of the regulated offer is an essential condition for effective user protection.

Channelling is therefore not just an economic or legal objective. It is a public health tool.

Detect before it’s too late

In concrete terms, how does this duty of care work? First and foremost, it is based on careful observation of gambling behavior. Operators analyze several indicators: frequency of sessions, duration, intensity, amounts deposited.

This analysis enables early risk signals to be identified. The aim is not to monitor in order to punish, but to understand in order to prevent. When unusual behavior is detected, action can be taken quickly. This early detection is structurally integrated into the legal offer. It is part of the normal operation of approved platforms, and not an exceptional measure.

Once a risk has been identified, the model favors graduated interventions, adapted to the player’s situation. This may start with information messages displayed during play, reminding players of the risks or encouraging them to set personal limits. Other devices allow players to take breaks, be reminded of the time they have spent, or voluntarily activate restrictions. In cases requiring greater attention, more direct support can be offered.

This individualized approach aims to maintain the balance between freedom of play and protection against excesses.

However, it would be a mistake to reduce the duty of management to a simple question of tools. The model defended by the operators emphasizes the human and organizational dimension. Protecting players requires clear internal procedures, ongoing staff training and a genuine culture of responsibility. Teams must be able to recognize relevant signals, act consistently and support players with professionalism.

Practical tools for maintaining control

The duty to supervise is not based solely on data analysis. It also relies on tools made available to players to help them manage their practice.

These include the possibility of setting limits, temporarily suspending access to the game or resorting to self-exclusion mechanisms. These solutions can only work in a regulated environment, where their application is technically guaranteed and legally binding.

A renewed charter to reinforce commitment

The members of the industry association recently renewed their charter of duty of care, with the ambition of going even further in implementing these principles. Among the changes announced are tighter monitoring of behavior, more proactive support for players and additional training for employees. The stated aim is to transform this commitment into an operational instrument, continually adjusted on the basis of experience in the field.

One question remains open, however: should these voluntary commitments become an obligation for all licensed operators?

The industry argues in favor of a generalized duty to supervise, in order to guarantee an identical minimum level of protection across the entire legal offering. According to its advocates, such harmonization would reinforce the channelling towards authorized platforms and limit the attractiveness of the illegal market.

In this way, the duty to supervise appears not as an additional administrative constraint, but as an attempt to respond to a new reality: that of a game that has become permanent, accessible everywhere, and which requires, more than ever, visible and effective safeguards.