In recent years, the issue of behavioural influence in the gambling sector has been gaining visibility. And the Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) has just taken a major step forward: it has published an investigation report on how gaming operators subtly manipulate the behaviour of online players.
From observation to report: how the investigation was conducted
The investigation was carried out by a research institute, Behavioural Insights, commissioned by the Ksa. Its objective was to examine the specific techniques that operators use to influence behaviour, sometimes in subtle ways, and to identify high-risk pathways.
The researchers analysed online gaming platforms, interfaces, player feedback, self-exclusion and pause options, and more. They compared these practices to traditional marketing techniques, such as those used by e-commerce sites, where consumption is encouraged through reminders, visual incentives or progressive rewards.
The report distinguishes between several types of influence:
- feedback on gaming behaviour (e.g. ‘you have played more than usual’)
- incentives to increase stakes
- mechanisms for restarting after a break or shutdown
- educational or warning interventions designed to limit excessive gambling
Although some of these interventions are potentially beneficial (such as warnings or suggestions to take a break), the report emphasises that certain methods go too far and may increase the risk of compulsive gambling.
What the report reveals: failures in duty of care
One of the most striking findings is the disparity between what the law requires of operators and what is actually practised. The Ksa imposes a duty of care on gambling operators: they must monitor player behaviour, detect at-risk profiles and intervene.
In practice, however, this monitoring is often insufficient: some operators are unable to analyse behaviour in real time, others act too late, and some intervention tools are too general to have a real effect on at-risk players.
As a result, warning signs may remain invisible until the player is already in the addiction phase. The report clearly highlights the dominance of commercial interests over player protection.
Michel Groothuizen, chairman of the Ksa, puts it clearly: “At the Ksa, we understand that online providers, like other commercial enterprises, observe what users of their platforms are doing and seek to steer their actions to their advantage. Thanks to this study, we have a better understanding of how they operate and can provide more guidance on negative practices and elements that we no longer wish to see.”
A tense market
The survey comes at a time when the Dutch online gambling market is booming. Since it was legally opened up to operators with a valid licence, the number of players has exploded.
However, behind this growth lie worrying signs: protection mechanisms are not keeping pace, intervention tools vary greatly from one operator to another, and feedback mechanisms are sometimes designed to encourage spending rather than restraint.
The report highlights that 70% of online gamblers are newcomers since legalisation. This presents a major challenge: protecting novice players, who are more vulnerable to impulses and psychological incentives. Few of the current mechanisms seem suited to this challenge.
Towards new standards: what the KSA is calling for
Based on these findings, the KSA is not limiting itself to simply highlighting the problems. It has announced the launch of a new internal review aimed at identifying the negative effects of behavioural influence and verifying whether operators are complying with their duty of care.
What is now at stake is a possible revision of the guidelines: practices deemed abusive could be banned, and penalties could be increased for operators who fail to detect at-risk players or who exploit cognitive biases for profit.
The Ksa’s investigation reveals that online gaming operators do not simply offer a neutral service: many use sophisticated techniques to guide, encourage and sometimes manipulate players’ choices. The gap between the duty of care required by law and its actual implementation is worrying. The report therefore paves the way for higher standards and even stricter regulation.