Evidence, Effectiveness and the Limits of “Prohibit and Punish” Regulation

Recent commentary published by SiGMA World has prompted renewed discussion about how gambling policy is developed, applied and evaluated, particularly at a time when regulators and governments are under pressure to act quickly and visibly.

One of the core themes raised is the gap that can emerge between intent and outcome. While many regulatory interventions are well-intentioned, policy framed primarily around prohibition and punishment can lead to consequences that are neither anticipated nor desired. In some cases, activity is displaced into unregulated environments, visibility is reduced, and consumer protection is ultimately weakened rather than strengthened.

From an assurance perspective, this is not an abstract concern. It is something we encounter regularly.

At eGaming Integrity, we assess safer gambling frameworks, governance arrangements and operational controls across a range of regulated markets. In practice, the effectiveness of a regulatory or operator response is rarely determined by how restrictive it looks on paper. What matters far more is whether it is grounded in reliable evidence, supported by accurate data, and tested through meaningful measurement over time.

Where data is incomplete, poorly interpreted or overly narrow in scope, even robust-sounding controls can fail to achieve their purpose. In some instances, they may even increase risk by pushing behaviour beyond the reach of licensed operators and regulatory oversight altogether.

By contrast, approaches built around clearly defined objectives, measurable indicators and ongoing evaluation tend to produce more sustainable outcomes. They allow regulators and operators to understand not just whether controls exist, but how they operate in practice, how consumers respond to them, and where change is genuinely needed.

This distinction is especially important in the safer gambling space. Success cannot be judged solely by the presence of policies, tools or thresholds, but by demonstrable behavioural outcomes, effective escalation in real cases, and governance structures that can respond as risk evolves.

The article published by SiGMA World is a timely contribution to this discussion, highlighting the importance of moving beyond symbolic regulation and towards frameworks that are proportionate, transparent and genuinely outcomes-focused.

Read the full article on SiGMA World here.