Soft2Bet on responsible gaming and how to transform compliance into care

In this opinion piece, Ohad Straschnov, Vice President of Compliance at Soft2Bet, argues that responsible gaming should be embedded into every stage of the player journey rather than treated as a regulatory obligation, making player protection a core product and business strategy.

Having a responsible gaming programme is no longer a differentiator for licensed operators. It is the baseline. Deposit limits, self-exclusion, reality checks, cooling-off periods and safer play pages are now part of the standard operating setup in regulated markets. EGBA reported that its members sent 100 million safety messages to European customers in 2024, a 48% year-on-year increase, and that 26.7 million customers used safety tools. The value of these tools depends on how clearly they appear in the product and how easily players can use them.

If a player can fund their account in two clicks but has to search through hidden menus to set a deposit limit, the gap is clear. Players can see whether safer play has been built into the experience or added because the rules require it. Safer play tools are more likely to be used when they are easy to find, simple to understand, and built into the account areas players already use.

Where the checkbox approach breaks down

When responsible gaming is treated mainly as proof for the regulator, the setup can look complete without doing enough for the player. A banner, footer link, account settings page, policy and training record may all be needed, but their presence alone does not show whether the tools are helping players when they need support.

Players experience the product before the policy. They see button placement, number of steps, language and support. If deposits take seconds but limits take effort, that difference is hard to miss.

Product focuses on speed, marketing on activity, compliance on risk signals and support on cases that have already escalated. Each team may be acting responsibly within its own area, but the player experiences one connected journey, so those decisions cannot be separated.

Regulators expect earlier intervention and clearer records. The UK Gambling Commission’s remote customer interaction guidance requires operators to monitor activity from account opening and to use indicators, including spend, time, behaviour, management tool use, and account signals. Operators need products that detect risk early and give teams a shared view of the player, so they can act before concerns escalate.

Build safer play into the product

Responsible gaming works best when it is built into normal product use. Limit setting, time reminders, cooling-off, self-exclusion, and safer play messages require the same care as registration, payments, bonuses, and account management.

The way these controls are presented shapes how players respond. A deposit limit should not read like a warning label, and taking a break should not feel like a penalty. Account control should feel like a normal part of play, not a sign that the player has done something wrong.

Placement changes how players use these tools. A safer gaming page buried in the footer may satisfy a basic requirement, but it offers little support when risk is building. A prompt after a sudden increase in deposits, longer sessions, repeated failed payments, or signs of loss-chasing is harder to ignore. The product should not wait for a player to search for help. Safer choices should sit close to deposits, limits and session controls.

Identifying risk earlier

A stronger platform does not rely only on manual review after risk has already grown. Behavioural analytics can pick up changes in player activity that a team may miss in real time. AI-supported models can flag payment changes, long sessions, late-night spikes, failed deposits, changes to safety-tool use and signs of loss chasing. Automated workflows can then guide the player toward a safer journey, rather than leaving the issue for manual review later.

The European standard EN 18144 shows the industry moving toward a more structured approach. It sets out markers operators can use to recognise risky play patterns, including changes in stake volume, speed of play, deposit behaviour, session duration, time-of-day play, net losses and safety-tool use.

The goal is to give teams stronger signals, not replace their judgement. Data should support trained staff by helping them decide whether a player needs a reminder, a limit prompt or direct contact. A lower-risk signal may only require a clear message. A stronger signal may call for direct intervention.

These actions work better when they are built into the platform and supported by connected data. Compliance, CRM, payments, KYC, segmentation and player account management should not work from separate views of the same customer. With the same information, teams can act faster, explain decisions with more certainty and adapt controls across markets.

Strategy decides what happens next

Technology can identify risk, but the company decides what happens next. Safer gaming controls can be built into the product, but they only work properly when teams use them in daily decisions.

Responsible gaming should shape product roadmaps, campaign planning, VIP management, support scripts, design reviews and performance meetings. If the business celebrates only deposits, activity and short-term revenue, responsible gaming will always feel like resistance. If it also tracks healthy retention, safety-tool use, fewer complaints and sustainable play, teams are more likely to protect the player, not just the revenue line.

Training also has to be practical. Designers, CRM teams, support staff and commercial leaders all need to understand how their decisions affect player protection, from interface choices and promotional messages to distressed customer contact and reviews of commercial growth.

Retention beats extraction

Operators that push players too hard for short-term gains are building fragile revenue. A temporary uplift can quickly turn into higher complaints, chargebacks, regulatory risk, player churn and long-term brand damage.

Trust gives operators stronger commercial ground. A player who feels in control is more likely to return, stay within a sustainable pattern of play and see the operator as credible. Regulators, partners and investors also take the business more seriously when player protection is built into the model.

There is evidence to support this approach. In a study of 175,818 online gambling customers, Michael Auer, Niklas Hopfgartner and Mark Griffiths found that players who set voluntary limits in early 2016 were 2.96 times more likely to remain active with the same operator in early 2017. That does not mean limit setting creates loyalty on its own, but it does challenge the idea that giving players more control is bad for retention.

The uncomfortable truth about responsible gaming

Every operator needs to ask a few uncomfortable product questions. Can a player set a deposit limit in under 60 seconds? Does the platform respond to live risk signals, or does it rely on delayed manual reviews after concerns have escalated? Are safer gaming interventions shaped by the player journey, or are they generic pop-ups designed to satisfy a regulator?

Do product, marketing, compliance and support teams share the same view of player risk? Would the business be proud to explain its responsible gaming approach to a regulator, a partner and a player?

The answers usually reveal the gap. Responsible gaming built mainly for the regulator is easy to show in policies and harder to find in the product. Responsible gaming built for the player can be seen in the journey itself.

That is the standard the industry should aim for: protection built into the platform, reflected in daily decisions and measured as part of long-term business value. Anything less is a checkbox with better branding.