"Betdaq, Unibet, and the Data Heist:Dont give them your Financial Data"

When it comes to safeguarding your personal data, it seems Betdaq and its ilk are playing a game of pass the parcel—with your banking details wrapped in layer upon layer of incompetence. Enda Kendrick’s recent commentary on X around data collection and affordability checks, delivered with the nonchalance of a man trying to sell you a dodgy timeshare, is the latest PR own goal in an industry that treats transparency like a novelty and regulation like a distant cousin it avoids at weddings.

But here’s the rub: Betdaq is not alone. Far from it. They may have dropped the ball, but Unibet has picked it up, run with it, and performed a victory lap in the name of data mining. And where, you might ask, are the regulators like the Gambling Commission or the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)? Presumably sipping tea in a soundproofed room, muttering something about “protecting the vulnerable,” while the rest of us fend for ourselves in the Wild West of gambling oversight.

How Did We Get Here? Enter Bookmaker Malpractice

Before we dive into the current farce, it’s worth asking: why did these invasive measures come in the first place? The answer, unsurprisingly, lies in bookmaker malpractice. For years, operators have been exploiting punters in every way imaginable—encouraging reckless betting, turning a blind eye to problem gambling, and dangling “free bets” like carrots in front of donkeys. When it came to accountability, the industry’s motto seemed to be “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

But when the house of cards started to wobble, with stories of gambling-related harm dominating headlines, the solution wasn’t to address the root of the problem. Oh no. Instead, bookmakers doubled down by introducing draconian measures that make punters jump through endless hoops to verify their accounts—while quietly mining their personal data in the process. After all bookmakers are savvy in exploiting every situation.

It’s the ultimate irony: in an attempt to appear more “responsible,” operators have become even more exploitative. Handing over sensitive details like bank statements, ID, and proof of address is now the norm, but how this data is stored, used, or shared remains shrouded in mystery. The cherry on top? Bookmakers (including Betdaq and Betfair) won’t even share the basis for how you might avoid these intrusive checks. Punters are left in the dark, while the industry cashes in on a treasure trove of personal information.

Enda’s Economics Lesson: Deposits vs. Loans

Enda Kendrick’s musings on the supposed harmlessness of handing over bank details have already raised eyebrows, but his broader financial logic takes things to a whole new level of absurdity. Enda seems to think that placing money with bookmakers is somehow akin to borrowing it—an idea so baffling that one wonders where he got his Finance and Economics degree. Was it from the University of Guesswork, with a minor in Wishful Thinking?

The distinction between making a deposit and taking out a loan is lost on Kendrick. When you deposit money with a bookmaker, you’re effectively trusting them to safeguard your funds, not lending them out like you’re running a payday loan service. Yet this fundamental misunderstanding of financial responsibility underscores the cavalier attitude the industry has toward customer trust. This is justification for the checks in his mind. Everyone should comply with them, why wouldnt they in a credit hungry world where everyone is encouraged to borrow on future lifetimes of earnings.

The Regulators: See No Evil, Hear No Evil

And what about the regulators? Andrew Rhodes and the Gambling Commission seem to see nothing wrong with this setup. Instead of scrutinising how operators handle and exploit personal data, they’re too busy crafting yet another policy document about protecting the mythical 0.5% of problem gamblers.

To be clear, protecting vulnerable gamblers is a noble aim. But when this comes at the expense of the other 99.5%, whose personal details are being hoarded and potentially mishandled, it’s hard not to see this as a failure of oversight. Where’s the balance? Where’s the accountability? The Gambling Commission’s blind faith in these operators is as baffling as it is frustrating.

Andrew Rhodes, the Commission’s CEO, has talked at length about the importance of player protection. But when it comes to addressing the invasive and opaque practices of bookmakers, his silence is deafening. It’s a classic case of regulatory hand-wringing: all talk, no action.

From Bad to Unibet-Worse

While Betdaq’s security practices might leave much to be desired, its a total unknown? Unibet has taken things to new levels of absurdity. Their latest move? Asking punters to take photos of themselves standing outside their houses to verify their identities. That’s right—Unibet has turned the verification process into a bizarre scavenger hunt, with punters now playing the role of amateur estate agents. Why should anyone trust an industry that has consistently exploited its customers?

And here’s the kicker: Unibet’s security measures for storing and protecting all this information are an unknown at best—or an afterthought at worst. If their lacklustre approach to customer communication is any indication, it’s safe to assume that keeping your details safe isn’t exactly their top priority.

So, if you’ve handed over your banking information, ID, proof of address, and a selfie in front of your house to a bookmaker, you’ll now need to double-check every financial communication you receive. Was that text from your bank or a scammer? Is that email from PayPal or a phishing attempt? When you’ve handed over a treasure trove of data, every phone call, email, or text becomes a potential security breach.

What’s the Real Risk?

Kendrick might argue that bank details are harmless—after all, what’s the worst a crook could do? Send you money? But let’s not forget, these exchanges aren’t just hoarding your sort code and account number. They also collect proof of ID, address, and, most chillingly, your transaction history. That’s right—every bet you’ve placed, every deposit you’ve made, every late-night punt on a four-legged outsider is recorded and ready to be misused.

This isn’t just a data breach waiting to happen—it’s a personalised scam manual. Imagine a fraudster calling you, armed with your entire financial routine. They’ve got your bank details, know your rent goes out on the 1st, and have a list of all the places you regularly spend money. That isn’t just a potential scam—it’s a financial assault course, and the victim is you.

Where’s the Accountability?

Here’s the punchline: in the rare event that one of these companies fumbles your data into the hands of a cybercriminal, the fallout is squarely on you. The bookmaker will wave their terms and conditions in your face faster than a croupier shuffles cards, and the ICO will likely respond with a mild tut and a strongly worded letter. Meanwhile, the Gambling Commission will remain conspicuously silent, perhaps too busy drafting yet another report on how well they’re safeguarding the industry.

Final Thoughts: Exploiting Punters to Save Them?

Betdaq, Unibet, and their fellow operators have managed to turn the concept of “responsible gambling” into a tragicomic farce. Instead of addressing the underlying issues of bookmaker malpractice, the industry has simply shifted its focus to exploiting punters in new and inventive ways—mining their data, invading their privacy, and providing no clarity on how to avoid these intrusive measures. But lets not forget Enda is only trying to educate us!

For regulators like Andrew Rhodes and the Gambling Commission, the message is clear: wake up. Punters don’t need more platitudes about protecting the vulnerable. They need transparency, accountability, and a regulatory body willing to hold operators to account. Until then, the industry will continue to thrive on a dangerous cocktail of overreach, negligence, and an alarming lack of oversight.

But hey, at least we’ve got those photos of punters standing outside their houses, right and what about those dodgy payments to Only Fans?