As GamScore’s affordability checks trigger a nanny state backlash, the industry must act before surveillance poisons trust in open banking.
If the government mandated technology that could repeatedly monitor your bank account activity, analyse signs of financial stress using AI, and generate a behavioural score for a private company, many consumers would likely see it as a step too far.
Yet within gambling, similar technology is increasingly being framed as a responsible innovation designed to support affordability checks and reduce harm.
GamScore has become the latest flashpoint in this debate. While supporters argue the product could help operators meet growing regulatory expectations around player protection, critics are concerned about the expansion of financial surveillance into everyday consumer behaviour.
The concern for the wider payments industry is the backlash may not stop at gambling. If consumers begin associating open banking with intrusive monitoring rather than convenience and control, the reputational damage could extend far beyond a single sector.
And if you are wondering what GamScore actually is, here’s the short version.
What is GamScore?
GamScore is a new platform marketed as the frictionless saviour for a gambling industry currently fighting with itself over how to protect problem gamblers without alienating everyone else. Using open banking and AI, it creates a real-time window into a customer’s financial life.
It monitors a player’s account three times a day, feeding spending habits into an AI engine which assigns customers a score. This score, and the financial stress the AI thinks players are feeling, is then handed to betting operators.
In the words of its Chairman, Josh Apiafi, it’s a “massive tick” for the regulator, the operator, and the consumer. However, when details of the product were announced, the public reaction was less a tick and more of a giant ‘X’.
“I don’t get asked if I can afford to buy a car… why when I’d like to have a bet?” wrote one X user. Another was more blunt: “There is zero chance I will share my details… I would sooner walk away.”
Don’t poison the well
This is where the “nanny state” narrative becomes a risk for the wider fintech ecosystem. The industry has spent millions trying to convince consumers that open banking is a tool of empowerment, promising that sharing data leads to cheaper mortgages, automated cashback and easier payments.
However, when the first interaction many people have with open banking is a surveillance check, the brand is poisoned.
Why should open banking leaders be terrified? Because if the public begins to link data sharing to permission-based spending, the damage will be felt by every utility provider and payment processor in the country.
A consumer who has been monitored out of their hobby by an AI score will never click “allow” when their electricity provider asks for data to help them save money. Let’s face it, they’ll see it as a trap.
We are witnessing a dangerous change in the narrative, moving from ‘give us access, get a better deal’ to ‘give us access, or you’re banned’.
Not to mention, using AI to determine financial stress introduces a level of cloudiness which is the opposite of the transparency open banking was supposed to provide. If an algorithm is going to produce a score which impacts my life, I should be able to see it, challenge it, and understand it before it ever reaches a third party.
People will recognise the name now
We are already seeing huge positives from open banking technology, with account-to-account (A2A) payments offering an alternative to traditional card networks, reducing fees, and providing instant settlement.
Adoption is rising, but as James Neville, CEO of Yaspa, noted in his company’s 2026 report, a “lack of alignment on language” is holding the technology back.
If consumers are already confused by interchangeable terms like pay by bank, imagine their resistance when those terms become associated with surveillance. A gambler may not fully understand the underlying APIs, but they will remember open banking as the technology that tried to stop their hobby.
The industry needs to decide if open banking is a key to unlock consumer potential, or a padlock to restrict it?
If we allow it to become linked to comments about the “nanny state”, the public won’t just reject GamScore, but may choose to stay locked out forever.
