Bank or Moral Guardian? We Ask Santander Why It Monitors Customers’ Gambling Expenses

Santander’s Gamble?

Santander, one of the largest banks in the UK, has recently found itself at the center of controversy after customers began receiving emails about their gambling activity.

These messages warn about “high” betting expenditures and suggest using financial control tools. For the bank, this is part of its responsible gambling strategy, but many customers see it as excessive interference in their private financial decisions.

Reactions are mixed—some view it as a helpful reminder of the risks, while others fear it marks the beginning of broader surveillance of consumer spending. This situation raises important questions that we will explore in this article.

With increasing regulations and growing pressure on financial institutions to protect consumers, the line between support and control is becoming increasingly blurred.

Banks are often seen as allies in tackling gambling addiction, but should they act as overseers? And does this set a dangerous precedent for monitoring other aspects of customers’ financial lives?

How Far Can Banks Go?

Santander’s decision to monitor gambling-related spending raises a crucial question: if banks can intervene in this area, where does the line stop? Will similar notifications be sent in the future to customers who spend “too much” on alcohol, luxury goods, or fast food?

On one hand, financial institutions play a key role in protecting customers from falling into debt and financial hardship. However, interfering with how consumers spend their own money can easily turn into a tool of excessive control.

Moreover, such actions could lead to widespread customer profiling. If banks begin flagging certain transactions as “risky,” could this impact customers’ creditworthiness? Will individuals who regularly spend significant amounts on gambling or other “undesirable” expenses be considered less financially reliable?

Collaboration between financial institutions and organizations promoting responsible gambling is one thing, but deciding which expenditures are “appropriate” and which require a warning raises legitimate concerns about financial freedom and privacy.

Gambling and the Growing Tendency for Intervention

The UK is grappling with a rising number of problem gambling cases, increasing pressure on financial and regulatory institutions to take preventive action.

In the second half of 2024, the National Health Service (NHS) recorded 1,914 referrals to specialized gambling addiction clinics—more than twice as many as in the same period the previous year.

With these rising statistics, banks, insurers, and credit institutions are increasingly seen as entities that should play an active role in mitigating gambling-related issues.

Organizations like the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) even recommend that doctors routinely ask patients about their gambling habits.

Against this backdrop, Santander’s decision to send emails to customers is not coincidental. Banks want to demonstrate that they take the issue seriously and are willing to act as part of their social responsibility efforts.

However, does this intervention genuinely help those at risk of addiction, or does it introduce a new model of financial oversight that could become the industry standard?

Customer Privacy and the Right to Choose

Many Santander customers reacted with outrage upon receiving the emails, arguing that they had been unfairly labeled as at risk of problem gambling.

Some recipients, including those who reported making profits from betting, saw the bank’s actions as an unjustified intrusion into their financial choices.

This raises an important question: does Santander send—or plan to send—similar messages to those who spend large sums on alcohol or fast food?

From the customers’ perspective, gambling is primarily a form of entertainment. The fact that a financial institution is actively monitoring such transactions sparks serious concerns about the boundaries of privacy.

Such actions could also lead to stigmatization. Receiving a message suggesting problematic gambling behavior might cause anxiety among customers, making them feel categorized as financially irresponsible.

This is particularly concerning for those who do not struggle with gambling addiction but simply spend more on betting than the average person.

A broader issue also emerges: are banks overstepping their role by acting as regulators of personal spending? In theory, their objective is to support customers and provide them with financial management tools.

However, in practice, they increasingly decide which expenditures are “safe” and which require intervention. This raises fears that such mechanisms could eventually extend to other aspects of everyday financial life.

What are the criteria?

To clarify the issue, we reached out to a Santander spokesperson to ask what specific criteria the bank uses to determine “high” gambling activity. Unfortunately, we did not receive a clear answer—more on this later in the article.

Another pressing question concerns professional bettors—are they also subject to these warnings? Additionally, do customers have the option to opt out of receiving such emails, or are they mandatory?

Many believe that receiving notifications about their spending habits should be a matter of personal choice. Once again, the bank provided an ambiguous response.

Santander’s Response

Following the controversy, Santander actively defended its policy. The bank stated that emails about gambling activity aim to provide support and raise awareness rather than restrict customer freedom.

The bank argues that its actions align with the growing trend of financial institutions taking greater responsibility for protecting customers from potential financial risks.

However, this explanation was not sufficient for us. To explore the topic further and assess the legitimacy of such notifications, we asked whether Santander had based its policy on any specific research. Additionally, we inquired about the effectiveness of these warnings in reducing gambling-related issues.

The only response we received from the bank was as follows:

“We are committed to supporting any customers at risk of harm, including from gambling, and we work closely with charities and people with lived experience to ensure a supportive and proportionate approach. A range of different customer circumstances and behaviours are considered when targeting our communications. We have communicated in this way for a number of years with customers who may be at risk of financial harm.

We give broad consideration to the UK Government Gambling Act Review and the ways in which the gambling landscape has changed in the digital age. Our communications are designed to offer support and information, helping customers to take informed actions rather than actively trying to prevent any activities or behaviours.”

Protection vs. Overreach: Where Should the Line Be Drawn?

Santander’s actions have sparked a broader debate about the role of banks in monitoring customers’ financial habits. Should financial institutions actively intervene in cases of high-risk spending?

Or should their responsibility end at providing tools for self-regulation?

On one hand, banks play a crucial role in protecting customers from falling into debt and financial difficulties. With the growing number of problem gambling cases, financial institutions are under increasing pressure to take preventive measures.

Limiting excessive gambling expenditures could indeed help individuals facing financial hardship.

On the other hand, concerns arise about the potential for dangerous precedents.

If banks decide which transactions warrant a warning, what would stop them from monitoring other “risky” categories such as alcohol, fast food, or luxury purchases?

There is also the issue of whether these warning systems contribute to stigmatization, unfairly labeling customers as at risk of addiction.

It’s no surprise that many customers feel frustrated and have filed complaints with the bank.

Ultimately, the key issue remains the balance between protection and excessive interference. Excessive spending oversight could reduce trust in financial institutions.

Customers may see banks as regulators rather than financial partners. Santander and other banks must find a balance. They need to support those in need while respecting customers’ financial autonomy.

We regret that we did not receive specific responses to our questions regarding this important issue. Below, we outline the exact inquiries we sent to Santander UK’s press office.

Unfortunately, the corporate statement quoted earlier remains the only reply we have received on this matter.

Naturally, we have followed up with Santander, requesting precise answers, as a generic corporate response does not adequately address the concerns at hand. As soon as we receive a response, we will publish it immediately.

QUESTIONS SENT TO SANTANDER UK PRESS OFFICE:

1. What specific criteria does Santander use to determine “high” gambling activity?
2. Can customers opt out of receiving these emails, or are they mandatory? Is Santander considering an option where customers could voluntarily sign up for such notifications instead of receiving them automatically?
3. Are similar monitoring measures planned for other spending categories beyond gambling? Does Santander send similar warnings to customers who spend large amounts on alcohol, luxury goods, or fast food?
4. How does the bank ensure that responsible gamblers or professional bettors are not unfairly flagged?
5. Has Santander based this policy on any research? What evidence supports the effectiveness of these warnings in reducing problem gambling?
6. Has the bank received complaints from customers who felt unfairly classified as at risk of gambling-related issues?