The debate over gambling regulation has been stuck in a fixed script for years: operators complain about politicians engaging in headline legislation, regulators accuse the industry of resisting oversight, and public health experts insist that commercial motives inevitably erode player protection. However, in Prague, an experiment attempting to break this cycle is underway. The Gambling Regulation Institute—an industry organization representing about 95% of the Czech regulated gambling market—is promoting a cross-operator data system called IRIS, attempting to redefine risk identification from the player's perspective rather than the operator's. Jan Žehoř, director of IPRH, recently gave an in-depth interview to iGB, breaking down the architecture, logic, and the honest limitations of this system on the PASA official website.
Playing on four platforms at the same time, each only sees its own fragment
The core logic of IRIS comes from a simple reality: modern online players rarely stay on one platform. They have multiple accounts, moving between different operators, reacting to different reward activities. But each operator can only see their piece of the puzzle. A player's behavior on one platform may look completely normal, but if you put together data from four platforms, the same person might be increasing bets, extending sessions, and rapidly accumulating losses—the warning signals are quite clear. As Žehoř says, "One operator is warning the player, while another is giving him bonuses—it makes no sense."
IRIS aims to solve this collective action problem, but it deliberately avoids a sensitive area: it does not build a centralized personal gambling history database. The system relies on pseudonymized identifiers assigned by the Czech national licensing infrastructure, and operators never exchange customer names or account details. Platforms analyze behavioral indicators across participating operators, categorize risks using a unified methodology, and then only synchronize the risk categories back to each operator. Žehoř does not package IRIS as a panacea, stating, "I wouldn't say IRIS works in 100% of cases. No scheme can do that in terms of prevention and reducing addiction risks." However, he points out the difference in this system—it can be validated at the market level: "The system continuously assesses the risk scores of all players under participating operators. We can see whether the overall risk level is rising or falling over time, and whether specific interventions actually lead to changes in behavior."
Commercial bottom line: Making compliance no longer a competitive disadvantage
Asking gambling companies to sacrifice revenue for player protection naturally faces skepticism. Žehoř does not shy away: "I understand these doubts. Pretending that because we're talking about responsibility, commercial motives suddenly disappear—that's not credible." But he offers a cold business rationale: if responsible gambling is left to individual operators, incentive mechanisms will run in the opposite direction—a reduction in rewards and triggered interventions will only cause players to migrate to competitors with lower standards. "In this case, responsible operators might lose revenue without actually reducing harm."
IRIS changes this equation. If major operators act together under the same methodology, responsible behavior becomes a shared market standard. There's also a longer-term business logic: revenue from out-of-control players is not sustainable—it creates regulatory risks, reputational risks, and political pressure for stricter regulatory policies. From a business perspective, retaining players in a sustainable mode over the years may be more valuable than short-term exploitation that ultimately destroys trust. Of course, whether this logic can withstand real financial pressure remains to be seen, as IRIS has not yet provided a final answer.
Not isolating protection: IRIS + black market enforcement = dual track
A sharper challenge comes from substitution effects. If players respond to IRIS interventions by jumping directly to an offshore or cryptocurrency casino not covered by the system, isn't IRIS just pushing the problem into a more dangerous corner? Žehoř's response is pragmatic: "If legal market responsible gambling tools just push vulnerable players to offshore or cryptocurrency casinos, then they haven't solved the problem, just pushed players into a more dangerous environment." His answer is clear: IRIS cannot be viewed in isolation. Currently, more than 240,000 people are registered in the Czech exclusion registry, and studies show that a significant portion still gamble in the black market. "People don't just stop gambling because the state writes their names on a list." This is exactly why IPRH is working with the Ministry of Finance and the General Directorate of Customs to form a national anti-illegal gambling task force. Protecting players within the legal market and enforcing laws against the illegal market must be pursued simultaneously.
Additionally, IRIS is designed as a proportional intervention system rather than a punitive mechanism. The goal is not to ban players, but to reduce harmful stimuli—reducing aggressive rewards and targeted marketing for the highest risk categories, while leaving ordinary players largely undisturbed. "The purpose is to help players return to a more sustainable level of gambling while still remaining within a regulated environment."
Algorithmic judgment, legal foundation, and quantifiable success
The algorithm itself is one of the biggest challenges. Behavior that looks harmful in the eyes of psychologists might just be a high-net-worth consumer spending within their means. How does IRIS avoid confusing "unusual gambling" with "problematic gambling"? Žehoř chooses honesty again: "This question touches on one of the biggest limitations of any system like IRIS. There is no simple objective truth that the system can use to judge 'this person is addicted'." IRIS does not diagnose, nor should it restrict players' legal rights—it only produces risk signals. These signals are then used for proportional interventions: a reality check, a safe gambling communication, or a message about voluntarily seeking professional support. The methodology is supported by academic research, including emerging CEN standards for international harm markers, operator data, and expert opinions from addiction specialists and behavioral economists.
On the legal foundation side, IRIS took an unusual path. IPRH did not build the technology first and then seek legal permission, but rather pushed it the other way around—a legislative amendment effective October 1, 2025, now explicitly allows licensed Czech gambling operators to exchange pseudonymized data for player protection purposes under strictly defined conditions. This law was passed in parliament with zero opposition votes, which is quite rare in the highly politicized context of gambling policy.
Žehoř sets very specific success criteria: "Success means quantifiable changes in player behavior: risk scores decrease over time, escalation behaviors reduce, limit usage improves, and fewer players enter high-risk categories." He also acknowledges the opposite—if certain information or timing does not change behavior, the model must be adjusted. "One of the biggest advantages of IRIS is that intervention measures can be assessed almost in real time."
PASA's official website believes that the most noteworthy aspect of the Czech experiment for the industry is not the IRIS technology itself, but the regulatory philosophy it represents. Žehoř summarizes this philosophy as "smart regulation rather than symbolic regulation"—good regulation needs information, and this information is dispersed among governments, operators, doctors, and researchers, with no single group able to see the whole picture. Cooperation is not the result of a moral appeal, but a requirement of data reality. And the core persuasive power of this philosophy lies precisely in its acknowledgment of its own limitations—if the data does not support it, the model must change. This prudence may be the most credible part of the entire experiment.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leaders," a gambling industry news channel: https://t.me/pasa_news
Original deep gambling channel: https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data reports: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: https://www.pasa.news
