Replacing the Reno Model with a Robust Public Health Approach to “Responsible Gambling”: Hancock and Smith’s Response to Commentaries on Our Original Reno Model Critique

This paper responds to commentaries from the Reno Model authors and other international researchers who reviewed our earlier paper in this volume. We take a considered view of the Reno Model and find it to be wanting as a responsible gambling (RG) tool because it fails to address the depth and diversity of harms so evident in today’s gambling environment. We propose a new consumer protection paradigm that prioritizes operator duty of care, integrity of operations, and consumer protection, along with independent regulation and research. We discuss the rebuttal of our Reno critique by Shaffer et al. along with the other commentaries. There appears to be general support for our critique and more robust public health approaches to RG. We urge support for engagement in an international process for a WHO instrument referencing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Similar to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco, this would re-frame gambling harm prevention and address current deficiencies in regulatory oversight of harmful gambling products and environments, by promoting duty of care, harm prevention, regulatory integrity, and public accountability.