In an interview with European Gaming, Advanced Compliance Technology (ACT) director Mike Venner explains where sports integrity monitoring picks up after standard compliance checks end, why accountability cannot be automated away, and how ACT keeps old decisions auditable even after the AI model behind them has since been retrained. 

Key findings

• On gaps in compliance: ‘The real gap is what happens after the standard geolocation, KYC and AML checks are complete.’
• On accountability: ‘The platform flags, scores, explains and escalates risk, but the operator remains accountable for the final decision.’
• On why the audit trail matters: ‘That trail is the product, in a sense. It is what lets an operator defend its decision later.’
• On model retraining and liability: ‘Model evolution cannot erase accountability. If you cannot explain why a decision was made, you have a governance problem, not just a technology problem.’
• On explainability: ‘AI should not operate as a black box.’

Where ACT’s platform picks up after standard compliance checks end

European Gaming (EG): GeoComply markets a single real-time platform combining geolocation compliance, KYC, AML, and anti-fraud. It launched exactly that in Brazil this year. Where does ACT’s platform genuinely go further, and why has no one connected sports integrity before now, caution or oversight?

Mike Venner: From an ACT perspective, the real gap is what happens after the standard geolocation, KYC and AML checks are complete. 

Most compliance journeys focus heavily on onboarding, identity, location and deposits. ACT goes further by adding real-time sports integrity monitoring, allowing the platform to follow the risk journey into the betting markets and understand how funds are actually being used.

‘Compliance shouldn’t stop once a player has been verified, located correctly and cleared through AML controls.’

The next question is: 

• What happens in the market? 
• Are there unusual betting patterns, suspicious price or market movements, or links to specific events, athletes, officials, teams or wider integrity concerns? 

This is where ACT’s joined-up platform is different. 

By connecting identity, location, payments, behaviour and sports integrity into one oversight layer, ACT gives operators and regulators a clearer view of risk across the full betting lifecycle. 

It also expands the protection framework beyond the operator and player by helping safeguard sports, leagues and sporting bodies from integrity threats, suspicious betting activity and potential match manipulation.

Who overrules whom when the platform and compliance disagree

EG: When this platform disagrees with an operator’s existing compliance team (i.e., flags something they would have cleared, or clears something they would have stopped), who is overruling whom, and what happens then?

Mike Venner: ACT does not replace the operator’s compliance responsibility. 

The platform flags, scores, explains and escalates risk, but the operator remains accountable for the final decision, unless a regulator or market rule requires a hard block. 

Where there is disagreement, the system creates an audit trail: the risk signals that fired, the system’s recommendation, the human decision and the reason for accepting or overriding it. That trail is the product, in a sense. It is what lets an operator defend its decision later.

Reconstructing a decision after the model has moved on

EG: Two years from now, a regulator audits a single decision, and your model has retrained many times since. How do you reconstruct why it acted as it did that day, and if you cannot, whose liability is it?

Mike Venner: You have to preserve the decision environment as it existed at the time. That means storing the version-locked data inputs, model version, rule set, risk score, alert pathway, user action and human review notes. 

‘ACT’s approach is that model evolution cannot erase accountability. If you cannot explain why a decision was made, you have a governance problem, not just a technology problem.’

Where automation stops, and human review begins

EG: Where is the threshold set for the system to act alone versus escalating to a person, and have you ever moved that line because it was getting decisions wrong?

Mike Venner: Automatic action should be reserved for clear, high-confidence risks such as prohibited location, known circumvention tools, blocked identity, or hard regulatory triggers. 

More complex betting patterns or sports integrity triggers should be escalated to trained analysts. That threshold should be reviewed regularly.

Regulator reaction, and where the pushback lands

EG: Which regulator have you shown this to, and what did they say, including the parts they pushed back on?

Mike Venner: ACT is engaging with regulators, operators and sports bodies, and the feedback so far has been extremely positive. They have been particularly impressed by the ability to bring multiple areas of oversight together into one platform and view them through a single dashboard. 

Naturally, the strongest questions tend to focus on explainability, accountability and whether AI-driven decisions can be properly audited. Those are the right questions to ask. Our position is very clear: 

‘AI should not operate as a black box. It should support stronger regulatory and operational oversight by providing clear evidence, full audit trails, transparent risk signals and expert human review where required.’

Who is liable when a fine lands: ACT or the operator 

EG: If an operator runs your platform and is still fined for an AML failure, what does ACT carry, and what stays with the operator?

Mike Venner: The operator remains legally accountable for its licence, policies, controls and final decisions. ACT is responsible for delivering the technology, data processing, alerts, reporting, system performance and agreed support services. 

Where ACT adds significant value is by giving operators and regulators greater oversight across the full compliance and integrity journey. By taking geolocation, KYC, AML, fraud detection, behavioural monitoring and sports integrity out of separate silos, the platform brings key risk signals together in one place. 

This allows for more accurate analysis, clearer visibility and better-informed decision-making. 

‘If the platform fails to perform as contracted, that is ACT’s responsibility. However, using technology does not outsource regulatory accountability.’

ACT helps operators evidence stronger governance, improve oversight and identify risk earlier, but it does not remove the operator’s regulatory duty.

About Advanced Compliance Technology

Advanced Compliance Technology (ACT) is a compliance and risk technology provider for the regulated betting and gaming sector, offering a unified console covering geolocation, identity verification, anti-fraud and sports integrity monitoring. The company, co-founded by Susan Bala, launched its current platform at G2E Las Vegas in October 2025 and, in May 2026, partnered with the Soccer Federation of Rio Grande do Norte in Brazil on sports integrity monitoring.

The post Mike Venner, ACT on AI in sports betting: ‘Model evolution cannot erase accountability’  appeared first on European Gaming Industry News.