iGaming AI support rates are not comparable without shared definitions, vendor executive argues

A commentary published by European Gaming argues that the percentages AI support vendors quote in iGaming cannot be compared reliably. The author, who runs a company selling AI player support and discloses that interest, says operators are being asked to choose between vendors on figures that measure different things.

The piece separates three metrics often labelled as resolution. Containment counts conversations that never reached a human agent, which can include players who abandon a chat or return the next day with the same question. Automation rate usually counts conversations where the AI wrote every reply, without showing whether the problem was fixed. Resolution, in the author's view, should mean the issue was solved and the player did not come back about it within a set window, typically three to seven days. The author says few published figures use this definition or state the window. The same deployment could report 85% containment, 70% automation and 55% true resolution, depending on the metric quoted.

The denominator is a second source of distortion. Some figures cover chat only and omit email, where harder cases tend to land. Others exclude tickets routed directly to payments or compliance teams, or cover only the first eight weeks after launch, when the AI handles a selected set of simple intents.

The author says the stakes are higher in regulated gambling than in retail, because the most important tickets involve withdrawals, verification, bonus disputes and responsible gambling signals. The article notes that UK Gambling Commission complaints data has shown withdrawals and financial transactions as the largest single category of complaints to the regulator.

Results also depend on more than the model, according to the author. Vendor work after signing, such as mapping bonus terms, KYC rules, payment flows and escalation paths, plays a role, as does the use of forward-deployed engineers and iGaming specialists. Domain expertise and operator commitment, including back-office access and support leads' time for reviewing conversations, are the other factors cited.

The author lists five questions for buyers: which definition and re-contact window applies, which channels and ticket types are counted, the measurement period, performance on withdrawals and KYC specifically, and whether conversations from the operator's own tickets can be reviewed. The piece concludes by urging operators, platforms and vendors, with trade bodies and larger platforms leading, to agree a public definition of AI resolution with per-category reporting for payments, KYC, bonuses and responsible gambling.