Gambling Law Updates Shake Up the UK Casino Scene in 2025
This was cited as evidence that promotional offers are desirable to customers, who expect them as markers of difference between operators and may see them as beneficially discounting the costs of gambling. We also received evidence that particular industry advertising practices might carry an unacceptably high risk of harm (explored below). The review also found a causal relationship between exposure to gambling advertising and more positive attitudes to gambling, a greater intention to gamble and increased gambling activity, and that evidence of impact was stronger for children and young people and those already at risk of harm. A recent in-depth umbrella review on the relationship between advertising and gambling-related harm found evidence of a âdose-responseâ effect where greater exposure to advertising increases participation which carries a greater risk of harm.
Our reviews and rankings remain 100% unbiased and based on real player experience. Each casino review also includes a bonus calculator so you can see exactly what you need to wager before you can withdraw â no more guessing at the small print. We encourage all those with views or evidence on the options above to make submissions via the survey link below by that point. The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that the government is able to consider a range of views and evidence on this range of proposals before finalising the details of each policy. The Gambling Act review white paper published in April 2023 set out the governmentâs plans for modernising the regulation of gambling in Great Britain. However, we also received evidence form a small number of additional respondents.
However, overall almost half of respondents from the arcade and bingo sector acknowledged that Option 3 posed a risk of increasing gambling-related harm. The only responses which challenged the risk of gambling-related harm under Option 3 came from respondents within the arcade and bingo sector. There was a general consensus across respondents that Option 3 presented the greatest risk of increasing rates of gambling-related harm. In arcade premises, 2.3% of Category B gaming machine sessions result in losses of ÂŁ200 or more, compared to 2% of combined Category C, Category D and mixed sessions. In bingo premises, 1.6% of Category B gaming machine sessions result in losses of ÂŁ200 or more, compared to 0.7% of combined Category C, Category D and mixed sessions.
The evidence we have seen suggests that bonuses (as defined by non gamstop the CMA), general promotional offers, and direct marketing communications are the forms of advertising most likely to impact an individualâs gambling behaviour. The proposals set out in the following sections target practices identified as likely to increase the risk of harm. While we agree that it would be harmful for any form of advertising or marketing to ânormaliseâ harmful practices (for example underage or unaffordable gambling), we do not consider participation in gambling in and of itself a form of harm. One argument that was frequently raised in responses calling for greater restrictions on advertising was that the ânormalisationâ of gambling is a form of harm caused by advertising. The authors suggest that limiting children and vulnerable peopleâs exposure to gambling advertising could mitigate the potential harm that advertising poses to these groups.
Operators are therefore already expected to consider customersâ financial circumstances to inform case by case risk assessments of whether an individualâs gambling may be harmful. A number of individuals submitted evidence including case studies which showed that signs of harm can be missed and that individuals are permitted (and occasionally encouraged) to continue gambling. Most industry submissions pointed to recent Gambling Commission data (which has since been updated) which suggests a decline in the population problem gambling rate, as evidence that the incremental changes are having the desired effect. Finally, there is also a range of other universal controls to make the online gambling experience safer, largely imposed through licence conditions on gambling operators. All licensed online operators must provide customers with a range of tools to help them gamble safely, such as gambling activity statements, âtime outâ functionality, and facilities to set limits on spend. Some academics, treatment providers and groups with personal experience have also argued the environment of online gambling and certain structural characteristics of online products are inherently risky for all customers, and particularly for those who are otherwise vulnerable.
By contrast, under Option 2, the same operator reported that it would be required to increase the number of Category C machines, resulting in increased costs. Industry respondents asserted that these machines are underused but energy intensive. Another large arcade operator estimated that a B3 cabinet gaming machine generates c.ÂŁ600 per week, per machine. Responses from both the arcade and bingo sector show that Category B machines generate higher GGY on average than Category C and D machines, though responses indicated that the levels of GGY were higher in the arcade sector.
The register also shows enforcement history and which domains a licence covers. Licensed sites must display their licence details. Check the operator name or licence number from the site footer against the UKGC public register.
The information that an ombudsman collates through complaints will assist the Gambling Commission in planning its enforcement activity and help industry to improve processes and support vulnerable consumers. This means customers seeking personal redress in these areas currently have no choice but to pursue potentially costly and uncertain court action. This aims to build capacity and start filling the key evidence gaps identified by PHEâs evidence review. Government will also co-host workshops with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the umbrella body for the UK research councils, Innovate UK and Research England, to stimulate interest and investment in gambling research.
Providing facilities for gambling otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence is a criminal offence. Whilst this document does not constitute legal advice, it will assist gambling businesses by setting out some factors they should consider when assessing their processing of personal data. The integration of technology and the focus on responsible gaming practices will be key drivers in shaping a sustainable future for the industry. By employing decentralized systems, casinos can increase player trust and reduce fraud scenarios.
Scope, definitions, and current legal status
According to evidence from the Betting and Gaming Council, casinos received more than 17 million customer visits in 2019, including a large number of visits from tourists and overseas customers. Around 45 current 1968 Act casinos meet the minimum overall size and non-gambling space requirements for a 2005 Act Small casino and would therefore be able to offer a maximum of 80 machines. Casinos originally licensed under 1968 Act provisions are limited to 20 Category B gaming machines regardless of size, and a Small 2005 Act casino would need 40 tables to be allowed 80 gaming machines whereas a large would only need 16. Its final recommendation in this area is that any move towards the use of debit cards on gaming machines should strike an appropriate balance between regulation applicable to modern payment methods, consumer benefits and protection of the licensing objectives. The first recommendation focuses on the importance of account-based play in protecting customers in land-based settings, asking the government to encourage operators to use such technology to identify and protect customers at risk of harm, subject to a proportionate approach.
This indicates that unless customers actively plan to bring cash to a pub for use on a gaming machine, they are unlikely to be able to use one. Anecdotal industry evidence suggests that payment methods are a factor in this decline in machine usage, as pub goers now pay for food and drink by card but might have previously played a machine using spare change. There has also been a decline in gaming machine usage in alcohol licensed premises. Land-based gambling has a significantly larger workforce than online gambling. Some licensed betting offices also use a cross-channel digital wallet that can be topped up at cash desks as well as on the operatorâs website and used on machines.
The UKGC can issue fines, suspend licences, or revoke them entirely. Players betting ÂŁ1âÂŁ2 per spin will not notice any practical change; the limit primarily affects high-stakes slot players. Players have the right to access this data before placing a single bet. Return to Player (RTP) requirements were updated under the UK casino regulations 2026. Bonus terms have been completely overhauled under the UK casino regulations 2026.
The information that an ombudsman collates can assist the industry in supporting vulnerable consumers whilst also providing feedback to inform processes aimed at reducing detriment. While we do not expect this overall volume of complaints in gambling, especially as complaints to the FOS around businessesâ customer services accounted for over 35,000 cases alone, a significant increase is likely. We understand, however, that the current number of complaints is not necessarily representative of the quantum of complaints, including those regarding social responsibility, that could be received if a single new body or function was created to handle them and consumers had confidence in it. Separate data on the scale of the issues comes from the Gambling Commissionâs contact centre, which received 1,305 âSafer Gambling tools / customer interactionâ complaints in 2020 to 2021 (15% of total complaints) and 800 in 2021 to 2022 (14% of total complaints). The Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) is the largest ADR provider in the gambling sector, handling around 80% of ADR disputes. Of the 5% of complaints made directly to operators that go to ADR, it appears that c.6% related to social responsibility failings and therefore fell outside the scope of the existing arrangement.
Some contended the models can now even identify and prevent harm before it occurs, but this is hard to verify. One major operatorâs evidence reported a threefold increase in the number of customer interactions compared to two years ago and increased positive impact from their interventions (according to their own evaluation). These individuals may not have been spending more than they could afford, but many respondents felt operators should have been doing more to check.
As per the name of the act, a UKGC licence grants the operator advertising access to UK consumers. British gambling laws, or âlawâ in this case, echo the standard set by multiple other countries in that there is one presiding statute. The GA 2005 also established the frameworks for licensing and regulation. The Gambling Act 2005 â The Gambling Act 2005 is the standard benchmark for legal gambling in the United Kingdom. You will find coverage on the multiple laws and their effect on the market, the regulatory agencies working behind the scenes, a history of legal gambling in the UK, specifically England.
Gambling in other venues
For casinos moving onto the new regime, section 187 of the Gambling Act 2005 should require operators to apply to the licensing authority to vary their premises licence. We agree that operators should be required to notify licensing authorities and the Gambling Commission if they decide to take-up the entitlement to additional gaming machines under the new regime. The majority of respondents (93%) agreed that operators should be required to notify licensing authorities and the Gambling Commission if they decide to take-up the entitlement to additional gaming machines under the new regime. Despite indications from operators that there would not be appetite to site more than 80 machines in a single location, we want to ensure that this is not a possibility, removing the risk that these casinos could site more machines than a Small or even Large 2005 Act casino. For example, a licence for an FEC allows the operator to site an unlimited number of Category C and D gaming machines in premises which are open to all ages.
Conversely, a number of think tanks and campaigners have proposed far more expansive SCV solutions, involving the pooling of every customerâs online and potentially offline play data for analysis by an independent public body which flags concerns and directs operator interventions. As part of the trial, codes of practice are being developed to ensure operators respond appropriately when they are notified of customers in this situation. While supportive in principle, industry initially had concerns regarding potential data protection and privacy implications. For example, a person showing signs or disclosing that their gambling is out of control could have their account closed by one operator doing the right thing to prevent harm, but within minutes they could have a new account with a different operator and a âblank slateâ.
Changing the Commissionâs fee model will enable it to respond flexibly in the medium to long-term to emerging regulatory challenges and ensure that each sector is paying a fair fee for regulation of the industry. The Commission should be able to show how it intends to spend its income on different sectors within the industry, with (as under the current system) those sectors that require greater regulatory attention being required to pay more than others. Numerous pieces of legislation enable the FCA to charge fees to cover its costs and expenses in carrying out its functions, including the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It also produces several other consultations each year, including a specific one relating to its policy on how it raises fees and levies.
The Information Commissionerâs Office is the supervisory authority for data protection legislation, and maintains a full explanation of these rights on their website DCMS will ensure that we uphold your rights when processing your personal data. You have rights over your personal data under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Your data will not be transferred outside the UK. We will not use your data for any automated decision making. Your personal data will be kept for one year in line with DCMS retention policy. Information provided in response to this consultation (not including personal information) may be shared with other government departments and armâs length bodies, such as the Department for Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission.
Opposition tended to come from those who are opposed to any increase in supply of gambling opportunities in land-based premises, while the industry was expectedly supportive. An identical proportion of respondents thought sports betting should be permitted as shouldnât be permitted in land-based casinos, with a small number selecting âI donât knowâ. As referenced in our response to the âGaming machine allowance for 1968 Act casinosâ section, we acknowledge concerns from stakeholders about the necessity of a table gaming area requirement given the sliding scale includes a specified number of tables. These products do not count as gaming machines, but neither do they provide any of the benefits of a multiplayer table in contributing to a balanced mix or affording opportunities for social interaction.
- A reasonably widespread concern in call for evidence responses from consumer groups and private individuals was that friction is unequally distributed across the customer journey in a way that can disadvantage consumers.
- This will avoid duplicating the earlier work on online slot design, reduce unnecessary complexity in our regulatory framework and retain flexibility for future product innovations while also efficiently curtailing harmful game design innovations.
- Cash-only gambling was assumed to give players more control over their play by providing natural interruptions in play to obtain more cash, helping players play within budget limits.
- Staying informed about these changes is crucial for adapting to the industryâs future dynamics.
- Where data which is relevant to a licenseeâs compliance with the regulatory regime has been obtained, licensees should have regard to the fact that we may wish to investigate whether a licensee has complied with their obligations.
- Nonetheless, some submissions to the call for evidence argued that affiliate marketing presents particular risks in the gambling sector, mainly citing concerns that they are less compliant with the advertising rules than operators themselves.
The majority of licensing authorities advocated for a 30% increase. The consultation asked the questions below on whether licensing authority fees should be increased, and if so, by how much. Making this a criminal offence will ensure a level playing field for all operators. However, there are a significant number of operators who are outside of Bactaâs membership and therefore may not operate any age restrictions. This measure has near universal agreement and received considerable support from industry.
Advertising Rules
Following evaluation later this year, the intention is to expand the system to consider customers who are showing other indicators of harm with one operator which might necessitate coordinated action with other operators. The live trial which started this month is based on operators sharing information on individuals who have had their accounts closed because of disclosures about suffering serious harm. An industry-led trial with GAMSTOP as the delivery partner is now proceeding, having been supported by the ICOâs sandbox process, and focusing on high risk customers. We are pleased progress has been made on these after the Information Commissionerâs Office confirmed that, subject to certain controls, operators can share customer data for harm prevention purposes in compliance with existing data protection requirements. Their concern is that not only are those being harmed by gambling unlikely to be helped by such a measure, but also that many of those who were not being harmed would nonetheless be driven away from licensed operators. The precise impact of these changes will depend on the details which the Gambling Commission will consult on shortly, including how operators are required to conduct the checks and how they respond to certain findings on customersâ financial circumstances.
Verification typically involves submitting identification documents (passport, driving licence), proof of address (utility bill, bank statement), and in some cases a selfie or video verification. The casino must clearly state which ADR provider it uses in its terms and conditions. If you have a complaint that the casino cannot resolve internally, you can escalate it to the ADR provider for an independent, impartial review. The RTP published for a slot, for example, has been confirmed by third-party testing â the casino cannot quietly alter the odds. When you see logos from these organisations on a casinoâs website, it means the games have been independently verified to operate as advertised.
For this reason, submissions from members of the public which came via 38 Degrees accounted for 94% of all submissions of the Act Review call for evidence by volume. However, where the evidence is pertinent to policy development, suitably anonymised excerpts have been included throughout the white paper. We do not intend to publish in full all of the submissions to the call for evidence as a number of respondents provided information on a confidential basis. Finally, treatment providers, most notably NHS clinicians and third sector gambling treatment specialists, provided 8 submissions. 18 sports and racing bodies provided targeted submissions on aspects of the call for evidence which overlapped with their sport, mainly on advertising and sponsorship. The All Party Betting and Gaming Group did not make a collective submission, but individual members provided evidence independently.
A further key component of the online advertising landscape is social media, which has been found to have a particular impact on children and young people, and accounts for an increasingly large proportion of their gambling ad exposure. This means it is likely that the minority experiencing serious harm from their gambling are not only seeing more gambling adverts than others, but are also more likely to spend money as a result of seeing them. Evidence submitted by a major charity found that even occasional gambling substantially increased online advertising exposure, with around 40% of those who gambled once a month reportedly being served 4 or more ads a day. Adverts such as TV, radio and online banner ads tend to influence a lower percentage of viewers to begin or increase gambling than those on social media. It is clear that the risks posed by gambling advertising are not uniform across the population, and that people respond to different types of adverts in different ways.