Gambling Commission Wikipedia
For instance, since 28 February 2025, online gambling operators have been required to undertake a financial vulnerability check where a customer’s net spend exceeds £150 in a rolling 30-day period and, following the passing of secondary legislation, since May 2025 maximum stake limits per spin for online slot games are in place (£2 for those aged 18–24; £5 for those aged 25 and over). The main legislation governing gambling in the three forms identified in English law (gaming, betting and participating in a lottery) is the Gambling Act 2005. Free-to-play casino games with prizes are regulated as gaming and require a licence. Casino gaming (including slots and casino table games such as roulette & blackjack) The outcome of the Commission’s consultation on changes to financial key event reporting – which closed in March 2024 – is pending.Finally, in June 2025 the UK Government announced that it plans to introduce a “Voluntary Code” for prize draw operators whose offerings do not require a licence under the gambling framework because of the presence of a free entry route. Are there any specific licensing or operational requirements for operators accepting digital currencies (including cryptocurrencies)?
Figure 31. Call for evidence bespoke written submissions by type of respondent
This is an element in the alcohol licensing process that captures a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions. Most submissions to the call for evidence from licensing authorities cited the ‘aim to permit’ provision in the 2005 Act as an issue. As outlined above, the 2005 Act gave licensing authorities a range of powers to regulate gambling in their local area. However, some also voiced concerns that payment with debit cards could make it harder for customers to stay in control of spending and some were sceptical of the extent to which existing debit card technology would make it possible for operators to track chaotic play and intervene appropriately.
Given the small number of responses, we assume that the favoured option amongst licensing authorities remains Option 2. Under Option 2(a), the Bingo Association has advised that 2 substantial multi-site bingo club operators and several single site operators would be disadvantaged by comparison to the current regime. Option 2(a) had more varied views across bingo operators.
You are required to tell us about certain things that happen in your business, these are dependent on the licences and activities you hold. Including information on how we carry out assessments, your responsibilities under the LCCP and other gambling-related legislation. Guidance and information for running a compliant gambling business.
Of particular concern, we have heard that some operators offer ‘fast roulette’ with very rapid spin speeds (comparable to slots) which increases the frequency of betting and therefore the intensity of the gambling experience. Additionally, we recognise the broader risks posed by individuals seeking to gamble online using another person’s details, and that this could undermine harm detection, self-exclusion and legal age restrictions. We recognise that identity theft or stealing funds is a criminal matter, and the evidence we received, including from a police organisation, demonstrated the significant harm this can and does inflict on both the gambler and affected others. There may also be regulatory risks in several critical areas, including financial risk assessments, anti-money laundering compliance, and the prevention of illegal underage gambling. People experiencing problem gambling are more likely to use multiple online accounts and circumvent account restrictions by moving to another operator, so we expect any enhanced protections to have particular relevance for limiting the harm suffered by this group.
As much of the risk relates to online gambling, we propose that people aged 18 to 24 should have lower trigger points for the enhanced spending checks outlined in Section 1.2, and our consultation on online slot stakes will include options for extra protections for this group (Section 1.3). However, the evidence shows that people aged 18 to 24 years old are generally more vulnerable to gambling-related harms than the wider population. These usually entail a more sensitive calibration of player monitoring systems to detect harm, but some operators take more direct action, for example requiring customers aged 18 to 24 to set their own deposit limit before they are permitted to gamble or unilaterally implementing a mandatory maximum loss limit.
The Pros and Cons of Playing online
If you are a local authority/ licensing board, how many premises licence applications did you receive in the 22/23 financial year? We expect that wider benefits will arise from the increase in oversight and enforcement activity by licensing authorities of gambling premises in their area and are seeking further information to better understand these benefits. The primary cost of this measure is the additional costs incurred by gambling operators resulting from the increased licensing fees. Note that the different fees currently charged for large and small casinos may be subject to review and harmonisation following the consultation outlined in Chapter 1. The Gambling (Premises Licence Fees) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 established the maximum level of fees that local authorities in England and Wales can charge for gambling premises licences. This activity may include inspecting gambling premises to ensure that they are complying with their licence or dealing with complaints from residents or neighbours.
Further details on how this will be progressed are outlined below and we also outline a number of initiatives to stimulate interest in gambling research, including with research council funding, and to help build the evidence base. Our aim is to improve the provision of high-quality research on gambling and align treatment services commissioned by the NHS and third sector, ensuring those experiencing gambling-related harms are able to access the treatment and support they need when they need it. As the main commissioner of treatment services, GambleAware continues to provide support and treatment covering a wide spectrum of need outside of severe cases of gambling-related harm and addiction seen through the specialist NHS clinics. The Scottish Government is working with Public Health Scotland to develop an understanding of the scale of harmful gambling in communities by reviewing and developing Scotland-level data. Where operators have breached licence conditions which are designed to protect customers, the Gambling Commission already uses its significant powers to order substantial fines and financial settlements.
We have not assumed that offering credit facilities will increase GGY, although it is possible that such a policy will make casinos that serve this type of customer more internationally attractive and help boost GGY above pre-pandemic levels. Typical exchange fees of 0.5% to1% (if negotiated in bulk on large transfers by the casino) would mean the cost of exchange would represent 12% to 25% on top of GGY, and provide a substantial disincentive to gamble in these casinos as opposed to in other jurisdictions. At high-end casinos, there is a relatively low house retention, so typically, a large proportion of stakes return to the gambler as winnings.
While we know the majority of people who use these tools do not have a problematic relationship with gambling, we have heard repeated evidence of the enormous benefits they offer to those who rely on them as part of their toolkit for stopping gambling altogether. The Commission will consult on requiring operators to improve these tools, such as by making deposit limit setting mandatory for all customers on account creation and pre-populating the limit with a reasonable default. A recent study by the Behavioural Insights Team suggested this model may support greater and more meaningful usage of financial limit setting tools, but further research including in a ‘real world’ gambling environment is likely to be beneficial. Gambling operators in Australia must now provide such activity statements to customers on a monthly basis and there is guidance setting out how information should be presented. Academic evidence has shown that online gamblers can struggle to keep an accurate track of their spend, suggesting many could benefit from objective activity statements and previously set financial limits rather than purely internal budgeting during and between sessions.
Category D machines include a range of low stake machines, such as coin push, crane grabs and slot-style fruit machines. Should net position be visible at all times to the customer on machines accepting direct cashless payments? Should session time be visible at all times to the customer on machines accepting direct cashless payments? GamCare, in collaboration with the BGC, Bingo Association, Bacta and other businesses, have developed a land-based industry code for the display of Safer Gambling information. Should there be mandatory limits (default limits for time and monetary thresholds) on machines accepting direct cashless payments?
These organisations generally made targeted submissions which concentrated on single aspects of the call for evidence and gambling policy which overlap with their interests. The next biggest category of respondents was Parliamentary stakeholders, including both Parliamentary groups and individual members of both houses. Most of the substantive evidence, information and data provided to the Review was included in the 404 submissions which were prepared in response to the call for evidence and sent directly to DCMS. To the extent that some gambling harms are more prevalent within certain protected characteristics (e.g. young people and potentially certain ethnic groups) and also among socio-economically deprived groups, our proposals to reduce harm should have a positive equalities impact. Young men aged 16 to 24 and 25 to 34 are more likely to experience both problem and at-risk gambling behaviours than other cohorts. Male online gamblers spent on average 81% more than females, and according to the PHE evidence review, men are more likely to be problem gamblers (0.8%) than women (0.1%).
Gaining access to gambling from 18 years of age also coincides with an important developmental and social period in many adolescents’ lives, typically characterised by new freedoms and responsibilities, such as starting university, getting a job, living independently, and/or managing money for the first time. There is data to show that 27% of gamblers aged between 16 and 25 report friends encouraging them to gamble more money/more often. Further, some call for evidence respondents cited neurological research showing cognitive development continuing up to the age of 25 and argued that protective measures should reflect the fact that young adults may still be developing capacity to regulate impulses and make more rational decisions. However, there is growing evidence that younger adults may benefit from greater protection than other groups.
- Each should have its own casino premises licence and its own principal entrance from a street, and it must not be possible to enter one of them from other gambling premises.
- A survey carried out by GamFam and submitted to the call for evidence included suggestions that cashless payments using debit cards with customer ID cards could effectively increase monitoring in venues.
- Compliance activity is based on risk and the risk that each licensed activity poses to the Gambling Commission’s licensing objectives.
- The limited high-quality evidence we received shows a link between exposure to advertising and gambling participation, but there was little evidence of a causal link with gambling harms or the development of gambling disorder.
This includes ensuring that appropriate safeguards against gambling-related harm are in place. The policy proposals set out in this government response are intended to modernise the land-based gambling sector and help it to thrive sustainably. In September 2019, the Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) generated by remote gambling overtook that of land-based gambling for the first time (excluding lotteries). The white paper acknowledged that the emergence of new technology and the availability of online gambling since the Gambling Act 2005 came into force has substantially altered the gambling landscape. Measures relating to casinos – one draft affirmative and one made negative statutory instrument. This response provides non-remote gambling operators with clear notice of our intention to introduce the measures set out within this government response.
While the risks vary by product and other factors, gambling participation is generally not in itself harmful and may even be positive. A YouGov survey commissioned by GambleAware estimated that 6% of the population are negatively affected by someone else’s gambling (for example through relationship strain or financial hardship) and that women are overrepresented in this category. However, a small proportion do suffer significant harm as a result of gambling, and the PHE evidence review included a detailed quantitative analysis on this issue. It is clear that gambling-related harms can ruin lives, wreck families, and damage communities, with issues including mental health and relationship problems, debts that cannot be repaid, crime, or even suicide in extreme cases. However, Public Health England (PHE) compiled, assessed and reviewed evidence on gambling participation and harm as part of the Gambling-related harms evidence review which was initially published in September 2021, then revised in January 2023 by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities.
Those who lead on these fronts will be best placed to grow sustainably — and defend their licence — in a sector under increasing scrutiny. Operators should keep a clear audit trail of all actions taken — as the ability to evidence compliance is just as important as achieving it. This elevates frontline teams into a key role within the broader safer gambling ecosystem, further emphasising the importance of accountability. The Gambling Journal covers the global iGaming industry through daily news, sharp analysis, and editorially independent company profiles.
There is extensive gambling regulation in Great Britain, mostly imposed upon licensees by the various conditions and codes of practice attached to their gambling licences, which are colloquially referred to as the “Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice” or “LCCP”. This instrument brought the British system into line with various of the European so-called “regulated markets”, where the requirement to obtain a licence for that market and account for gambling duty extends to remote providers of gambling outside the jurisdiction. This so-called “point-of-supply” legislative scheme was reversed (in the case of remote gambling) by the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, which converted the British system into a so-called “point-of-consumption” regime, which criminalised any person in any jurisdiction who makes available facilities for gambling to British players on a remote basis without British licences. Originally the Gambling Act 2005 applied only to those persons who had a physical connection with Great Britain; for example, land-based gambling businesses located in Great Britain or items of remote gambling equipment located in Great Britain. If you need support, our responsible gambling UK guide lists free resources including GamCare and BeGambleAware.
All operators must also adhere to our Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP). Our guidance summarises the legal background and legislation which operators must follow to be compliant. The NRA sets out the key money laundering and terrorist financing risks for the UK. HM Treasury and the Home Office have published the national risk assessment (NRA) of money laundering and terrorist financing 2020 (opens in new tab).
Some lotteries including large non gamstop sites society lotteries and licensing authority lotteries are licensed by the Gambling Commission, while small society lotteries must register with a licensing authority. Some respondents pointed to the relatively high test purchasing scores for licensed gambling premises compared to those for the sale of other age-restricted products. There was limited evidence to suggest these measures would materially improve on the current rules, which allow operators to verify age and identity via background checks that are effective in the vast majority of cases and are minimally disruptive to the customer. Bacta argued that further restrictions on children’s access to Category D machines was unnecessary, drawing attention to its voluntarily imposed 18+ age limit for playing Category D cash payout slot machines and measures in its charter that limit access and appeal to children. Evidence came from a wide range of respondents including industry, charities, researchers, campaign groups, Parliamentarians and local authorities. One of the few longitudinal studies of gambling behaviours in the UK found that patterns of problem/moderate risk gambling can often be established by 20 years of age.
Based on our experience of investigations to date, licensees should ensure that data which relates in any way to regulatory compliance should be available for a minimum period of five years after the end of a relationship with a customer. Licensees should ensure that their retention policies ensure that such data will be available to the Commission if requested6. Where data which is relevant to a licensee’s 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.
The minimum legal gambling age is 18 for every product except the National Lottery and equivalent society lottery draws, where the minimum is 16. The thresholds below are the headline LCCP triggers; individual operators may layer stricter internal rules on top. These are sometimes called “affordability checks” in the press but the Commission now uses the terms financial vulnerability and financial risk. The 2023 White Paper proposed maximum online slot stakes of £2 per spin for 18–24-year-olds and £5 per spin for players 25 and over.