UK Online Casino Regulations 2026 Guide
We cannot predict the extent to which data sharing will influence the impact of financial checks at this stage since key implementation details are still subject to consultation (e.g. the data shared and the triggers for sharing it). Similarly, we assume CRAs can provide frictionless enhanced checks for 80% of customers who hit the enhanced spending check thresholds, with half the remainder subject to semi-agreeable checks (e.g. open banking) and the other half (10% of all those who hit the higher thresholds) subject to disagreeable checks. However, many people will simply complete the checks and no concerns would be raised, so for those individuals (as long as they are not showing other signs of harm) spending would not necessarily decrease. We used this as the best available data, but are aware that some features of the market have changed since 2019 (e.g. new player protections). The data underlying our modelling is the data tables produced as part of the Patterns of Play (PoP) research.
Evidence from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that young adults can be particularly vulnerable to gambling related harm, with under 25s having the highest average problem gambling score of any age group. We also know that young adults can be more vulnerable when it comes to gambling related harms, which is why we committed to addressing both of these issues in our white paper. This age group has the highest average problem gambling score of any group, as well as lower disposable income, ongoing neurological development impacting risk perception and common life stage factors like managing money for the first time. The same survey revealed 31% of British punters had placed bets on unregulated betting platforms, including prediction markets platforms like Polymarket. To fully comply with this provision, operators are required to refrain from placing ads that promote betting on websites that target children. The industry recruits staff to target VIPs and get them to spend more, to contact VIPs who have not gambled for some time and get them to restart gambling, to identify less serious gamblers who could become VIPs and get them to gamble more.
Find out more about how we regulate the gambling industry in Great Britain. In particular, we are grateful to the House of Lords ad-hoc Select Committee on the social and economic impact of gambling, and we have considered all of the evidence submitted directly to that committee and its recommendations in our deliberations. In the period between the opening of the call of evidence on the 8th December 2020 and publication, the ministers responsible for the Gambling Act Review had over 100 meetings with stakeholders on gambling issues. While all industry submissions recognised the need to update the regulatory framework and presented useful evidence to consider, some outlined far more developed proposals for reforms than others. The gambling industry made 57 submissions, coming from both trade bodies (for instance Betting and Gaming Council, Bacta, The Bingo Association, and the Lotteries Council), as well as individual companies. We are particularly grateful to those who shared the evidence of their own experience of harm to inform the Review’s deliberations as they provide an important personal perspective.
This would mean that an operator licensed overseas could face regulatory action in that jurisdiction for operating without a licence in Britain. In particular, they are increasingly targeted at people who have self-excluded via GAMSTOP and therefore are unable to gamble with licensed operators. The enhanced approach to monitoring operators will provide it with a comprehensive view of the operators that are and are not complying with the rules in a timely manner. It will conduct a review of the status of customer funds protection across the remote industry to help inform consideration of whether further strengthening of requirements is necessary. As part of the Commission’s Review of Online Gambling (2018), a package of work was undertaken to assess the risks and options around customer funds. Licensees are required by the Commission to provide information to customers about whether customer funds are protected in the event of insolvency, the level of such protection and the method by which this is achieved.
This tax was abolished with the general reform of the gambling acts. Many bookmakers such as 888sport, Betfair, Ladbrokes and William Hill have offshore operations but these are largely for overseas customers since no tax is due on winnings of bets in the UK. The major part of these gamblers was represented by those playing the National Lottery online. According to the survey conducted by the Gambling Commission, as of March 2010, 10.7% of the 8,000 adults surveyed said they had participated in at least one form of remote gambling in the previous 4 weeks. Until the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 off-course betting in person was illegal, but bets by telephone were legal since this was not considered, by the letter of the law, “resorting to a house kept for the purpose of betting”.
Behavioural barriers and friction should only be used to keep customers safe rather than impede them from taking decisions. This is consistent with the Commission’s rules for clear and accessible terms and conditions and the regulator will monitor operators’ compliance in this area. It is important that customers are made aware of the circumstances in which such restrictions may be applied and provided with explanations where it does occur. Tools like deposit limits can help people gamble within their means, but may be underused and not widely optimised for harm prevention. We will also consult on measures to give greater protections for 18 to 24-year-olds who the evidence suggests may be a particularly vulnerable cohort.
There are likely to be indirect costs in the form of displacement from online sports betting as those in casinos who would otherwise have bet on sports using mobile devices may be more inclined to do so using casino services. 1968 Act casinos to be subject to a limit on the number of self-service betting terminals depending on their total gambling space. These terminals are not gaming machines if they are designed or adapted for use to bet on future real events. We estimate that most of the remaining casinos would also be able to benefit from increased machine allowances, proportionate to their size and non-gambling area.
In order to limit the facility to offer credit to overseas customers, we propose to remove the prohibition only in respect of customers not resident in the UK. However, in one casino it accounts for around 48% of overall money exchanged for chips within the venue in a typical year. No workable alternatives have been identified despite government and operators having been in discussion on this issue since the withdrawal of cheques was first mooted by the banking sector in 2017.
The rise of digital gambling has triggered sweeping reforms—but until now, land-based casinos operated under softer guidelines, particularly when it came to machines. For converted casinos, however, there is an additional restriction on the number of betting machines relative to the size of the floor area of gambling area in that casino. Regulation 3 of these Regulations amends section 172(5)(b)(i) of the Gambling Act 2005 (c. 19) (“the Act”) to change how to calculate the number of gaming machines that may be made available for use in small casinos licensed under the Act. “extended converted casino premises” means premises in which gaming machines are made available for use in accordance with the extended gaming machine entitlement;
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014
The UK Gambling Commission plays a crucial role in regulating and overseeing all gambling activities to ensure fairness, safety, and compliance across the industry. New rules target addictive features in online casino games to promote safer play. These limits apply per game cycle and are designed to reduce gambling-related harm. Wiggin serves as the leading advisor to the global gambling industry’s top players, setting itself apart by understanding both national and international laws and regulations like no other firm. The firm’s Brussels office provides legal support and lobbies EU decision-makers on behalf of clients on a wide range of matters, including EU copyright, audio-visual regulation, data protection, competition policy, trade and e-commerce.
Millions of people enjoy gambling every year – whether that be putting money on a horse, playing at a casino, or a bet on the football – and much of this is now done through smartphones. All casinos we recommend are UKGC-licensed and provide deposit limits, reality checks, cool-off periods and self-exclusion. All casino gambling is a negative-expectation activity — treat it as entertainment, not income. Our checks focus on UKGC licensing, bonus terms, payout information, payment options, game libraries, mobile experience and responsible gambling tools. Cross-operator data-sharing so harm indicators follow the player.
What is Gambling?
Licensees should also consider whether any other exemptions to data subject rights (such as those set out in Schedule 2 of the draft Bill) may apply. The processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party (except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data)5. Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contractiii. GDPR provides for a number of lawful circumstances which are designed to allow legitimate processing in circumstances where it may be not practical to acquire consent, and to ensure that public policy objectives (such as the reduction of problem gambling) are met.
- Licensing authorities highlighted numerous benefits which would be achieved by increasing the maximum chargeable premises fees by 30%.
- While low test purchasing rates demonstrate serious failures of process at venues, this does not necessarily mean that significant numbers of children are illegally accessing gambling.
- Licensees should consider the requirements of their licence (for example, those requirements included at Annex A).
- Any changes to this privacy policy will apply to you and your data immediately.
- At Casinos.org.uk, we review and rank both online casino sites and land-based venues across the UK.
We have been working closely with the ICO to ensure that the way in which licensees are interpreting and implementing GDPR does not conflict with the requirements of gambling regulation1. This document may be updated from time to time in accordance with legal developments, including the finalisation of the Data Protection Bill. It will remain licensees’ responsibility to ensure they are legally compliant with GDPR and with our regulatory framework, and we recommend that operators obtain their own legal advice on compliance. Fairness, transparency, accuracy, security, data minimisation and respect for the rights of the individual whose data a business wants to process – these are all things that businesses should already be doing with data.
However, it is our intention to apply a fixed maximum of 80 gaming machines per physical location. The government proposes that a new regime will apply to 1968 Act casinos that seek to increase their gaming machine entitlement. We also acknowledge concerns about an increased availability of machines potentially leading to greater opportunities for gambling-related harm. Over half of respondents who indicated an intention to move onto the new regime stated they would look to take up the maximum entitlement of 80 gaming machines in at least some of their venues (57%).
The list of responsibilities of the Gambling Commission includes work to ensure that licencees act in accordance with the requirements imposed by the Gambling Act 2005 and other related regulations and standards. From December 2020 through February 2021, the Commission invited public comment on improving the quality and timeliness of its statistics regarding problem gambling. The Commission’s non gamstop sites stated aims are “to keep crime out of gambling, to ensure that gambling is conducted fairly and openly, and to protect children and vulnerable people”. The Commission concluded that in the period between September 2018 and March 2020 the operators did not make enough efforts to keep gamblers’ safe and prevent money laundering. It also collaborates with the police over suspected illegal gambling.The Commission replaced the Gaming Board for Great Britain in 2007.
Relatedly, studies have shown a relatively small proportion of players access activity statements (which summarise a customer’s recent gambling activity, including spend). Research was shared with us that found 69% of those who suffered financial harm from gambling had not set a limit, despite having some idea of the amount they were willing to lose. This could be an inappropriate distraction at a time when customers are trying to reflect on appropriate controls on their gambling. They argued such tools can put too much responsibility on the individual gambler and are therefore unlikely to be effective for those in the grips of an addiction, and may even backfire in increasing the guilt of those participating in harmful gambling.
We think that this 30 second transaction time, coupled with the other player protection measures that we are proposing, should ensure that the use of direct debit cards on a machine has a similar level of friction to playing with cash. Following 30 seconds, the player would be able to start depositing money onto the machine. We would suggest that the 30 second period should start from when the machine has read the card and approved the payment. Some respondents stated that any transaction time should at least ensure a break from the machine that is equivalent to the time it takes to access additional funds from an ATM. Responses varied on the length that the transaction time should be, with industry broadly agreeing on 30 seconds and non-industry respondents proposing either 90, 120 or 180 seconds. Our aim throughout the development of this policy has been to replicate the experience of playing on a machine with cash and the deposit and committed payment limits play an important role in the current customer journey.
We conclude that the 80/20 rule on gaming machines in arcades and bingo clubs is no longer required to offer the customer protections originally intended, and does not provide a workable framework for operators to make commercial decisions. The bingo trade organisation provided evidence of consumer demand for Category B gaming machines in venues, over and above Category C and D machines, particularly during the short breaks in the main stage bingo game. Currently, no more than 20% of the total number of gaming machines in licensed bingo premises and adult gaming centres are allowed to be Category B machines (known as the ‘80/20 rule’). If Parliamentary time allows, we would also consider making changes to allow trials of linked machines in venues other than individual casinos, and to permit the rollout of linked machines more generally (e.g. after a trial has taken place and the data analysed). The Commission also raised concerns that linked machines could encourage riskier gambling behaviour and be of concern for vulnerable customers, and that such proposals would need to be more fully explored. We will require any new or additional requirements for operators in relation to cashless payments on gaming machines to be in place before the prohibition is lifted.
Will these Changes Work to Limit Gambling?
Affiliates are also coming under increased scrutiny (at least politically) and the links between gambling advertising and sport are likewise coming under increased political scrutiny. Where an operator is deemed to be seriously deficient, there is the possibility of a licence suspension and a small number of licensees have suffered licence suspensions. Operating licences are generally indefinite, subject to paying annual fees.
Further, it is our view that much of the foregone revenue is likely to be that which was coming from financially vulnerable customers or those who were gambling at significantly unaffordable levels, although this is hard to quantify. Industry estimates based on previous trials are that between 70% and 90% of customers would not comply with requests for such documents to be shared. Industry and racing stakeholders have raised particular concerns that should checks require documents such as payslips or bank statements to be provided to operators, then most people would refuse and instead gamble elsewhere, including with unlicensed operators. The specific thresholds and proposals below are based on the premise that frictionless checks will facilitate operators gathering the necessary information without disruption to the customer experience, for instance through needing to ask for payslips or bank statements as some operators do now. It is for the Gambling Commission to decide whether existing licence conditions and codes of practice are being met by operators, and the inclusion of proposals in this white paper does not in itself create new obligations.
Respondents were in favour of venues having to comply with all of the sliding scale requirements in order to increase their gaming machine allowances. • Any non-gambling area may consist of one or more areas within the premises. This will ensure that gaming products, such as single-player games in which the player presses a switch or button, or pulls a plunger or lever, to release a ball or set of balls cannot count towards the machine to table ratio. Therefore both wholly automated gaming tables and table games of equal chance do not attract any gaming machine allowance for the purposes of meeting the machine to table ratio.
Casino licence holders making changes to their gaming machine provision are expected to reflect these changes in their MLTF risk assessment and consider whether their policies, procedures and controls need updating. The legislative changes also introduced changes to gaming machine entitlements for converted casino premises. The Commission expects casino licence holders who introduce betting activity to update their MLTF risk assessments, considering all relevant risks and taking into account the betting sector risks published in the Commission’s risk assessment. Licence holders should consider whether, as a result of the changes and gambling facilities offered, an operating licence (OL) variation is required with regard to fee category and/or the licensed activities being offered (such as betting). Arianne has a wealth of experience in the gambling sector with a focus on online gaming and betting and she regularly advises clients domestically and internationally.
Our intention is that these checks will also be frictionless for customers and conducted online by credit reference agencies or through other means such as open banking in the first instance. These enhanced checks are narrowly targeted and we estimate only around 3% of online gambling accounts will be affected. We also propose that the triggers for enhanced checks should be halved for those aged 18 to 24 given evidence on increased risk. Second, at higher levels of spend which may indicate harmful binge gambling or sustained unaffordable losses (we propose thresholds of £1,000 net loss within 24 hours or £2,000 within 90 days), there should be a more detailed consideration of a customer’s financial position. However, around 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing ‘problem gambling’, defined as gambling to a degree which compromises, disrupts, or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits, and a further 1.8 million are identified as gambling at elevated levels of risk.
In addition to failing to identify those suffering harm, respondents identified wider practices which might be detrimental to consumers, such as the profiling of customers and the restriction of winning accounts. Operators broadly argued in favour of these tailored controls, rather than measures which may limit the enjoyment of gambling for the majority of players who suffer no ill effects and may (if curtailed in their gambling) turn to unlicensed operators. Many operators were confident that their current and increasingly sophisticated harm detection algorithms would have prevented ‘historic cases’ where harm occurred without sufficient action. Given the Review’s focus on ensuring our gambling laws are fit for the digital age, it is unsurprising that a significant amount of evidence was submitted in response to the remote gambling questions in our call for evidence. When used in conjunction with self-exclusion, payment and website blocks can add a further layer of protection for people recovering from gambling harm.
They also said that there should not be a maximum transaction limit on Category D crane grab machines. For example, a person leaving a gaming machine to go to an ATM will be required to enter their PIN. It was also raised that these machines can be converted to adapt a card reader for contactless payment, but adding a chip and pin device for every transaction in most cases would either not be technically feasible or cost effective. Respondents from the pub sector also raised issues with verification for each transaction on Category D crane grab machines.
