Casino sector guidance
£4 million of seed funding will be given over three years to the University of Bristol to build and diversify research capability in the gambling harms field. As the regulator, the Gambling Commission plays an important role in our understanding of gambling-related harms. The government and key partners, including UKRI and the third sector, will bring forward a range of initiatives which will increase the amount of high-quality independent research into gambling. GambleAware is an independent charity and has had no industry trustees since October 2018 and the industry has no role in commissioning decisions. Work on the development of the strategy is now underway and will consider the link between suicide and issues such as harmful gambling. Wider work led by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) with regard to mental health and suicide prevention also takes gambling harm into account.
Evidence also suggested football pools pose a relatively low risk of harm, because they are low intensity and have a low average spend (£3.05 a week) and usually via a subscription-style payment. The largest football pools operator in the UK already voluntarily prohibits under 18s from playing online, and evidence we received from providers suggested that the average player age is over 55, and that players between 16 to 24 account for less than 1% of the customer base. There are also various types of small lotteries that do not require a licence from the Gambling Commission or registration with a licensing authority (referred to as ‘exempt lotteries’), such as incidental lotteries (taking place at an event), private society, residents’, customer or work lotteries.
In contrast, most other respondents (particularly across the health, charity and academic sectors) argued that gambling advertising was in need of significant reform, with several stakeholders in this group advocating for a return to the pre-2005 regime where most advertising was banned. Industry stakeholders (as well as representatives of sectors which benefit from operators’ ability to advertise, such as advertisers, broadcasters and sports governing bodies) broadly took the view that the current regulatory regime is fit for purpose. The questions on advertising and sponsorship in the call for evidence attracted a high number of responses, with strongly polarised views.
The Gambling Commission collects data on the outcome of individual gaming machine sessions (e.g. whether customers have won or lost overall and their net position). Legislation was subsequently enacted to reduce the maximum permitted stake on B2 gaming machines from £100 to £2, from April 2019. Debit card payments, including contactless, have emerged as an alternative to cash in the wider retail economy, but gambling premises have largely remained cash-based. Secondary legislation (the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) Regulations 2007) prohibits the use of debit cards for direct payment on gaming machines, and prohibits any use of credit cards. Members’ clubs and miners’ welfare institutes may offer up to three gaming machines if they hold a club gaming permit (CGP) or a club machine permit (CMP).
Some submissions highlighted that gambling blocks on debit cards could make it easier to prevent harmful gambling and track customer spend. However, evidence from these groups was typically directed towards other areas of the Review such as online player protection, children and young people, and advertising. We received evidence from a range of stakeholders in response to whether new types of casino created by the 2005 Act meet the Act’s objectives for the sector. We also received submissions from campaign groups and academic research highlighting the risks of cashless gambling and possible mitigations. Some submissions also made the case that the triennial review process (a formal feature of gambling regulation before the 2005 Act) allowed a regular review of the rules applied to machine games and therefore enabled a process for stake and prize limits to be amended to reflect inflation or wider changes.
PHE’s evidence review highlights higher levels of problem gambling amongst young adults when compared to older ages. Children and young people aside, concerns have been raised about people who are old enough to take part legally in the full range of commercial gambling activities but may still be particularly susceptible to harm for a variety of reasons. According to the 2022 data, the problem gambling rate of 11 to 16-year-olds (using the DSM-IV-MR-J screen which is specially adapted for children) was 0.9%, equal to about 35,000 children aged 11 to 16 in mainstream secondary schools. Once this new methodology is formally in place, it will provide more insight into harms experienced by young adults who are gambling legally, but who may additionally be vulnerable to gambling harm due to their age (see section 3.5. In particular, the 2022 Young People and Gambling Survey of 11 to 16-year-olds set out a range of questions on harms experienced as a result of gambling (both the participants’ own gambling and someone else’s gambling).
Progress here will help strengthen the evidence base around gambling and gambling-related harms, and buttress work to increase investment and capacity in the gambling research field. Separately, to support the development of effective treatment interventions, OHID has commissioned the University of Sheffield to calculate harmful gambling treatment needs and demand at local, national and regional levels. Through working collaboratively with NHS and other key delivery partners, including GambleAware, it wants to ensure those experiencing gambling-related harms receive high-quality treatment in a timely manner. It would not be appropriate for the Commission to be responsible for a repository of all data relating to gambling in Great Britain, including on areas such as treatment which fall outside of its remit. Collecting more data will provide rich datasets to assess compliance but will also allow for an increased understanding of consumer behaviour and operator practices which, suitably anonymised, could in turn inform research and understanding of gambling-related harms.
According to the NHS Long Term Plan more than 400,000 people in England are problem gamblers and two million people are at risk. In July 2026, the UK changed how gambling penalties would be collected and allocated. Since 1 December 2014, the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act changes the taxation of remote gambling from a 'place of supply' basis to a 'point of consumption' basis. Passing on a bet on behalf of another, in any capacity, is generally considered by law to be acting as an agent and would require a licence. Six specific games, Pool, Cribbage, Darts, Bar billiards, Shove-halfpenny and Dominoes could be "played for small stakes on those parts of the premises open to the public".
Licensing authorities have wide ranging powers to make decisions on licensing gambling premises in their areas. The 59 licensed racecourses in Great Britain require a Track Betting Premises Licence from their licensing authority, with the four racecourses which offer their own betting operation also requiring an operating licence. Some licensed betting offices use a cross-channel digital wallet that can be topped up at cash desks as well as on the operator’s website and used on machines. Commercial clubs which hold a club machine permit can also site three machines, although sub-category B3A machines are not permitted for commercial clubs.
If they are perceived as permitting ‘risk-free’ gambling by providing a mechanism to subsequently recoup losses, this would risk reinforcing negative and harmful behaviours. Alternatively, we have heard that some operators make payments directly to fund the complainant’s treatment, education regarding the risks of gambling and the support available, or to cover outstanding debts rather than providing a lump sum. A memorandum of understanding between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), for example, requires that information on complaints data, including any trends and common problems, is shared with the FCA so that both organisations can serve customers effectively. Many stakeholders, including Parliamentary and campaign groups, as well as those with personal experience, said that an ombudsman must be demonstrably independent of the Commission and the gambling industry. We received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders including trade bodies, charities, researchers, treatment and support service providers, organisations in the dispute resolution landscape, and from across the gambling industry. This includes, for example, complaints that an operator allowed a self-excluded customer to gamble, or should have taken greater steps to identify a customer at risk of harm and stepped in earlier to prevent unaffordable gambling.
Sports gambling has a long history in the United Kingdom, having been controlled for many decades, and more recently relaxed. In 2007, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that the Government would not be proceeding with the super casino in Manchester. On 29 March 2007, the House of Lords urged the Government to review plans for the super casino in Manchester. On 30 January 2007 Manchester was announced as the winning bid to be the location of the first super casino. On 8 December 2020, Nigel Huddleston MP announced a call for evidence to begin the Gambling Act Review.
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.
Operators are therefore already expected to consider customers’ financial circumstances to inform case by case risk assessments of whether an individual’s 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, ‘time out’ 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.
This requirement is also subject to guidance issued by the Commission, the policy statement produced by the licensing authority and the three licensing objectives. The Council expects that applicants and existing operators will need to meet the specific GVZ policy and expect enhanced scrutiny from the Council to ensure that the operation is in line with that policy and the principles of the legislation. Westminster City Council recently introduced a new gambling policy statement which includes the designation of several Gambling Vulnerability Zones (GVZs). This enables a local planning authority (licensing authority) to take into account a variety of different factors, such as the balance of uses of an area or high street. Some submissions from licensing authorities suggested the ‘aim to permit’ provision should be removed altogether from the Act.
In the years following the enactment of the Gaming Act, the UK witnessed a gradual rise in the number of licensed casinos across the country. As a result of the Gaming Act of 1968, the landscape of gambling in the UK underwent significant transformation, marking a shift towards a more regulated and controlled industry. Among the stringent measures implemented were protocols to curb criminal activities and maintain the integrity of games, such as thorough background checks on both casino operators and staff.
Furthermore, The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (building on PHE’s report) has estimated the direct cost to government of gambling harm to be £413 million per year. However, even if we made pessimistic assumptions about leakage, displacement is likely to materially reduce the negative economic and fiscal impact from the drop in online gambling tax revenue. Some money not spent on gambling (for instance due to restrictions to prevent unaffordable losses) will go into non gamestop casinos other economic sectors which pay tax and produce more jobs per million pounds spent than online gambling. There is already evidence of a steady real terms decline since 2014, with machine GGY being outpaced by inflation by about 40%.
However, there are still too many instances of insufficient age verification in some venues, particularly those such as pubs, which can offer adult-only gaming machines but are not adult-only venues like many gambling premises. We have seen evidence showing that customers who have claimed online bonus offers are more likely to engage in high-risk gambling behaviour, especially those already at a higher risk of harm who are also likely to be targeted with more offers. The moves come in response to concern over what are known as online slot games - that is, games designed to mimic slot machines in real-life betting shops and casinos. Its remit covers arcades, betting, bingo, casinos, slot machines and lotteries, as well as remote gambling, but not spread betting which is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
There will be some financial impacts for non-Bacta members which are not currently subject to the voluntary ban (Bacta represents 70% to 80% of the operators of seaside arcade/family entertainment centres where Category D cash payout slot machines are most commonly located). Preventing children interacting with adult-style, cash gambling play will reduce the opportunity for them to engage in activities which could potentially result in increased risk of harm. Putting ticket payout slot machines in this category could exacerbate the impact on seaside arcade economies by making these venues inaccessible to adults accompanied by children.
The 2005 Act also created a partnership between the Gambling Commission and 368 licensing authorities (Local Authorities) in England, Wales and Scotland for the regulation of land-based gambling. The Act has been described as enabling legislation as it empowered the new regulator to respond to emerging challenges by setting new licence conditions, whether for individual operators, sub-sectors or across the industry. The Act created the Gambling Commission (replacing the Gaming Board) as the sector’s principal regulator, giving it responsibility for licensing, monitoring and, where necessary, taking enforcement action against gambling operators. The Gambling Act came fully into force in 2007 and covers all types of in-person and remote commercial gambling, including gambling online. This white paper sets out the government’s vision for the future of gambling regulation with a package of measures which meet the government’s objectives and reflect the latest evidence, including from our December 2020 to March 2021 call for evidence. Our expectation is that much of this will be foregone revenue from customers who were being harmed by their gambling, but this will be considered further through impact assessments alongside future consultations on policy.
Alternatively, there are exceptions in the legislation for low-level or private gambling. Since 28 February 2025, remote operators have been required to undertake financial vulnerability checks once a customer’s net spend exceeds £150 in a rolling 30-day period.Operators are expected to have in place measures to detect self-excluded persons who might wish to re-register using different details. Operators are increasingly expected to understand the affordability of the gambling undertaken by their players, particularly where players are high spenders. The bulk of the social responsibility obligations imposed upon British gambling licensees are set out in the second part of the LCCP, as referred to above. The amount payable is determined by reference to the entity’s size based on their UK revenue from periods of account ending in that year. The levy is paid as a fixed fee based on the size band an AML-regulated entity falls into based on their UK revenue.
No income or capital gains tax applies to prizes from casinos, sports betting, bingo, or online gambling, a rule in place since 2001 when taxation shifted to operators. This change aligns online slot limits with those of land-based casinos, with £5 matching B1 machines and £2 for younger adults, due to their higher vulnerability and lower income. Otherwise, payment processing per se is not licensable under British gambling law and the main restrictions are that land-based bingo and casinos may not offer credit for wagers and remote gambling operators may not accept credit card payments (including through money services providers). As well as an operating licence, an operator wishing to make gambling facilities available in a land-based environment (e.g., casino, betting shop, bingo hall or arcade centre) will also need to apply for a premises licence authorising that activity from the relevant local authority.
The Gambling Commission will review and consult on updating design rules for online products, building on its recent work on online slots to consider features like speed of play which can exacerbate intensity and risk. In general, this government agrees with the principle that people should be free to spend their money how they see fit, so we propose a targeted system of financial risk checks that is proportionate to the risk of harm occurring. Gambling can also contribute to tourism, for instance to seaside towns across the country, or high-end casinos attracting wealthy overseas visitors who spend across a number of other sectors while in this country. The gambling sector also contributes significantly to other industries, including sport, advertising and racing. There are also benefits to gambling which should be weighed in decision making, although they do not negate the need to prevent gambling-related harm.
For example, wagering requirements, sometimes called ‘re-wagering’ requirements, are a common feature of bonus offers in the gambling sector, whereby customers have to stake bonus funds a number of times (potentially adding some of their own money) before being permitted to withdraw any winnings. However, we encourage land-based operators to consider any use they make of targeted monetary or free bet bonuses and their purpose and we will continue to monitor whether there is a case for any further restrictions. Loyalty schemes in land-based venues are also a way of encouraging account-based play, meaning that a ban on them could have the unintended consequence of reducing the amount of available data on player behaviour. They emphasise that land-based play allows for close oversight of customers to ensure that bonuses are issued responsibly. In the majority of casinos, targeted offers are often through loyalty programmes that are open to everyone, with higher tier memberships offering higher value rewards. The schemes are intrinsic to high-end casinos’ business models, and the benefits tend to emphasise building a luxury experience rather than monetary rewards and free bets designed to be staked.
We expect this measure to restrict the play of under-18s on machines in scope. On the basis that the demand from these machines comes largely from adults, we expect a limited impact on GGY from these machines as a result of this measure, especially with machines remaining where they can be played by adults who are accompanied by children. In addition, we would like to receive any evidence or information on best practice in these venues that could then be disseminated among operators. Any more restrictive changes could potentially exacerbate the impact on places like seaside arcade economies by making these machines inaccessible to adults accompanied by children. Making it an offence for a person to invite, cause or permit a child or young person to use these machines should act as a further incentive to abide by the rules. Moving them to an age restricted area would disproportionately impact small businesses who are reliant on streams of income from all of their different types of machines.
This will take into consideration that there is likely to be diminishing returns, such that the more machines you have, the less GGY would be generated per machine. This will be used to model the estimated total increase in GGY for casinos in the final impact assessment. Combining this with the number of machines, this yields an average annual GGY of £57,500 per machine. These generate 11% of all GGY generated from Category B machines.
This prize pot would be available only to those playing the linked machines and prizes would not exceed the maximum prize ordinarily available for that category of linked machine. The review will include an assessment of the role of session limits across Category B and C machines and the role of safer gambling tools. We have reviewed these proposals alongside evidence of harms of machine game play, evidence from campaign groups and advice from the Gambling Commission. It has taken steps to increase existing protections on machines as well as exploring ways to build friction and safer gambling measures into cashless payments. Initial data from operators indicates that relatively few transactions take place through app-based payments. The Gambling Commission welcomes cashless payment technology, such as app-based digital payments, that can be used to improve safer gambling measures and reduce money laundering risks.