Gambling Laws UK Gambling Legislations in 2026
This will ensure all those experiencing the varying degrees of gambling-related harms are able to access the support they need when they need it. Lessons will be learned from other successful data centres in the UK, including the UK Data Service, Consumer Data Research Centre at the University of Leeds, and the Urban Big Data Centre, another ESRC investment at the University of Glasgow. As the Gambling Commission’s funding increases, and in turn its capacity to require provision of and analyse data from operators, it will consider how this data could be made available in anonymised form for use by researchers. We recognise that data is also essential for measuring industry compliance in a meaningful and foresighted way. Understanding whether some gambling products, behaviours or environments are more harmful than others can inform interventions and policy to minimise gambling-related harms and promote safer gambling practices.
- In most circumstances, these types of products do not constitute gambling and fall outside of the Commission’s remit.
- This does not apply to a casino which was 1,500m² or larger on 12th May 2025, provided the size of that casino’s gambling area is not subsequently increased and the casino remains in the same premises.
- All online play is account-based, and recent years have seen significant strides in the development of harm detection algorithms which monitor every aspect of a customer’s gambling to spot signs of risk and trigger interventions without human input.
- We also recognise that licensing authorities, as well as the LGA and the Gambling Commission, have requested that CIAs are introduced.
Amendment to the Gambling Act 2005
In addition to the obligations on operators in the Gambling Commission’s LCCP, many businesses have taken voluntary steps to go further than the minimum requirements to ensure gambling is safe for customers. The Commission has a wide range of powers to deal with operators which do not abide by their licence conditions, ranging from warnings and enhanced compliance procedures to licence reviews and formal enforcement action, including fines which are paid to the Treasury. Non-industry groups argued that the Commission needed to impose larger fines that impact operators more meaningfully or be more willing to suspend and revoke operator licences where appropriate.
This does not apply to a casino which was 1,500m² or larger on 12th May 2025, provided the size of that casino’s gambling area is not subsequently increased and the casino remains in the same premises. New paragraph 3 of Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the 2007 Regulations attaches additional mandatory conditions to converted casino premises licences that apply only if the holder decides to exercise the extended entitlement. The mandatory conditions vary depending on whether the holder of the licence has decided to exercise the extended entitlement, and if not, whether the floor area of the gambling area in the casino is 200m² or more. Paragraph (3) of regulation 4 of these Regulations amends the mandatory conditions attaching to converted casino premises licences in Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the 2007 Regulations. By paragraph (2) of regulation 4, the minimum size of the table gaming area in small casinos licensed under the Act is reduced from 500m² to 250m².
In spite of this action and the Commission’s stated expectations, some respondents complained that operators made withdrawing money from accounts unnecessarily difficult and subject to artificial delays (especially prior to the Commission’s ban on reverse withdrawals) which do not apply for deposits. Further concerns were raised in areas where the Gambling Commission has previously taken action, including rules around the timeliness of requests for identity documentation. For example, while operators are required to disclose key information on their products, a recent study examining 350 roulette games offered by 26 major operators suggests this can be very onerous for users to access in practice. 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. Such transparency supports consumer confidence in a fair and open market, and should not bring new costs to the industry or consumers. We are reinforcing existing expectations concerning the need for operators to provide clear and transparent terms of service to consumers.
It is likely that gaming machine GGY, which was £1.8 billion in 2022, will continue to diminish if gaming machines are not able to offer cashless payment methods. We also look at the impact of removing the prohibition of the direct use of debit cards on gaming machines once increased player protections are approved and mandated by the Gambling Commission. However, the industry has stated that their research indicates a strong customer demand for betting facilities in casinos. The few casinos which already offer sports betting have derived 0.2% of their GGY from this source in the past but the latest data shows that it accounts for 0% of their GGY. The estimate is formed using published accounts of operators and Gambling Commission data about existing machine uptake and casino floor space utilisation.
How gambling operators use the data available to them was also covered by campaign and consumer groups, with some levelling specific criticisms regarding data governance and processing. This included data on operator interactions, showing that just over 3% of online gambling accounts spent over £2,000 in a year, but only 35.5% of these were subject to any safer gambling interaction (such as an email or pop up message), and just 0.84% received a safer gambling telephone call. Conversely, many outside the industry submitted evidence on the harms which individuals had suffered in spite of the existing controls, which they argued were therefore ineffective. Firstly, there was significant discussion of the existing controls and the non gamestop casino majority (including industry stakeholders) presented evidence that current protections could and should be further improved. As well as specifying how certain account level protections should function, these include specific rules for online gambling product design, aimed at making sure games operate in a socially responsible manner and do not encourage potentially harmful gambling activity. These rules specify seven relevant categories of ‘indicators of harm’ which all operators must monitor from the moment an account is opened (Figure 4), and set out how operators must tailor the action they take based on these behavioural indicators.
Consultation description
The gambling industry should work with financial service firms to enable the blocks to be extended to other payment methods like bank transfers. While GAMSTOP is the principal means of online self-exclusion, we welcome that banks and payment providers offer opt-in gambling transaction blocks. This will include options of a £2 limit per stake; a £4 limit per stake; or an approach based on individual risk.
Others cited research which has been undertaken on safer gambling messaging, including from the Behavioural Insights Team and the Personal Finance Research Centre (University of Bristol). Some respondents from outside of industry stated that safer gambling messages should be designed independently of industry and that some of the existing industry-led safer gambling messages are ineffective. Responses from industry stated that messaging similar to that which is already in place for cash transactions should be put in place, encouraging customers to take regular breaks, set and stick to budgets and to talk to staff and use player management tools. The overwhelming thrust of responses was that any messaging should be based on evidence.
We think that this will create greater equity between 1968 Act and Small 2005 Act casinos and should not have an effect on gambling-related harm as customers will still be offered a mixture of gambling and other non-gambling leisure activities. This restriction, alongside requirements for non-gambling area, will only apply to those 1968 Act casinos that decide to exercise the enhanced gaming machine entitlement. We are also consulting on whether the maximum size of a 1968 Act casino’s gambling area must – like that of a Small 2005 Act casino – be less than 1,500sqm, if it resolves to exercise its entitlement to more than 20 machines (including at least one Category B machine). Only casinos that have a gambling area of 280sqm or more will be eligible to access the enhanced gaming machine entitlement.
This comprehensive legislation aimed to modernize and streamline the oversight of various forms of gambling activities, including casinos, betting, and gaming machines. This comprehensive legislation aimed to oversee and govern all aspects of gambling, including casinos, betting establishments, and gaming machines. While we have no direct evidence on the rate of gambling harm for those participating on gaming machines in bingo and arcade venues specifically, we can use net expenditure and session length data to consider the possible risks of gambling harm. For those customers who switch from other casino products to gaming machines as a result of this measure, the risk of increased gambling harm as a result of these measures may be limited. From data provided by industry, we understand that there are eight 1968 Act casinos that have a gambling area of 1500sqm or over, and a similar number that are close to 1500sqm and which could be expanded if they decide to site more gaming machines and tables.
The maximum transaction limit, aligned with a minimum transaction time, will provide an additional point of friction to the customer if they wish to put more than this amount onto the machine. The maximum amount that can be deposited through money at one time is £50 based on the current maximum note denomination. A couple of respondents from outside of industry stated that a cautious approach should be taken to the maximum transaction value, with one suggesting a £10 limit alongside a limit on the number of transactions a person can undertake in a set period of time. The majority of industry respondents stated that a £100 limit was most appropriate while other respondents, such as academic and local authorities, thought it should be £20 or less. These regulations apply in different circumstances, including when a payer initiates an electronic payment transaction.
Pre-commitment tools can significantly reduce harm for some and are on the whole unlikely to cause problems for others. Adjusting how they are provided, such as on an opt-out basis or with the input of behavioural science, builds incrementally on the existing requirements, which we expect will reduce implementation costs for industry. A number cited a report by Revealing Reality which provided insights for how the use of safer gambling controls can be normalised as a preventative measure, using the analogy of a seatbelt to show the benefits this could bring.
The industry argued this would prevent a scenario in which two casino venues of different sizes, located close to each other, could have vastly different gaming machines allowances. The ratio of machines to tables in 2005 Act Small casinos has forced operators to provide redundant tables which, alongside the locations to which the licences were allocated in 2007, has contributed to making them commercially unattractive for development. We received a cross-industry submission from the Cashless Group, made up of casino, adult gaming centre and bingo sector operators and trade bodies, in response to Question 40 on harms and benefits of cashless gambling. A central premise of the Gambling Act 2005 was to regulate gambling and manage gambling-related risks through controls which included restricting the number and location of gambling products, in particular gaming machines.
However, all non-slot casino games are now subject to a mandatory 5-second minimum game cycle to prevent high-intensity, rapid-fire wagering. The statutory per-spin stake limits currently apply only to online slots. The £150 net deposit threshold (within a 30-day period) is the industry standard for “light-touch” checks. Most licensed sites will update your account limit automatically based on your verified date of birth.
We currently estimate that the key proposals we can quantify will lead to between a 3% and 8% reduction in Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) across the gambling sector, with the main decrease being in online gambling (where we estimate a reduction of between 8% and 14% of GGY). It is likely that the proposals will come with costs to the gambling industry, both in terms of upfront delivery cost but also in reduced revenue compared to current levels. Measures in this white paper are designed to increase existing protections against gambling-related harm in a proportionate and targeted way.
In your view, is there any specific safer gambling messaging that should be considered within cashless gambling? This has been voluntarily adopted by BGC members and its objective is to improve consistency when displaying Safer Gambling information across the land-based sector. As previously discussed, an optimal strategy to combat disassociation when gambling combines breaks in play with safer gambling messaging.
The industry’s case for cashless gambling on machines is based on changes in how society uses cash, and the safety implications for land-based venues. It also highlights that any move towards debit card payments directly on gaming machines would need to strike an appropriate balance between regulation applicable to modern payment methods, consumer benefits and protection of the licensing objectives. Electronic terminals do not count as gaming machines and like live multi-player tables do not have stake and prize limits, other than operators’ own house limits.
Used the live streaming for a midweek Championship match — picture stayed sharp on mobile data for the full 90 minutes. Live sports streaming covers a wider fixture list than most rivals and works smoothly even on mobile data. Goldenbet brings together a generous welcome offer, a strong promotions calendar and a properly integrated sportsbook — all under a UKGC licence with the standard 2026 compliance package. The crypto-banking option is an unusual perk under a UKGC licence and a real point of difference. If you find the typical casino lobby exhausting, the design here will be a relief.
Responses from industry advocated for either no increase in the maximum chargeable premises fees or a small increase of 10%. This may include increasing staff numbers, with one licensing authority stating that it would consider dedicating one full-time resource to the enforcement of licensed premises. This was reflected by licensing authority responses in regards to how much the maximum premises fee should be raised by. In response to the questions as to how much annual funding is needed for administration and enforcement of licences, the average amount stated by licensing authorities was £45,000. The majority of licensing authorities advocated for the maximum proposed premises fee increase of 30%. Following analysis, we propose to increase the maximum premises fees chargeable by licensing authorities by 15%.
We will jointly organise a series of workshops later this year with researchers, third sector partners and the Gambling Commission to stimulate interest in the gambling research field. We will consult on how the levy will be constructed, including the rate at which it will be set and the total amount to be raised. We will review the Commission’s licence fees to ensure it has the resources to continue its transformation and deliver on the commitments across this white paper. The Commission has been taking steps to ensure it can effectively respond to novel products which blur the line between gambling and other areas and will continue work in this area.
A response from an advocacy organisation opposed the introduction of direct debit card payments on the basis that there is evidence that cashless payments result in increased and unplanned spending when compared to cash. One betting shop operator was concerned that allowing direct debit card payments would minimise the interactions a customer has with betting shop staff as their current customer journey requires a certain level of interaction with a staff member. They stated that it would be an unnecessary and disproportionate burden for a low stake and low prize machine.
Figure 21: Casino licences (current situation)
We will review the Commission’s licence fees during 2024 to ensure it has the resources to continue improving how it delivers its core responsibilities and the commitments across this white paper. We will ensure it has the powers and resources it needs to pursue the licensing objectives, with the flexibility to meet challenges like the black market or boundary-pushing products. A Code of Conduct for gambling sponsorship will complement the principles already in place for alcohol sponsorship through the Portman Group code, as well as further developing the established culture of self-regulation in the sport sector. The ASA’s ‘strong appeal’ guidance also recognises esports, like Premier League footballers, as high risk content in terms of its inherent appeal to children. The reduced exposure to sponsorship during matches that this measure will achieve in the world’s most popular league will complement the existing whistle-to-whistle ban, which prevents gambling adverts from being broadcast during live sporting events. Up to 40% of the UK population watches live Premier League coverage, meaning that reducing the visibility of gambling sponsors should result in a meaningful reduction in exposure to gambling branding for millions of children and adults alike.
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.
We will also permit a smaller increase in machines for venues that do not meet the size requirements, proportionate to their overall size and non-gambling area. The land-based gambling sector, unlike the online gambling sector, has faced significant challenges in recent years as a result of business inactivity during periods of COVID-19 restrictions. However, we recognise that a minority of customers do experience gambling-related harm and that it is necessary to have safeguards in place to protect customers.
