Gambling-related legislation
Beyond the 2026 reforms, UKGC licensing provides a comprehensive framework of player protections that have been in place for years. Operators must handle all data in compliance with GDPR and data protection legislation. However, the system is designed to protect vulnerable individuals and uses existing financial data infrastructure (similar to credit checks for mortgages or phone contracts). The affordability check framework is designed to ensure that players are not gambling beyond their financial means. A sports bettor might not have any interest in slots, but a cross-product bonus could introduce them to high-speed, high-variance games with a different risk profile.
These checks use public data to spot signs of serious financial distress without requiring you to send in documents. It also pushes the market toward a more consistent baseline, where limit-setting feels normal across regulated brands rather than something only a handful of operators promote. From 2025, maximum stakes for online slots in Great Britain were capped at £5 per spin for adults aged 25+ (implemented on 9 April 2025) and £2 per spin for adults aged 18–24 (implemented on 21 May 2025).
£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.
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.
We do not currently have sufficient evidence to inform an appropriate percentage increase to the current cap on licensing fees. We believe it is appropriate to increase these fees so that local authorities can cover the costs of their gambling licensing and enforcement activity, and increase activity where needed. They are therefore essential for ensuring that licensing authorities can properly regulate gambling in their areas. Scottish Ministers also have power to set application and annual fees for premises licences, which differ from the fees set out for England and Wales, and are set out in the Gambling (Premises Licence Fees) (Scotland) Regulations 2007.
In addition, the current GGY derived from betting in casinos where it is permitted, is very small. However, at this stage we do not know precisely what these costs will be, as we do not have any evidence on how casinos will respond to this. All casinos to be permitted to offer sports betting. We would not permit betting in Scottish 1968 Act casinos until Scottish Ministers have had the opportunity to consider what (if any) restrictions or protections they would like to put in place by way of amendments to the Mandatory and Default Conditions Regulations. While permitting betting in 1968 Act casinos is not a reserved matter, as outlined above, we intend to impose a limit on the number of SSBTs that can be made available in a casino.
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 ICO’s sandbox process, and focusing on high risk customers. We are pleased progress has been made on these after the Information Commissioner’s 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 customers’ financial circumstances.
You will need to apply to the licensing authority the premises is located, to get a premises licence. You will need a premises licence to provide casino games to players in a non-remote setting. An operating licence allows you to provide gambling activities to customers in Great Britain. We issue operating licences and personal licences; premises licences are issued by local licensing authorities.
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.
We know from the evidence available that while public health campaigns cannot be used as a universal solution to reduce gambling-related harm, with effective targeting they can help raise awareness among target audiences and promote behaviours to mitigate harms. In the shorter term, industry will update the IGRG Code to extend the BGC’s existing commitment of at least 20% of TV and radio ads space being safer gambling focused to all advertising space across online and broadcast media. Once appropriate campaigns and messaging are developed, the Commission will consult on further requirements for gambling operators to engage with and apply the new messaging appropriately alongside product-based information in order to inform and empower consumers. The evidence suggests it would be beneficial to develop systematic messaging, independent from industry, to maximise the information available to consumers and enable them to make informed decisions with a better understanding of the risks. Most respondents, including those within the industry, recognised the need for safer gambling messaging to go beyond a vague ‘play responsibly’ message.
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.
Polling from the Royal Society for Public Health found that a majority of both non-gamblers (66%) and gamblers (56%) supported a ban on gambling advertising in or near sports grounds. In terms of public attitude, we know that attitudes to gambling sponsors in sports are mixed, although they are overall more unpopular with non-gamblers than those who do gamble. Teams with gambling shirt sponsors featured not only more ‘incidental’ gambling references (such as images of the team with logos on kit visible) but also a greater number of gambling adverts in their programmes. The Committees of Advertising Practice have already acted on these findings to strengthen the advertising codes to protect children by banning Premier League players, amongst others, from appearing in gambling adverts (see Box 6).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Additionally, an objective of this measure is to reduce average session duration, which is linked to gambling harm. On the other non gamestop casino hand, in 62% of all sessions from April to September 2019, the player either won money on the machines or lost an amount up to £20. However, these rates are lower than the majority of other gambling products, although remain above the at-risk and problem gambling rates for ‘any gambling activity’. Please explain your answer, including an alternative solution for how to calculate non-gambling areas where applicable. • Any non-gambling area may consist of one or more areas within the premisesDo you agree that this should remain the same under the new regime? It is for the Scottish Ministers to consider whether they want to amend the Mandatory and Default Conditions that apply to casinos located in Scotland.
Brexit therefore did not create passporting recognition of EU gambling licences into Great Britain, because UK licensing was never based on mutual recognition. An operator needs a UKGC operating licence to provide gambling facilities to players in Great Britain (including remote gambling online) and to advertise to Great Britain consumers. If operators receive clearer guidance from the regulator, it could help ensure more consistent compliance across licensed casinos and betting platforms. For casinos which exercise the extended entitlement and other larger converted casino premises, a new mandatory condition in paragraph 4 of Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the 2007 Regulations requires that the floor area of the gambling area is less than 1,500m². (2) In section 172 (gaming machines), in subsection (5)(b)(i), for “twice” substitute “5 times”.
The UKGC can issue fines, suspend licences, or revoke them entirely. Players betting £1–£2 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 Gambling Commission will also undertake a review of gaming machine technical standards, to include assessment of the role of session limits across Category B and C machines and the role of safer gambling tools. Casinos originally licensed under the 1968 Act are limited to a maximum of 20 gaming machines of Category B, C and D if at least one machine is Category B, or an unlimited number of Category C and D machines. The sectors which pay these fees are casinos, bingo halls and bingo-licensed arcades, adult gaming centres, family entertainment centres and betting shops. Licensing authorities (local authorities in England and Wales and licensing boards in Scotland) are responsible for licensing gambling premises, in parallel with the Gambling Commission licensing of operators. There have been substantial changes to how consumers make payments in society since the ban on direct debit card use on gaming machines.
Please share any evidence or information that is relevant to the proposed amendment to the definition of gaming tables since the government stated its intention to make this change in 2018. Only tables for multi-player live gaming, operated by a casino dealer, will qualify for the purposes of this ratio. We do not intend on making any changes to when a gaming table will be treated as being ‘used’ for the purposes of the machine to table ratio as set out in the current Regulations.
Local risk assessments must take into account the licensing authority’s statement of licensing policy, and must be reviewed and updated to take account of significant changes in the local area. The Commission works in partnership with licensing authorities to regulate gambling and publishes guidance for them. Gambling Commission licence conditions require on-course bookmakers to have policies in place relating to open and fair gambling, problem gambling, protecting children and vulnerable people and anti-money laundering. On-course bookmakers are subject to regulation under the Gambling Act 2005 and must obtain a non-remote general betting (limited) operating licence from the Gambling Commission. However, other factors may influence this data, for example the closure of 8% (639) of betting offices in the same period.
The firm’s entire team works exclusively within the betting and gaming sector, ensuring an in-depth, real-time alignment with the industry’s evolving landscape. He is a commercial and regulatory lawyer and specialises in all aspects of online and land-based gambling. 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. There is no restriction on the use of digital and virtual currencies as a payment method for gambling, though operators wishing to accept virtual currencies will need to demonstrate how any additional risks of them doing so are mitigated.
As well as potentially encouraging further spend, operators use these restrictions to prevent customers using bonus offers for ‘matched betting’ strategies without spending their own money, and to limit the costs of offering bonuses, as customers can’t simply take the money after a single low risk bet. While the Gambling Commission’s new customer interaction requirements will protect those showing the most serious risk of harm from bonus offers and marketing exacerbating their gambling, we must also ensure that bonuses operate in a safe way wherever they are offered, both offline and online. We recognise that offering bonuses (as defined by the CMA) to customers in land-based settings, as well as land-based VIP schemes, are inherent to their business models, in particular that of the high-end casino sector, and we believe the Gambling Commission’s current controls adequately mitigate the risks. However, the sustained targeting of certain groups or individuals with online bonuses based on factors like high levels of spend, even if they are not currently showing strong indicators of harm, may nonetheless increase the risks of future harm. While rewards for customer loyalty and efforts to win back former customers are common across the economy, we recognise that the intensive and data-driven targeting of certain groups or individuals can come with a risk of harmful consequences.
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.
Meanwhile, the modifications to online game design aim for swift enforcement, ensuring consumer protection without delay. The pilot for seamless financial risk assessments seeks to refine these processes without hindering the user experience. In terms of game design, new rules focus on reducing the speed and intensity of online games.