Primary legislation

Guidance to licensing authorities Primary legislation

CIAs for alcohol licensing also cannot include considerations of demand, which would be consistent with section 153(2) of the Gambling Act 2005. An option suggested by licensing authorities and the Gambling Commission was to introduce cumulative impact assessments (CIAs) as used in the Licensing Act 2003, which created CIAs for alcohol licensing. It would also like customers to be able to choose to place a bet when they wish rather than pay for a fixed number of bets up front via the participation fee.

It therefore created local regulators through the 368 licensing authorities of England, Wales and Scotland. The 2005 Act established the Gambling Commission as the dedicated regulator at a national level but it also recognised the potential local impact and importance of gambling. This percentage change in session loss distribution could indicate gamblers’ behaviour changing, with comparatively fewer large session losses on machine games due to the reduced maximum stake limit. The number of betting shops in Great Britain has dropped by 16% from a recent peak of 9,128 in 2012 to 6,219 in March 2022.

The United Kingdom Gambling Commission also has rules that dictate how operators can advertise their platforms. The latest stipulation regarding the handling of player funds is just one of many licensing conditions the UKGC has put in place to ensure the safety of all players. The arrangements falling in the medium category include Quistclose accounts and insurance arrangements. Therefore, when you choose one of our recommended UK casino sites, you can ante-up safe in the knowledge that every game is fair and all your funds will be protected and insured by the UK government.

The personal information we collect and process is the data provided to us directly by you in the responses to this consultation. This notice sets out how DCMS will use your personal data as part of our legal obligations with regard to data protection. For the purposes of personal data collected in the course of this consultation, DCMS is the data controller.

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.

The Act does not apply in Northern Ireland, where gambling is regulated under the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Gambling in Great Britain is governed by the Gambling Act 2005, which established the Gambling Commission and the modern licensing regime. To understand the broader legal framework governing sports betting accounts under the same 2026 rules, a legal overview is available here. Their determinations are binding on the casino. A casino cannot enforce bonus terms that were not clearly disclosed before you accepted the offer. A casino cannot apply a waiting period or “cooling-off” before reducing a limit downward.

The commitment made in 2020 by four major operators to direct increased contributions to the independent charity GambleAware, including a cumulative £100 million for treatment services, will continue to be delivered in full to provide funding certainty and support the delivery of planned programmes of work. When Parliamentary time allows, we will seek to further tackle illegal online operators by legislating to give the Commission powers to require for example internet service providers (ISPs) and payment providers to stop providing their services to black market websites. We are challenging the sports and esports sectors and the industry to set a high standard for social responsibility, with the potential not only to improve standards in gambling sponsorship but also to provide a model for responsible sponsorship by other sectors. We will engage with video games stakeholders such as industry bodies, tournament organisers, and publishers of popular esports games to develop and implement ground rules, for example potentially limiting gambling sponsorship in competitions that are accessible to under 18s. Options might include individual sports governing bodies’ rulebooks incorporating the Code’s provisions or through inclusion in the gambling industry’s IGRG Code.

Getting to Know the UK Gambling Commission

From the early days of underground gambling dens to the modern era of licensed casinos, the UK has witnessed significant changes in the way casinos are regulated and operated. The ban took effect on 14 April 2020 and applies to nearly all online and land-based gambling establishments. Another measure aimed primarily at online operators is the ban on gambling with credit cards. All online casinos must participate in the multi-operator self-exclusion scheme GAMSTOP, the UKGC announced in January 2020.

One registration blocks your accounts across every UKGC-licensed gambling site for your chosen period of six months, one year, or five years. The caps apply to online slots only, not to table games such as roulette or blackjack. Regulatory action is published openly, and repeat offenders face escalating consequences up to licence loss. Penalties range from financial fines to criminal prosecution, and they apply to operators, affiliates, and marketing partners alike. The UK Gambling Commission has broad powers to enforce gambling laws and monitor operator compliance.

All stakeholders recognise the potential for a so-called single customer view (SCV) to tackle this risk. Customers’ ability to swap to another account risks undermining the effectiveness of an individual operator’s safeguarding interventions. Likely impacts are explored in more detail in Annex A of this white paper, and the Commission will give further consideration to impacts, including the potential for any unintended consequences, through its detailed consultation. The Data Protection and Digital Information (No .2) Bill, currently before Parliament, includes some important clarifications to the rules around lawful processing and the circumstances in which personal data collected for one purpose can be used for other purposes, which should make the law clearer in this area. We will also make sure consumers’ financial lives are not impacted through these checks, with credit scores being unaffected and potentially adverse consequences of reciprocal data sharing avoided. We recognise these proposals have significant implications for collection and handling of sensitive consumer data, raising important questions around privacy, data protection, proportionality, data accuracy, and reciprocal data sharing.

As outlined in the white paper, it is our intention to bring greater coherence to the licence system by allowing 1968 Act casinos of a certain size to have the same gaming machine allowance as Small 2005 Act casinos.
This will include assessing the role of session limits across Category B and C machines alongside safer gambling tools.
A two-tier financial risk framework now applies to all UKGC-licensed casino accounts.
In July 2026, the Gambling Commission faced backlash for newly announced affordability and responsible gambling checks, which critics described as “rushed, flawed and hugely problematic”.
Separate data on the scale of the issues comes from the Gambling Commission’s contact centre, which received 1,305 ‘Safer Gambling tools / customer interaction’ complaints in 2020 to 2021 (15% of total complaints) and 800 in 2021 to 2022 (14% of total complaints).

The Gaming Act 1968 restricted casinos to “permitted areas” based on population density and seaside resorts. This spend information is not currently provided to operators, but customers can use a range of safer gambling interventions on the apps themselves. In general, there is an element of staff supervision and intervention in land-based venues which can help to identify and support people suffering gambling harms. This appears to be driven by a return to in person gambling activities, particularly lotteries, fruit and slot machines, horse racing and bingo. Licensing authorities have a wide range of powers under the 2005 Act to refuse or place conditions on applications for gambling premises licences where there is cause for concern, and we fully support use of these powers.

Therefore, a general shift in the economic model of remote gambling away from a reliance on a high spending minority is likely desirable to achieve the government’s objectives and create a more sustainable industry. A recent survey of UK gamblers estimated that moderate-risk and problem gamblers (collectively comprising 14.1% of the sample population) accounted for 43.5% of overall gambling spend but more for certain product types. In addition to submissions to the call for evidence, we also received advice from the Gambling Commission, which emphasised the importance of measures to prevent harm throughout the remote customer journey, and committed to build on recent work to improve protections.

This is one of the strongest consumer protections embedded in the UK casino regulations. If you are asked for affordability documentation at a UKGC-licensed casino, this is a legal requirement — not optional. Automated checks use open banking data and credit reference information. For most recreational players, the the operators above changes are largely invisible day-to-day.

The introduction of CIAs may also further increase the cost to licensing authorities of discharging their statutory functions. In addition, we would like to encourage licensing authorities to make more use of their powers in relation to e.g. analysis and enforcement, which will result in increased costs. When Parliamentary time allows, we will also make some small changes to the 2005 Act to ensure that certain powers apply to authorities and/or licensing officers in Scotland as they do in England and Wales. The introduction of CIAs will require primary legislation and in advance of their introduction, we strongly encourage licensing authorities to make full use of their existing powers. We envisage that CIAs will be introduced using the same approach as applied in the Licensing Act 2003, for alcohol licensing. This should be more bespoke than a risk assessment and centre on particular details identified by the CIA.

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)?

This suggests most customers do not spend above levels which would be usual in other leisure sectors, although personal circumstances on whether these losses are acceptable will vary. The Patterns of Play research commissioned by GambleAware found that between July 2018 and July 2019, 21% of accounts made a net gain, 60% lost less than £200, sites not on gamstop 13% lost between £200 and £1,000, 5% lost between £1,000 and £5,000, and around 1% lost more that £5,000 (see Figure 5 below). This was part of a broader sentiment across some respondents that consumers needed to be better empowered in their dealings with remote gambling products and companies.

Energy costs per machine will be estimated in the final stage impact assessment using an energy calculator. A more detailed estimate of the impact for each option will be presented in the final stage impact assessment, once further data has been collected. This increase is expected to be higher under Option 1 than Option 2, as operators will not be restricted by device constraints. Data on net expenditure per session shows that from April to September 2019, the vast majority of sessions across all machine categories ended in the player either winning money or losing up to £20. A ‘mixed session’ is a single session that takes place on games of different machine categories. Unlike Option 1, it would be much more difficult for an operator to increase the number of B3 cabinets on their premises by increasing the number of Category C or D in-fills and tablets that they site.

We also consider that allowing a smaller increase in machines where this is proportionate to overall size and non-gambling space (a sliding scale) would also be appropriate, and allow a proportionate increase for smaller casinos whilst maintaining a balanced offer of gaming products. In the last Gambling Review in 2018, the government acknowledged that machine allocations in casinos were low by international standards and said the question would be revisited if additional measures were put in place to manage the risk of gambling-related harm effectively. In line with its 2018 advice to government, this is on the basis that a larger complement of gaming machines should be available only in premises which are also required to provide non-gambling leisure facilities, so as to achieve a balance in the leisure provision.

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 white paper indicated that we would expect industry to strictly adhere to this ratio and we would set out detailed requirements in further consultation. We welcome further evidence on the unmet consumer demand in the consultation response. A number of premises, particularly those located in motorway service stations, chose to retain their existing entitlements. Please explain your answer, including an alternative proposal for SSBT entitlements where applicable. Do you agree with the proposed entitlements for Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs) based on the sliding scale? Casinos that are currently permitted to offer betting may site a maximum of 40 Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs).

This includes lotteries, betting on sports and horse races, bingo, as well as gaming machines at pubs and land-based casinos. We do not see this as being an issue for operators or manufacturers as it is already widely available on Category B gaming machines within all land-based gambling premises. While it is acknowledged that the risk of gambling harm may increase somewhat following a transition to 50/50, the stipulation outlined in Option 2 would ensure that operators offer a balance of higher and lower stake gaming machines.

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.

Some individual operators have also voluntarily introduced bespoke protections for this group in other areas. In 2021, the Betting and Gaming Council introduced a code of conduct for VIP schemes, which included additional checks before enrolling customers aged 18 to 24 onto schemes, for example requiring review by the holder of a Gambling Commission Personal Management Licence. A recent cross-sectional research study found an association between suicide attempts in 16 to 24-year-olds and problem gambling, even after adjustment for other factors.

While the history of the voluntary funding system and the existence of the levy power mean research, education and treatment for gambling are often considered together, the issues are in fact often distinct. One operator suggested that while they did not support a mandatory levy, there would be merit in improving the transparency of contributions made by operators. This has led to a significant increase in the money available in the voluntary system, with some other operators also increasing contributions. In July 2019, following meetings with the then DCMS Secretary of State, five major operators (now four due to mergers) committed to increase their annual contributions from 0.1% to 1%, in incremental steps over a four-year period. GambleAware historically asked operators to give 0.1% of their Gross Gambling Yield to provide an income of c.£9-10 million. Ultimately, it will provide the resources the Commission needs to regulate the industry efficiently and effectively.

No other opportunities to stake can be offered until the game cycle has concluded as £5 is the maximum stake permitted for customers aged 25 and over.Scenario BA customer aged 27 stakes £2 on an online slot game. For customers who are aged 18 to 24, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £2. For customers who are aged 25 and older, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £5. Separately, the Gambling Commission confirmed in our online games design response in 2021 and our remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) that for remote slots it must be a minimum of 2.5 seconds from the time a game is started until the next game cycle can be commenced (RTS 14D).

1968 Act casinos will be entitled to an enhanced gaming machine entitlement if their gambling area is at least 280sqm. 1968 Act casinos with a gambling area of at least 280sqm will be able to exercise the increased gaming machine entitlements shown in Figure 3. For example, a casino with two premises licences that meets the size and physical separation requirements could site 160 machines – more than a Large 2005 Act casino. Where 1968 Act casinos are smaller than these requirements, we have proposed that they are able to benefit from an increased number of machines on a pro rata basis commensurate with their size and non-gambling area, and subject to the same ratio. The number of gaming products that land-based casinos can provide will always be constrained by physical space in a way that online casinos are not, but this is made worse by the existing caps on numbers.

For example, it is likely to be acceptable for personal data to be processed where a licence obligation requires it. We expect licensees to continue to be able to evidence that they have complied fully with their licence conditions. It would also mean that operators’ may be fined, and their licence could be revoked.