Tiffany Babayemi

24Apr

Game error leads to a million-pound win: is the High Court following precedent?

24th April 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 40

On 5 March 2025, the High Court granted an application for summary judgment in Corrine Pearl Durber v PPB Entertainment Limited EWHC 498 (KB) (“Durber v PPB”)in favour of Durber, who was seeking to recover her £1 million prize following a game error whilst playing an online slot machine in October 2020. This may come as a surprise following the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal a year ago in favour of Camelot in Parker-Grennan v Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd (“Parker v Camelot”) that it was only required to pay out a £10 prize rather than a £1 million prize to a customer subject to a similar game error.

In our previous blog, Match or no match: Camelot IWG Appeal dismissed, we summarised the facts of Parker v Camelot and analysed the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in agreeing with the High Court and dismissing the appeal. In this blog, we outline the facts of Durber v PPB and highlight the key points that distinguish the outcomes of the cases.

Background

In 18 October 2020, Durber placed a bet on an online game, ‘Wild Hatter’ (the “Game”), on PPB Entertainment Limited’s (“PPB”) PaddyPower website. The rules of the Game (the “Rules”) provided that it had 2 stages based on a combination of the old fruit machine reels (stage 1) and the old spin the wheel of fortune game (stage 2). In stage 1 of the Game, Durber was informed on her computer screen that she had won a jackpot prize and was moved to stage 2. Following a spin of the jackpot wheel, her screen revealed that she had won the “Monster Jackpot” just shy of £1.1m, as shown in the screenshot from the judgment:

However, Durber was later presented with a message stating that her win was £20,265.14, the ‘Daily Jackpot’, and no explanation for the change of sum was provided on the screen. As a result, PPB paid Durber the smaller Daily Jackpot win. Durber quickly complained to PPB and was told that the computer system which ran the Game made an error over the display because it had been mal-programmed (due to a coding error), and it should have pointed to the Daily Jackpot.

The parties’ arguments

Durber’s arguments:

she relied upon the Rules of the Game, which clearly stated “spin the jackpot wheel to determine which of the offered jackpot tiers will be won”, meaning that when she spun the wheel and won the Monster Jackpot, she was entitled to that prize;
that clauses B1 and B2 were not incorporated into the terms and conditions (“T&Cs”) because they were “onerous and unusual” and were not sufficiently brought to her attention, and that they were unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”); and
even if clauses B1 and B2 were incorporated, fair and enforceable, (i) the Rules took priority over the T&Cs in the event of inconsistency (pursuant to the preamble to Part B of the T&Cs) and (ii) clause B2 did not cover human errors.

PPB’s arguments:

in reliance on the T&Cs, PPB was not obliged to pay Durber the Monster Jackpot because:
- clause B1 stipulated that the outcome of a customer’s play was determined by the random number generator (“RNG”) software and was definitive over any screen display, and it determined that Durber had only won the Daily Jackpot; and
- clause B2, the exclusion clause, excluded PPB’s liability to pay customers in instances where there is a “system or communication error”.
PPB also sought to rely on arguments that clauses B1 and B2 are not ‘onerous or unusual’, but are commonplace and usual in the industry, and “did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the consumer’s detriment”.

Mr Justice Ritchie’s judgment

The High Court granted summary judgment in favour of Durber on the following basis:

(1) The Rules of the Game confirmed that the display on screen determines what a customer wins i.e. ‘what you see is what you get’ (“WYSIWYG”).

(2) The preamble of the T&Cs stated the Rules took priority over the T&Cs. Therefore, Durber had won the Monster Jackpot according to the Rules, which took priority over clause B1 which stated that the outcome is determined by the RNG.

(3) The scope of clause B2 did not cover human errors in programming the screen display of the Game and hence did not entitle PPB to exclude liability for Durber’s Monster Jackpot win shown on her screen.

(4) Clauses B1 & B2 were not incorporated into the T&Cs because “they were unusual and onerous” and were not adequately brought to Durber’s attention.

(5) Even if clauses B1&B2 were incorporated, they were too broad and therefore unenforceable under the CRA 2015.

Comparisons between the Parker v Camelot case and Durber v PPB case

The game rules

Parker v Camelot: the gambling operator rightly relied on its game procedures which stated the winning numbers would be the numbers highlighted and circled in green. In this case, the display showed that the customer had matched two different numbers; number 15, which would have resulted in a win of £10 and was flashing with a corresponding message to confirm the win, and number 1, which would have resulted in a win of £1m but there were no flashing lights or messages to reflect this. Lady Justice Andrews, in providing the leading judgment, explained that it was clear in the game rules that in order to win the prize, the consumer needed to click through to the end of the game by clicking “FINISH”, which showed the outcome was a £10 win, and regardless, “all of this should have been obvious to any reasonable player of the even if they did not read the Game Procedures”.
Durber v PPB: Durber’s screen showed the wheel spinning and then it stopped with the win arrow pointing to the Monster Jackpot which lit up and showed over £1 million in winnings.

Both consumers in each case were able to rely on the principle of ‘WYSIWYG’, and Justice Ritchie pointed out that “consumers expect, when playing online, that what their screen tells them is correct, true and reliable”. This highlights the importance of online gambling operators upholding the principle of WYSIWYG, and ensure it is reflected by their terms, to maintain consumer confidence that they will get fair and honest results with the operator they choose to spend money with.

Construction of the game rules and terms of contract

Parker v Camelot: the operator had both clear rules of the game and terms and conditions, for instance, there was a limitation of liability clause clearly covering defects in the game, the claiming and validation process which the operator could control was sufficiently explained, and the game procedures gave examples of how winning numbers would be displayed.
Durber v PPB: the operator also had set out the game Rules and had certain provisions in the T&Cs, however the exclusion clause (B2) did not specifically cover human error in software programming, such as the human error that caused the discrepancy between the server records and Durber’s screen display. The High Court made a direct comparison with Parker v Camelot and pointed out that even the use of a validation clause for large jackpots (i.e. wins over a certain level would need validation) would have “avoided the mischief” of an exclusion clause altogether.

Therefore, the contra proferentem rule of construction only required application in Durber v PPB, as the operator in Parker v Camelot ensured there was no doubtaround the rules and terms. As a reminder, the contra proferentem rule of construction states: “if there is any doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail“. PPB should have explicitly excluded liability for such human error if that was a possibility of it resulting in the software programming error; the doubt around the exclusion clause meant it had to be construed against PPB. This highlights that care must be taken around clauses that set out the order of precedence in the event of inconsistencies, to ensure the right documents are being prioritised in the right situations. Failing this, inclusion of a validation process for larger wins over a certain level would bring greater clarity around such jackpots for both parties.

Incorporation of the terms of contract

Parker v Camelot: It was clear that the consumer would see, upon opening her online account, that there were overarching terms and conditions, as well as specific terms relating to the game rules. As the consumer had also been invited to read and confirm her acceptance of any significant updates to the terms by the method of clicking an online screen box indicating agreement, there was a clear general incorporation of the 3 sets of documents containing terms. It was accepted by the Court of Appeal that although a “click-wrap” procedure to accepting terms would not be sufficient to incorporate all the terms of every case of online operators, it was sufficient in this case.
Durber v PPB: the full contract terms were a combination of the Rules, the T&Cs and multiple other separate documents. Durber asserted that the terms ran to 44 pages of closely typed small print with numerous hyperlinks to other pages and that, given the “draconian nature of the limitations”, no reasonable consumer could be expected to read and understand the terms. Specifically, the terms relied upon by PPB were not sufficiently highlighted to Durber, prior to her opening the account and on each subsequent occasion she used PPB’s online services. In contrast to Parker v Camelot, the High Court agreed with Durber and found that PPB had a “complicated web of multiple documents”, and the relevant exclusions clauses were “unusual” and “onerous” and therefore, by their nature, were not incorporated into the T&Cs.

The criticism from Justice Ritchie in Durber v PPB carries significant weight for gambling operators as a useful reminder that any ‘unusual’ or ‘onerous’ clauses, particularly those that are potentially detrimental to consumers, must be specifically flagged or signposted to consumers in an obvious way, or the operator becomes at risk of key provisions, such as an exclusion of liability for a software error, being struck down as unenforceable.

Enforceability of the terms of contract

Parker v Camelot: as the consumer had “a real opportunity of becoming acquainted with the terms of the contract before she clicked the ‘I Accept’ button”, the Court of Appeal agreed that the network of contractual provisions was drafted clearly and sufficiently signposted. Therefore, there the terms did not cause a “significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer” pursuant to Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
Durber v PPB: it was considered that even if the clauses were incorporated into the contract, they were not – due to their breadth – fair or enforceable under the CRA 2015. In particular, Justice Ritchie highlighted that clause B1 makes PPB’s internal records supreme, as evidence of whether there was a win, therefore rendering what Durber sees on her screen irrelevant. Justice Ritchie concluded that “this clause is objectively unusual and unexpected for any consumer playing this game under these Rules who would expect the screen to provide both the determination of or at least valid prima facie evidence of the win”.

The court’s assessment of fairness and transparency of the operator’s T&Cs through the application of consumer protection laws, in a way, discarded the relevance of whether clauses B1 and B2 were sufficiently incorporated in the T&Cs. This highlights the importance of operator’s terms (i) being transparent and complying with section 68 of the CRA 2015, and (ii) being fit for purpose for digital content provided to consumers, as required by section 35 of the CRA 2015.

Lessons learned

By following precedent, the High Court Durber v PPB ruling has provided further clarity where gambling operators are found defending themselves against consumer claims in relation to software errors and malfunctions.

Whilst the nature of the dispute was similar to Parker v Camelot, in that both consumers experienced discrepancies between the prize displayed on their screens and the winning amounts recognized by the operators, it is clear why the High Court ruled in favour of the consumer in Durber v PPB. This ruling provides another useful reminder for operators of the importance of clarity in game procedures, contract provisions and scope of exclusion clauses, handling conflicts between documents, and bringing ‘onerous’ terms to the attention of consumers.

Please get in touch with us if you require any assistance reviewing and/or drafting website terms and conditions, rules of play or other commercial gambling contracts.

23Apr

Gambling Commission issues industry warning notice on regulatory returns submission

23rd April 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 40

On 17 April 2025, the Gambling Commission issued an industry warning notice to licensees regarding timely submission of regulatory returns. The warning follows a series of fines issued against licensees who have failed to submit a regulatory return by the deadline, and reminds licensees that they face regulatory action if they fail to complete or submit regulatory returns on time.

The industry warning notice notes that since October 2024, more than 10 businesses have been fined up to £750 for not correctly completing and submitting regulatory returns within the required timeframe.

John Pierce, the Gambling Commission’s Director of Enforcement, said:

“Despite early engagement and the issuing of advice notices, further failures to comply with the regulatory returns process were identified in these cases. Operators are expected to understand their reporting obligations and must ensure returns are submitted on time via our online portal.”

“Repeated breaches and persistent non-compliance is likely to result in escalating enforcement action.”

We take this opportunity to remind licensees of the key requirements for regulatory returns.

Requirement of submission

On 1 July 2024, licence condition 15.3.1 of the Licence Conditions Codes of Practice was updated to require all licensees to submit accurate regulatory returns on a quarterly basis, and to align the reporting periods as follows:

Quarter one – 1 April to 30 June
Quarter two – 1 July to 30 September
Quarter three – 1 October to 31 December
Quarter four – 1 January to 31 March.

All returns must be submitted within 28 days of the end of the quarterly period. If a licensee has ceased trading in a licensed activity, or has not yet started to trade but still holds a valid licence at the time a return is due, it must submit a ‘nil’ return. A separate return must be submitted for each licence type.

The next due date

The next quarterly regulatory returns are due by 28 April 2025.

How to submit

Regulatory returns need to be submitted via the eServices digital service on the Gambling Commission’s website.

Late or inaccurate regulatory returns

Under section 342 of the Gambling Act 2005, a licensee commits an offence if it misrepresents or fails to reveal information that it is asked to provide, unless it has a reasonable excuse. The Gambling Commission may prosecute licensees which provide information which is false or deliberately misleading. Where returns are submitted late, are incomplete or inaccurate, the Gambling Commission will contact the licensee. If the licensee does not submit an up-to-date, accurate regulatory return after the Gambling Commission has contacted them, there is a risk that the Gambling Commission will refer the matter to its Enforcement Team.

Next steps

We encourage licensees to set reminders to submit their regulatory returns on time, and ensure the accuracy of their returns. Further information on regulatory returns can be found in the Gambling Commission’s regulatory returns guidance and published updates on the changes to regulatory returns effective 1 July 2024.

Please get in contact with us if you have any questions about your regulatory returns or if you would like assistance with any compliance or enforcement matters.

10Apr

A spotlight on the statutory levy: Government Committee examines gambling harm evidence

10th April 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 62

On Wednesday 2^nd April 2025, the Health and Social Care Select Committee examined the current gambling landscape and the potential for harms caused by developments in gambling products in a one-off oral evidence session.

The Government has noted that it wants to facilitate a “cultural shift” in the understanding of gambling-related harms to reduce stigma associated with getting help. During the session, MPs discussed what is needed to develop an effective public health response to gambling-related harms, and the Government’s role in leading and delivering this work. As part of their questioning, the MPs asked witnesses’ views on what role public health teams need to have within wider local authority services to reduce potential for gambling-related harms, and whether they think the current rules sufficiently safeguard children and vulnerable people from gambling-related harms.

In the session, a key topic of discussion was how the introduction of the statutory levy could have a notable and positive impact on reducing gambling harms. The statutory levy, which was announced by Government in November 2024, and took effect through The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 on 6 April 2025, provides, for the first time, a dedicated statutory investment to fund research, education and treatment of gambling harms. Since its introduction on 6 April 2025, the Gambling Commission is now responsible for collecting and administering the new levy, under the strategic direction of the Government.

During the session, MPs posed questions on the commissioning of effective treatment and prevention services in the context of the statutory levy and the role of the Gambling Commission in regulating the industry.

Some noteworthy comments from the session:

Professor Sam Chamberlain, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Southampton and Director of the Southern Gambling Treatment Clinic:

“We have an opportunity with the levy— provided that the funds are administered in a way that is ringfenced and protected from conflicts of interest and industry—to really make a difference by doing some good-quality research and rolling out public health interventions that actually help.”

Professor Heather Wardle, Co-Chair Lancet Public Health Commission on Gambling and Professor of Gambling Research and Policy, University of Glasgow:

“We do not have a nationalised monitoring system for harms. We do not understand how many people who are interacting with the criminal justice system or the NHS are experiencing harms, because we do not have that infrastructure available to us. Again, with the levy, there is an opportunity to develop that. I absolutely think that that is where we need to be investing some of our resources, because once you have that infrastructure, you have the insight. It provides the bedrock of excellent research and enables you to go forward.”

Andrew Vereker, Deputy Director for Tobacco, Alcohol and Gambling, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities:

“Through our health mission, we are committed to shortening the time spent in ill health by preventing harms before they occur. In that context, I think the levy is a real opportunity, as the previous panel said, to improve treatment, to enable high-quality research and to support effective prevention activity.”

Tim Miller, Executive Director of Research and Policy, Gambling Commission:

“The Gambling Act is clear that levy funding has to be used for purposes in connection with the licensing objectives in the Act.”

In a statement made by Stephanie Peacock, Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth, it was clarified that 30% of the levy funding will be allocated to the prevention of gambling harm in Great Britain, which is up to £30 million each year, alongside the significant funding allocated for research and treatment.

If you wish to find out more about what was discussed in the session, we invite you to watch the session or read the transcript.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the oral evidence session or the statutory levy.

04Apr

White Paper Series: Gambling Commission update on the financial risk assessments pilot

4th April 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 68

On 10 February 2025, the Gambling Commission provided an update on the ongoing three-stage pilot of financial risk assessments (the “Pilot”) following completion of the first Stage. In this blog, we consider the Gambling Commission’s findings from Stage 1 and what can be expected from the next Stages of the Pilot.

What is the Pilot?

Following the Gambling Commission’s consultation response of 1 May 2024, social responsibility code provision 3.4.6 was introduced requiring operators in the three highest bands of fee categories, and volunteers in the lower fee categories, to participate in its Pilot of financial risk assessments.

Financial risk assessments are intended as a way of identifying high-spending online gambling customers who may be in financial difficulty and at risk of gambling-related harm. The risk assessment is intended to be “frictionless” and to be provided by a credit reference agency. The Pilot is being used to test how financial risk assessments can work in practice and to support a frictionless customer journey, and to assess appropriate thresholds.

The Pilot was expected to take place in three stages running from 30 August 2024 to 31 March 2025 inclusive, however, the Gambling Commission can extend the Pilot period until the end of April 2025 should this be necessary for practical reasons. Stage 1 looked at historic data, Stage 2 tested “more recent” data, and Stage 3 reportedly used current data. It is important to note that the Pilot is not a ‘live test’, and consumers have not been affected.

The Pilot is testing four set success criteria:

Frictionless part 1: What proportion of those high-spending customers checked could get a frictionless financial risk assessment if they were introduced?
Frictionless part 2: How quickly could credit reference agencies return a financial risk assessment?
Data relevance and accuracy: Is using credit reference data meaningful for understanding of an individual customer’s current or imminent overall financial risk and financial vulnerability?
Implementation issues: How could the data be presented to operators to help understand the level of financial risk or vulnerabilities associated with individual customers? How could operators build financial risk assessments into their overall customer interaction processes?

At each stage of the Pilot, the Gambling Commission has been testing at least one of the success criteria, and each stage is expected to provide different results. For example, the Gambling Commission stated that “it is likely that a smaller proportion of accounts would be able to receive a frictionless assessment when using historical data”. In our view, this is likely due to historical data having limited information available compared to more current or real-time data. The Gambling Commission has stated that its final decisions regarding financial risk assessments will also be informed by other evidence and data.

Stage 1 of the Pilot

When Stage 1 completed, it was considered by the Gambling Commission as “a pilot of the Pilot”. The Gambling Commission’s intentions for Stage 1 were to:

Test how the Pilot participants prepared data for the credit reference agencies and how the data was returned to the Pilot participants;
Test the Pilot reporting tools to see if the right data was getting back to the Gambling Commission; and
Refine and improve its systems for Stages 2 and 3 of the Pilot and identify issues that need further exploration.

Stage 1 looked at historical data for a cohort of inactive customers, and tested customer accounts which had met high-spending thresholds during a set period. The account details were shared with one or more credit reference agencies, which provided a financial risk assessment at the point the threshold was met. Stage 1 was testing what financial risk indicators were present when the account met the high-spending threshold. The credit reference agencies are replicating how they are providing financial data to operators as close as possible to automated or live implementation.

What were the findings of Stage 1?

Stage 1 involved more than 530,000 assessments across three credit reference agencies for approximately 300,000 accounts for the relevant year.
Approximately 95% (503,500) of these assessments met the first success criteria of a frictionless assessment. This means that the data shared by the operators was successfully matched by the credit reference agencies, which would allow a financial risk assessment to be returned to the operator in a frictionless manner.
Of the 95%, just over 3% were considered “thin files”, where the customer can be matched, there is no positive credit history, but the lack of negative indicators means they are considered lower risk in terms of financial vulnerability.
Approximately 5% (26,500) of the assessments were unmatched or the data provided by operators was invalid. These assessments were not able to receive a frictionless financial risk assessment. This is lower than the 20% anticipated by the White Paper.
Of the 5%, just over 4% of the assessments were unmatched (where the credit reference agency was unable to identify the customer and no information was available), and less than 1% were due to data formatting issues, invalid data, or duplications in the data provided to the credit reference agencies by operators.

According to the Gambling Commission, Stage 1 has primarily met the first success criterion on the proportions of customers that might be able to receive a frictionless check. It also provided insights on data quality and understanding (success criterion 3) and implementation issues (success criterion 4). Stage 1 did not look at the speed of an assessment (success criterion 2).

However, Stage 1 identified issues relating to data quality and implementation, which are to be explored further before financial risk assessments are introduced.

Data quality issues

The quality of operator data can play a role in reducing friction and operators can take steps to reduce duplicate accounts and rectify incorrect data fields to improve data linkage rates.
Credit reference agencies have unique systems and ways of presenting the findings back to the Pilot participants which caused some issues for the Pilot participants in assessing the findings. For example, a green RAG rating means different things across credit reference agencies.

At the time of the update, the Gambling Commission claimed that more can be done in Stages 2 and 3 to support operator understanding of different systems and allow credit reference agencies to make refinements to their models to reduce unnecessary variation or confusion. The Gambling Commission will also propose common definitions, such as time periods, to ensure commonality across credit reference agencies where needed.

Implementation issues

Pilot participants seem uncertain about the exact actions that might be proportionate when they consider both the financial risk assessment and the information they already hold and act on for customer interaction.

The Gambling Commission has created a working group of the Pilot participants to focus on these issues with the intention of informing guidance to operators. As part of Stage 1, the participants shared anonymised case studies to help provide early insight into how the financial risk assessment could inform decision making.

What next?

The Gambling Commission’s progression to Stage 2 reportedly involved testing more recent data and refining some of the aspects tested in Stage 1. The emerging findings from both Stage 1 and Stage 2 reportedly informed the Gambling Commission’s approach to Stage 3 of the Pilot, where current data is being used.

The Gambling Commission has emphasised that its findings of Stage 1 are preliminary but it expects the interactive and collaborative approach of the Pilot to prove worthwhile in testing how financial risk assessments might work in practice before final decisions are made.

Financial risk assessments were one of the more controversial proposals of the Government’s White Paper, and it is therefore vital that the Pilot is conducted carefully and transparently. Whilst, in theory, financial risk assessments are workable, one of the industry concerns was how risk assessments would be conducted in practice. Stage 1 has already identified possible hurdles, including the discrepancies across credit reference agencies. These practicalities must be ironed out for financial risk assessments to be effective, particularly as Stage 1 demonstrated that 26,500 of the assessments were unmatched or the data provided by operators was invalid. As such, without these practicalities addressed, these assessments may still create a disproportionate amount of friction for customers and operators alike. The Gambling Commission’s update indicated that it took these findings into consideration as Stage 2 of the Pilot progressed. Whilst the outcome of Stage 1 seems relatively positive, we wait to see the outcome of Stages 2 and 3 before a full assessment on the success of the Pilot can be made.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the financial risk assessments Pilot or its Stage 1 findings.

13Jan

Reminder: Changes to remote games design requirements come into force on 17 January 2025

13th January 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 99

The Gambling Commission has reminded licensees that on 17 January 2025, the revised remote gambling and software technical standards (“RTS”) will take effect, introducing new requirements to extend the rules that already apply to slots, to other online products. Licensees should ensure their online games are compliant with the new requirements of the RTS before 17 January 2025.

Background

In May 2024, the Gambling Commission published its response to its Summer 2023 consultation in which it confirmed that it would proceed with the Game Design proposals as set out in the consultation. The changes to the RTS include the introduction of a minimum speed of play, features which reduce thinking time or contribute to dissociation from the act of gambling, and display of the amount of time and spend.

Summary of the proposals and the new requirements

Proposal 1: Player-led ‘spin stop’ features

RTS requirement 14E: The gambling system must not permit a customer to reduce the time until the result is presented.

RTS implementation guidance 14E:

Features such as turbo, quick spin and slam stop are not permitted. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list but to illustrate the types of features the requirement is referring to.
This applies to all remote games, regardless of game cycle speed.
This requirement does not apply to bonus and/or feature games where an additional stake is not wagered.

Applies to: all casino.

Proposal 2: Minimum speed of play

RTS requirement 14G: It must be a minimum of 5 seconds from the time a game is started until the next game cycle can be commenced. It must always be necessary to release and then depress the ‘start button’ or take equivalent action to commence a game cycle.

RTS implementation guidance 14G:

A game cycle starts when a player depresses the ‘start button’ or takes equivalent action to initiate the game and ends when all money or money’s worth staked or won during the game has been either lost or delivered to, or made available for collection by the player and the start button or equivalent becomes available to initiate the next game.
A player should commit to each game cycle individually, continued contact with a button, key or screen should not initiate a new game cycle.

Applies to: all casino games (excluding peer-to-peer poker and slots).

Proposal 3: Prohibition on autoplay

RTS requirement 8A: The gambling system must require a customer to commit to each game cycle individually.

RTS implementation guidance 8A:

This requirement does not prohibit offering functionality to automatically post blinds in peer-to-peer poker.

Applies to: all gaming (including bingo).

Proposal 4: Prohibition of features which may give the illusion of “false wins”

RTS requirement 14F: The gambling system must not celebrate a return which is less than or equal to the total stake gambled.

RTS implementation guidance 14F:

By ‘celebrate’, the Gambling Commission means the use of auditory or visual effects that are associated with a win are not permitted for returns which are less than or equal to last total amount staked.
The following items provide guidelines for reasonable steps to inform the customer of the result of their game cycle:

Display of total amount awarded.
Winning lines displayed for a short period of time that will be considered sufficient to inform the customer of the result. This implementation should not override any of the display requirements (as set out in RTS 7E).
Brief sound to indicate the result of the game and transfer to player balance.

Applies to: all casino.

Proposal 5: Operator-led simultaneous products

RTS requirement 14C: The gambling system must not offer functionality which facilitates playing multiple games at the same time.

RTS implementation guidance 14C:

Operators are not permitted to offer functionality designed to allow players to play multiple games at the same time. This includes, but is not limited to, split screen or multi-screen functionality.
Combining multiple games in a way which facilitates simultaneous play is not permitted.

Applies to: all casino (excluding peer-to-peer poker).

Proposal 6: Display of net position and time spent

RTS requirement 2E: All gaming sessions must clearly display a customer’s net position, in the currency of their account or product (for example, pounds sterling, dollar, euro) since the session started.

RTS implementation guidance 2E: Net position is defined as the total of all winnings minus the sum of all losses since the start of the session.

Applies to: all casino (excluding peer to peer poker).

RTS requirement 13C: The elapsed time should be displayed for the duration of the gaming session.

RTS implementation guidance 13C:

Time displayed should begin either when the game is opened or once play commences.
Elapsed time should be displayed in seconds, minutes and hours.

Applies to: all casino (excluding peer to peer poker).

Proposal 7: Update to security audit requirements

We take the opportunity to remind licensees that the new security audit requirements under section 4 of the RTS came into force on 31 October 2024. Annual security audits conducted after 1 November 2024 must be to the updated to comply with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)27001:2022.

Next Steps

The new RTS requirements come into force on 17 January 2025, meaning licensees must adhere to these requirements before this date.

Please get in touch if you have any questions about the new game design requirements.

Tiffany Babayemi

Game error leads to a million-pound win: is the High Court following precedent?

Gambling Commission issues industry warning notice on regulatory returns submission

A spotlight on the statutory levy: Government Committee examines gambling harm evidence

White Paper Series: Gambling Commission update on the financial risk assessments pilot

Reminder: Changes to remote games design requirements come into force on 17 January 2025

Sign up to our blog and get updates from Harris Hagan