16Jul

Gambling Commission improvements to financial penalties determination process

16th July 2025 Ting Fung 19

The Gambling Commission confirmed last week that improvements to its process for calculating and imposing financial penalties are imminent, with all changes to come into effect on 10 October 2025.

The changes aim to strengthen the transparency and consistency of how the Gambling Commission imposes penalties. John Pierce, Director of Enforcement and Intelligence at the Gambling Commission stated that:

“The…changes will to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our enforcement work. Crucially, the new approach also encourages compliance at the earliest opportunity, supporting the protection of consumers alongside fair and proportionate outcomes for operators.”

The upcoming changes follow the Gambling Commission’s 2023 consultation on its Statement of principles for determining financial penalties (“Statement of Principles”) which will be updated to include the following changes:

providing a clear and distinct seven step process that the Gambling Commission will follow when assessing and imposing a financial penalty;
providing added clarity on the ‘disgorgement’ element of the penalty where clear consumer detriment and/or financial gain by the licensee has resulted directly from the breach;
providing transparency on how the Gambling Commission will determine the level of seriousness of the breach, which factors will be relevant, and introducing five levels of seriousness;
setting out a defined methodology for determining the starting point for the penal element of the penalty by reference to the seriousness of the breach and (in most cases) a percentage of Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) or equivalent income generated during the period of the breach;
including a methodology for addressing situations involving multiple breaches during a period; and
including a methodology for making adjustments to the penalty for aggravating and mitigating factors, deterrence and early resolution.

Further information on these changes, including the revised wording that will appear in the Gambling Commission’s Statement of Principles, is set out in its consultation response document.

Please also see our previous blog “Naughty or Nice?” – the Gambling Commission publishes its latest consultation on financial penalties and financial key event reporting.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions.

15Jul

DCMS research report on online prize draws and competitions market study, harms and potential interventions

15th July 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 21

On 26 June 2025, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) published a research report on online prize draws and competitions market study, assessment of harm and review of potential interventions (the “Report”). London Economics, a leading specialist policy and economics consultancy, was commissioned by DCMS in August 2023 to conduct research into the prize draws and competitions (“PDCs”) industry, with the view to providing DCMS with a better understanding of the PDCs market, and to inform consideration of whether any government intervention may be required in this sector and, if so, what form that intervention could take.

Purpose and objectives of the study

It is recognised that although the PDCs industry has grown rapidly in the UK in recent years, little research into this sector has been conducted to date. PDCs are similar to lotteries in that players purchase tickets to participate and prizes are awarded at least partly based on chance. However, they differ from lotteries in (at least) one of two ways: ‘prize draws’ offer a free entry route and ‘prize competitions’ have a skill element (e.g. answering a question) meaning that prizes are not allocated entirely by chance. Due to these characteristics PDCs are not regulated under the Gambling Act 2005 (unlike lotteries), meaning that they are not subject to gambling regulatory oversight.

The research was structured around three overarching questions:

What is the size and scale of the prize draws and competitions market (both demand and supply)? (Section 2 of the Report)
What evidence is there of negative consequences from these products? (Section 3 of the Report)
If any harm is identified, what would be the most effective and proportionate intervention? (Section 4 of the Report)

Section 3 reviews the evidence about whether there is any harm both gambling and non-gambling (consumer), arising from PDCs, and the impact that they have on the regulated lottery industry.

Section 4 focuses on the case for government intervention in the PDCs industry to address reducing the risk of gambling harm from PDCs, improving the integrity and transparency of PDCs, and protecting donations to charities. It suggests three interventions:

Changes to gambling regulation

The Report considers the possibility of bringing PDCs under the oversight of the Gambling Commission and the requirement for PDC operators to have a licence to operate. Doing so would mean PDC operators would be required to implement player protection and transparency obligations, including:

Minimum age for participation
Provision of self-exclusion mechanisms
Safer gambling messaging and signposting to gambling harm charities
Caps on entries and/or spend per player
Limits on promotional offers
Ban on accepting credit card payments
Provision of information to consumers on how and where proceeds are used, on how prizes are allocated and the likelihood of winning a prize
Possible limits on sizes of prizes and ticket sales

Bringing PDCs within the Gambling Commission’s remit would give the Gambling Commission an opportunity to regulate the instant win games offered by operators, and to mandate gambling duty/minimum charitable donations for PDC operators.

Greater enforcement of consumer protection rules

The Report offers an alternative option of pursuing more assertive enforcement of consumer protection rules, which could be an effective way to address consumer harm in the market for PDCs. Such an intervention could include the existing framework of rules for consumer protection, including the work done by consumer protection bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority, which has previously taken action against potentially harmful advertising by PDC operators, for example in relation to the free entry route. Whilst this intervention method is expected to increase transparency in the market, it is noted that additional costs incurred by operators to comply with enforcement may be passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices or reduced quality.

Voluntary code of conduct

The Report suggests that the introduction of a voluntary code of conduct for operators of PDCs could be used to set industry standards for measures used to protect players from harm. Although such a code would not legally require PDC operators to implement the kinds of player protection measures that lotteries have, it may induce them to do so, especially if the alternative is direct regulation. Of the three possible interventions, this would be the quickest and least costly to implement, and of the three, was the preferred option of the PDC industry, with many PDC operators expressing an interest in being involved in a Working Group to develop such a code. However, this intervention runs the risk of having poor take-up and/or adherence, given its voluntary status.

The Report concludes that the three interventions outlined offer different strengths and weaknesses in addressing the case for intervention and carry different practical implications and different risks of negative consequences, and notes that all these considerations should inform the government’s eventual choice of intervention(s).

We encourage stakeholders to read the full Report published by the DCMS. Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about this research report or the PDCs market.

09Jun

Gambling Commission welcomes OSR review of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain

9th June 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 54

On 22 May 2025, the Gambling Commission welcomed the findings from the Office for Statistics Regulation’s (“OSR”) review of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain.

The GSGB

In July 2024, the Gambling Commission published the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (the “GSGB”), which sets out the Gambling Commission’s official statistics on gambling behaviours in Great Britain. After several years of extensive development, the Gambling Commission asked OSR to review GSGB against its standards in the Code of Practice for Statistics to support continual improvement and provide independent assurance on quality and transparency.

OSR review of the GSGB

OSR published a public statement and comprehensive review of the GSGB and provided a series of important recommendations to further enhance its reliability and user engagement.

According to OSR, the absence of accredited official statistics status does not imply the GSGB is of lower quality or reliability than other surveys which have “accredited official statistics” status, and that the decision on which one to use should be based on user need and not accreditation status. OSR acknowledged how the Gambling Commission had presented clear and impartial information about the strengths and limitations of the methodological approach and statistical uncertainty of survey estimates.

While the Gambling Commission had already acted on several areas outlined in the report based on earlier feedback, the Gambling Commission has confirmed it will provide a further, fuller update in July 2025 in line with OSR’s request. The Gambling Commission has noted that its guidance for users of the GSGB was updated in February 2025, with clearer examples and dedicated contact channels for questions or concerns. The Gambling Commission has also committed to promoting this guidance more widely and embedding it across all future releases.

OSR noted that communication and user engagement will be critical to the GSGB’s ongoing success. In response, the Gambling Commission has announced plans to establish a GSGB Statistics User Group. Around 70 stakeholders have already expressed interest in joining the group, which will serve as a forum for dialogue, feedback, and shared learning.

Ben Haden, Director of Research and Statistics at the Gambling Commission, said:

“We welcome the findings from OSR, both the public statement regarding casework they have received in relation to GSGB and their overall review of the GSGB. We are pleased they recognise the huge amount of work that the team has put into developing and delivering the largest survey of its kind in the world. We also welcome OSR’s recommendations for further action, which closely align with work that we already have underway.”

Other recommendations

The Gambling Commission has noted that further improvements are underway in line with recommendations from the independent review of the GSGB by Professor Patrick Sturgis of the London School of Economics and Political Science. An experimental research project was launched by the Gambling Commission in April 2025 to test specific aspects of the GSGB’s methodology, and fieldwork is now in progress, with findings expected in Summer 2025. These results will inform the second GSGB annual report, due for publication on 2 October 2025.

Other recommendations that the Gambling Commission confirms it has already actioned:

survey improvement plan updated with further information for users;
new survey questions designed to validate GSGB findings against external data sources, such as GAMSTOP and the Bingo Association; and
improvements to accessibility and usability of GSGB outputs which links to guidance added to statistical outputs released on 22 May 2025.

Other recommendations that the Gambling Commission says it will action:

comparisons with forthcoming datasets from the Health Survey for England and the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, due in 2025;
publication of a communications strategy to improve how GSGB updates are shared; and
ongoing improvements to accessibility and usability of GSGB outputs to be informed by GSGB stats user group.

The Gambling Commission highlights its continued engagement with other official statistics producers, including Ofcom, the Money and Pensions Service, and devolved government agencies, and is reviewing user engagement frameworks to develop a formal user engagement strategy. In addition, the Gambling Commission stated that a full log of requests to the GSGB statistics from stakeholders has been published as part of its transparency agenda and will be updated quarterly.

The Gambling Commission encourages stakeholders to complete the GSGB Statistics User Group Sign Up Form to learn more about the GSGB or to express interest in joining the user group.

Please let us know if you have any questions on the above and sign up to our blog to receive updates on the continued journey of the GSGB.

02May

HM Treasury Consultation: Tax Treatment of Remote Gambling

2nd May 2025 Harris Hagan 79

On 28 April 2025, HM Treasury launched a consultation on Tax Treatment of Remote Gambling (the “Tax Consultation”). The Tax Consultation aims to create a simpler, streamlined system by proposing a new, single Remote Betting & Gaming Duty which would replace the current tax regime for online operators.

Background and purpose of the Tax Consultation

Since 2014, remote gambling operators in the UK are subject to the following taxes:

General Betting Duty (“GBD”) – Due at 15% of gross profit for fixed-odds bets, totaliser bets on horse or dog races, and bets taken on betting exchanges, 10% for sports spread bets and 3% for financial spread bets.
Pool Betting Duty (“PBD”) – Due at 15% of gross profit on bets not at fixed-odds apart from those on horse and dog racing.
Remote Gaming Duty (“RGD”) – Due at 21% of gross profit and is payable on the provision of online gaming to a UK customer.

In the Tax Consultation, HM Treasury proposes to move to a single tax called Remote Betting & Gaming Duty (“RBGD”) for UK-facing remote gambling in order to harmonise the existing duties into a single rate. This tax would have in its scope betting and gaming activities offered remotely, such as online casino, bingo, and remote betting, including general and pool betting.

HM Treasury notes that “as remote gambling has matured, the distinctions in tax treatment between general betting, pool betting and remote gaming are less reflective of real-life distinctions in customer experience of the products”. Given the common features across the different forms of remote gambling, HM Treasury’s view is that “there is no longer a strong rationale to maintain this historical distinction” in the duty rates.

The Tax Consultation seeks views from stakeholders on the shape, scope, coverage, administration, and enforcement of the new proposed RBGD.

Consultation themes

The proposal of a single remote gambling tax

This chapter explains why the government is considering introducing a single RBGD and a high-level view of how the tax would operate. For instance, the government acknowledges that operators providing gambling to UK customers have limited familiarity with the UK tax system and its administration, therefore simplification is at the heart of this proposal.

As explained above, the proposal is to harmonise the current duty rates for RGD, GBD and PBD in a single rate. Should the government proceed with the RBGD, the rate will be set as part of the Budget process.

Basic framework and scope of the tax

This chapter details the proposed approach to use the existing ‘place of consumption’ (“POC”) framework. POC in this context means that a gamble or bet is subject to UK gambling duties if:

the person making the bet is a ‘UK person’;
it is made on UK premises where betting facilities are available.

This chapter also sets out the basis for calculation of taxable profits. Under the existing RGD, GBD and PBD regimes, gambling tax liability is calculated by applying the appropriate tax rate to taxable profits. Taxable profits are calculated based on stakes paid in, less prizes paid out. The government does not see the need to add unnecessary complexity by changing this and will mostly retain the current approach to establishing taxable profits (beyond the issues around freeplays, free bets and prizes discussed below).

Regarding the scope of RBGD, it is proposed that the government will be led by existing legal definitions of ‘remote’ gambling, as contained in section 154 of the Finance Act 2014, which reflect the definition of ‘remote gambling’ in section 4 of the Gambling Act 2005 and its regulatory licence structure.

Given the definition of ‘remote gambling’, all ancillary activities other than those covered by Bingo Duty, Gaming Duty or Machine Games Duty (and therefore already subject to other duties) would be in scope of RBGD. The remote betting activities of an on-course bookmaker and remote spread betting would also be activities included in RBGD. However, HM Treasury is seeking views on whether the inclusion of spread betting is appropriate, or whether alternative treatment is required.

Consistency of treatment of free bets, freeplays, and prizes

As freeplays and free bets are subject to tax-specific treatments, HM Treasury wants to test whether RBGD should adopt a common treatment for freeplays and free bets offered for all remote gambling.

Free bets

The government proposes to align the tax treatment of remote free pool bets with the treatment of free bets as stakes for GBD purposes. This means that when a customer places a free pool bet, the value of that bet would be included in the licensee’s taxable amount. Any winnings paid to UK customers from these taxable free pool bets would count as deductible expenditure in their duty calculation.

Freeplays

Currently, there is an exception for re-wagering under RGD, where only the first use of a freeplay has a notional value for the purposes of tax calculation. The introduction of RBGD provides an opportunity to consider the application of the re-wagering exception, alongside the introduction of a re-wagering cap taking effect on 19 December 2025, following the Gambling Commission’s Autumn 2023 consultation response.

The Tax Consultation welcomes suggestions for options to reform the treatment of freeplays and remove opportunities for avoidance.

Prizes

The government proposes to align the tax treatment of prizes by extending the current RGD provisions, including rules about valuation of prizes to all activities under RBGD. This would give betting providers scope for the deduction of non-money prizes and provide opportunities for innovation regarding prize offerings made to customers.

Under RBGD, it’s proposed to align the tax treatment of prizes with the approach under GBD and PBD, so that only winning prizes can be deducted.

Registration, returns and sanctions

This chapter sets out the government’s proposals for the RBGD administrative framework, including registration, remote filing, sanctions and enforcement.

To keep administrative changes for businesses to a minimum, the government intends to adopt the existing administrative framework for RBGD.

The government considers that the current sanctions available for enforcement of the tax regimes and unlicensed gambling are sufficient.

Next steps

The Tax Consultation will be open for 12 weeks, closing at 11:59pm on 21 July 2025. Responses can be submitted online, or by email to [email protected].

Please get in touch with us if you would like to discuss this matter further or require our assistance preparing responses.

24Apr

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

24th April 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 77

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 84

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 90

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

Gambling Commission’s guidance update on casinos providing MSB services

4th April 2025 Harris Hagan 89

On 3 April 2025, the Gambling Commission provided a guidance update in respect of casinos that also provide money service business (“MSB”) services. The Gambling Commission explains in the update that “casinos offering services to customers including acting as a cheque casher or currency exchange, accepting winners’ cheques and foreign currency, or transmitting money are considered to be providing MSB services under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017” (the “MLR 2017”).

Under the MLR 2017, the Gambling Commission is the supervisory authority for casinos in the UK and HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) is the supervisory authority for MSBs. Pursuant to Regulation 7(2) of the MLR 2017, where casino businesses also carry out incidental MSB activities, the Gambling Commission and HMRC have agreed that the supervisory body is the Gambling Commission.

The MLR 2017 requires HMRC to maintain a register of MSBs and therefore all casino businesses that also provide MSB services have to register.

The Gambling Commission points out that it intends to enter into an agreement with HMRC, under which the Gambling Commission will provide the necessary registration details directly to HMRC, so that affected licensees will not have to apply directly to HMRC to be on the register. Specific details will be shared by the Gambling Commission with HMRC to facilitate registration.

The Gambling Commission emphasises the importance of licensees’ compliance with their legal obligations “because it contributes to tackling the serious economic and social harm from organised crime. It also contributes to reducing the threat from terrorism in the UK and around the globe”.

It also highlights HMRC’s current guidance on meeting the requirements: Money service business guidance for money laundering supervision and Understanding risks and taking action for money service businesses.

The Gambling Commission will be providing more information on the agreement with HMRC in due course.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions or require any assistance.

10Mar

White Paper Series: Supplementary consultation published calling for views on deposit limits

10th March 2025 Harris Hagan 127

The Gambling Commission is calling for views on how to achieve consistency and clarity for consumers that choose to set deposit limits.

The supplementary consultation, published on 6 March 2025, calls for views from interested parties on new rules aimed at increasing consumer control over deposit limits, which will come into force on 31 October 2025 and which we discussed in our blog: White Paper Series: New rules on customer led tools, customer funds and statutory levy. In this new supplementary consultation, the Gambling Commission is seeking opinions on how deposit limits should be defined and communicated to customers, with the aim of achieving consistency and clarity across the industry.

This is the fourth Gambling Commission consultation linked to the White Paper.

Why is a supplementary consultation needed?

The Gambling Commission acknowledges that typically, ‘deposit limits’ have worked as a simple limit on the amount a customer can deposit over a specific time period (for example, if a customer chooses to set a £20 weekly deposit limit, they can deposit a maximum of £20 into their account in that week). However, they have recently observed some operators offering ‘net deposit limits’, whereby withdrawals are also taken into account.

“For example, if a customer chooses to set a £20 weekly deposit limit but then withdraws £10 then the total amount they can deposit that week goes up to £30. This can be confusing for customers, especially if the descriptions for the different types of limit are similar.”

The Gambling Commission considers that financial limits termed ‘net’ deposit limits would not meet the definition of ‘deposit limits’ proposed in its initial consultation. It is concerned that the introduction of ‘net’ deposit limits has created inconsistency in how deposit limits work, which prevents the customer being able to make a proactive and informed choice as to what financial limits are right for them – limiting consumer empowerment and choice.

To ensure clarity, rather than implement the initial consultation and ‘pursue this as a compliance matter’, the Gambling Commission has chosen to consult further on this issue. The supplementary consultation therefore sets out proposals to:

revise the remote gambling and software technical standards (”RTS”) relating to financial limits to make clear that, as a minimum and default, ‘gross’ deposit limits must be offered to customers;
ensure that the term ‘deposit limit’ is used consistently by operators, i.e. only to describe ‘gross’ and not ‘net’ limits;
provide increased consumer choice by amending the implementation guidance for the RTS to allow for ‘net’ limits to be set in addition to other types of limits, should the customer choose.

The Gambling Commission’s view is that offering a default type of deposit limit across all operators will be beneficial for consumers in terms of improving understanding of how limits work and would enable consumers to use the same type of limit across more than one account.

Next steps

The supplementary consultation is open until 30 April 2025.

The changes on customer led tools and the protection of customer funds will come into force on 31 October 2025.

Please get in touch with us if you would like our assistance preparing a response to the supplementary consultation or if you have any questions about these upcoming changes.

17Feb

Socially responsible marketing: How to strike the right balance

17th February 2025 Gemma Boore 113

In Great Britain, companies in the gambling industry face unique challenges when it comes to marketing and advertising. Gambling operators and affiliates alike are expected to keep abreast of complex and diverse requirements set by the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority, the Betting and Gaming Council, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Competition and Markets Authority – to name just a key few – to ensure British brands are marketed in a compliant and socially responsible manner.

To assist our regular readers, we outline below some of the key changes to British rules and regulations that will either imminently, or have recently, impacted the way in which companies undertake gambling marketing – including some that can occasionally, be overlooked.

Why is compliant marketing so important?

For companies in the gambling industry, striking the right balance between promoting brand/s, complying with regulatory obligations and protecting customers is key. Not just for compliance reasons (although this is – of course – paramount): socially responsible marketing also enhances reputation, differentiates a company from its competitors in a crowded marketplace, and helps to build consumer trust. However, achieving such a delicate balance is no mean feat because the ecosystem in which gambling companies operate is rapidly evolving.

How do you keep abreast of changing requirements? If you undertake marketing for a gambling brand that holds an operating licence issued by the Gambling Commission, it is a good idea to sign up for regulatory newsletters, including those published by the following organisations:

The Gambling Commission’s eBulletin, which includes information about consultations, recent regulatory enforcement action, changing requirements and other compliance matters: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/e-bulletin
The Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”)’s newsletters – five are available but in our opinion, the most useful are the ASA rulings (which are weekly ASA adjudication alerts), the insight newsletter (which provides advice on advertising compliance) and the update newsletter (which includes details of public consultations): https://www.asa.org.uk/newsletter.html
The Betting and Gaming Council (“BGC”)’s newsletter, which includes news from the betting and gaming industry body, including in relation to the codes of conduct that apply to its members: https://bettingandgamingcouncil.com/ (click “BGC News signup” at the top of the page)
The Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”)’s E-newsletter (which provides updates on the latest developments in data protection laws) and Action We have Taken eNewsletter (which includes news on the action the ICO has taken against nuisance marketers, the trends they are seeing, and areas that will be investigated in the future): https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/e-newsletter/

By subscribing to the above newsletters and other third party sources, such as this blog and gambling industry news articles, you will be amongst the first to be informed of regulatory changes that could impact the way that you undertake future marketing. Key changes are often also publicly consulted upon before they take effect. By signing up to regulatory newsletters and learning about future consultations, you may also have the opportunity to voice your opinion and shape future rules and regulations, before they come into effect.

If you are an affiliate, it is also important to remember that the brands you are marketing may have their own bespoke requirements. If so, these will typically be set out in your contract, or in a brand guidelines document that will be updated by the operator from time to time. Although there will of course, be many similarities between different operators’ requirements, each one will have its own approach and risk rationale when it comes to advertising – so it is important to check your contract, or get in touch with your affiliate manager if you want to find out more.

What changes are on the horizon?

We set out below some of the key changes that will impact gambling advertising and marketing in Great Britain in the near future.

1 May 2025: Changes to direct marketing preferences

The Gambling Commission’s requirements regarding gambling marketing and advertising are set out in Part 5 of the Code of Practice provisions in the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice.

From 1 May 2025, a new Social Responsibility Code Provision (“SRCP”) 5.1.12 will come into effect, which will read as follows:

1. “Licensees must provide customers with options to opt-in to direct marketing on a per product and per channel basis. The options must cover all products and channels provided by the licensee and be set to opt-out by default. These options must be offered as part of the registration process and be updateable should customers change their preference. This requirement applies to all new and existing customers.
2. Channel options must include phone call, email and text messages (SMS) as applicable.
3. Product options must include betting, casino, bingo, as applicable. Operators must make clear to customers which products they offer are covered under relevant categories.
4. Where an operator seeks an additional step for customers to confirm their chosen marketing preferences, the structure and wording of that step must be presented in a manner which only asks for confirmation to progress those choices with one click to proceed. There must be no encouragement or option to change selection; only the option to accept or decline their selection.
5. Customers must not receive direct marketing that contravenes their channel or product preferences.
6. Existing customers who have not already opted out of marketing must be asked at their first log-in after commencement of this provision to confirm their marketing preferences if they have not done so already. Existing preferences can be copied over providing they match the format of this requirement.”

In essence, SRCP 5.1.12 is being introduced to ensure that from 1 May 2025, remote B2C gambling operators give their customers more granular options regarding direct marketing preferences.

While this change will certainly empower customers with greater control over the types of marketing they receive, the changes are controversial as they will essentially prevent operators from the relying upon the ‘soft opt in’ under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 (“PECR”): a commonly accepted exception to the general prohibition on sending unsolicited direct marketing to consumers, that permits businesses to market similar products and services to existing customers unless they have expressly opted out. The net effect being that, from 1 May 2025, gambling will stand alone in being the only industry that does not benefit from this business-friendly exception and many operators and affiliates will need to obtain fresh consent from, in some cases, the majority of customers to whom they are currently lawfully marketing.

We strongly recommend that operators and affiliates prepare for this seismic shift by:

(a) reviewing marketing lists now to identify the customers to whom they will no longer be able to send marketing from 1 May 2025. For example, because they are marketing to those customers in reliance upon the soft opt in under PECR or because the express consent they previous obtained was not sufficiently granular;
(b) seeking to obtain fresh consent from these individuals, that is compliant with the new requirements, as soon as possible; and
(c) ensuring their systems and processes for preventing marketing being sent to customers that do not grant express consent are robust and do not cause them to breach SRCP 5.1.12 once it comes into force.

For further discussion on the proposed changes please see our blog: White Paper Series: Direct marketing and cross-selling in the crossfire.

TBC: Changes following the Gambling Commission’s Autumn Consultation

As at the time of writing, the Gambling Commission’s response to its proposals regarding socially responsible incentives in its Autumn Consultation is still pending. This is despite the fact that the response to the other proposals in that consultation was published on 4 February 2025 (for more information, please see our blog: White Paper Series: New rules on customer led tools, customer funds and statutory levy), which confirmed:

“We aim to publish our response on Socially responsible incentives by the end of March.”

While future changes regarding socially responsible incentives are not yet set in stone, we anticipate that significant changes will come to pass. Licensees should anticipate:

new rules restricting (or evening banning) wagering requirements on free bets and bonuses; and
a ban on the mixing of product types within incentives. For example: giving free spins to sports bettors; or free bets to bingo players.

Although the devil will of course, be in the detail – the biggest (and smartest) players are already taking steps to prepare. For example, by permitting internal marketing and compliance experts opportunities to examine current marketing techniques together; identify any practices that may not comply with the Gambling Commission’s future rules; take external advice, where appropriate; and brainstorm novel techniques that may have more longevity in terms of helping the business to acquire new customers, increase their engagement with products (in a socially responsible way), and prevent customer attrition (otherwise known as ‘churn’) in the future.

Which marketing obligations can sometimes be overlooked?

As well as scanning the regulatory horizon for future change, marketing teams should ensure they are alive to recent reforms to direct marketing and advertising rules that, in our experience, can occasionally be overlooked.

Social Responsibility Code Provision (“SRCP”) 3.4.3: Remote Customer Interaction

Although most remote licensee are acutely aware of SRCP 3.4.3 and the GBGC’s associated customer interaction guidance for the remote sector (the “Guidance”), the obligation for remote licensees to stop sending marketing to customers that are displaying strong indicators as harm (as defined by their systems and processes, having taken the Guidance into account) is one that can still in our experience, be overlooked.

The requirement in question means that remote operators must ensure that when their customers are, in their view, displaying strong indicators of harm, they must promptly cease sending the customer direct marketing communications. In other words, licensees must ensure that:

(i) they have systems in process in place to identify indicators of harm;
(ii) assess when those indicators of harm are strong – either on their own or when taken together; and
(iii) there are adequate and effective communication channels between a licensee’s responsible gambling and marketing teams, such that marketing is stopped at the appropriate juncture.

Licence Condition (“LC”) 7.1: General Fair and Open Obligations and Related Obligations

Existing regulations like LC 7.1..1 (fair and transparent terms and practices), Ordinary Code Provision (“OCP”) 5.1.1 (rewards and bonuses – SR code), and 5.1.2 (proportionate rewards) of the LCCP stress the need for fairness and transparency in marketing offers.

This means that companies must ensure that significant terms are clearly presented in advertisements; full terms and conditions are easily accessible; and do not contain any unfair provisions. In our experience, this is an area of focus for the Gambling Commission during a compliance assessment, which may therefore expose licensees to enforcement action. We therefore suggest that licensees proactively review their general and offer-specific terms and conditions against the LCCP requirements.

CAP/BCAP Codes and the BGC’s Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising (the “Industry Code”)

The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (the “CAP Code”), for those undertaking television marketing, the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (the “BCAP Code”), and the BGC’s Gambling Advertising Code, are essential reading for marketing teams. These codes outline how and when to target marketing efforts and are entrenched in the LCCP under OCP 7.1.1 (compliance with advertising codes), which states:

1. All marketing of gambling products and services must be undertaken in a socially responsible manner.
2. In particular, Licensees must comply with the advertising codes of practice issued by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) as applicable. For media not explicitly covered, licensees should have regard to the principles included in these codes of practice as if they were explicitly covered.

Common pitfalls, such as inadequate age-gating on third party platforms; use of brand ambassadors that strongly appeal to under 18s and/or not including significant terms and conditions on a promotion, can lead to regulatory action and reputational harm.

SRCP 1.1.2: Responsibility for Third Parties

Although we are confident that most licensees are acutely aware of SRCP 1.1.2 (responsibility for third parties – all licences), which states as follows; in our experience it is one of the requirements of the LCCP that is commonly breached. Sometimes by a third party that is carrying out a regulated activity on behalf of a licensed operator, but also sometimes by the licensee themselves – in cases where they have entered into an agreement that does that not require the third party to conduct themselves as if they were themselves bound by the LCCP and/or that cannot be terminated in accordance with SRCP 1.1.2.

Licensees are responsible for the actions of third parties with whom they contract for the provision of any aspect of the licensee’s business related to the licensed activities.
Licensees must ensure that the terms on which they contract with such third parties:

a. require the third party to conduct themselves in so far as they carry out activities on behalf of the licensee as if they were bound by the same licence conditions and subject to the same codes of practice as the licensee

b. oblige the third party to provide such information to the licensee as they may reasonably require in order to enable the licensee to comply with their information reporting and other obligations to the Commission

c. enable the licensee, subject to compliance with any dispute resolution provisions of such contract, to terminate the third party’s contract promptly if, in the licensee’s reasonable opinion, the third party is in breach of contract (including in particular terms included pursuant to this code provision) or has otherwise acted in a manner which is inconsistent with the licensing objectives, including for affiliates where they have breached a relevant advertising code of practice.

In addition to ensuring that commercial agreements are compliant with the above provision, we also recommend that licensees conduct and refresh due diligence, including PEP (politically exposed person) and sanction checks, on affiliates and other partners.

Establishing detailed brand guidelines, requiring approval for new marketing copy, and conducting regular audits can also help to mitigate the risk of vicarious non-compliance, which could threaten a brand’s integrity.

Our top tips for compliance

While a changing regulatory environment can present challenges, there are strategies that you can put in place to assist your business to stay compliant:

Communication: Fostering strong communication channels between marketing and compliance teams is essential. In larger organisations, it is equally important for brands to collaborate effectively, ensuring that all marketing strategies align with compliance standards across the wider business.
Induction and Refresher Training: Arrange comprehensive induction and refresher training sessions for marketing teams, particularly when regulatory changes are imminent. Harris Hagan can provide tailored training, along with the creation and updating of internal checklists and guides to ensure that staff are well-informed about current and forthcoming requirements.
A/B Test New Methods: Consider A/B testing new consent and marketing methods in anticipation of forthcoming changes to marketing preferences and socially responsible incentives. This proactive approach can help identify effective strategies that comply with upcoming regulations.
Involve Compliance Teams: When devising new campaigns or marketing new products, involve compliance teams early in the process. Having legal experts review marketing copy, especially for innovative or unconventional products, is critical. Keeping thorough records of these reviews can provide additional protection.
Implement Technical Solutions: Ensure that robust technical systems are in place to suppress marketing communications where appropriate, such as in cases of strong indicators of harm have been identified, a customer has self-excluded, or when consent is withdrawn. Regularly test systems to ensure there is no ‘single point of failure’ in marketing controls. This will, in in turn support you to demonstrate that ‘reasonable steps’ have been taken, if there is any subsequent oversight.
Distinguish Between Marketing and Service Communications: It’s important to understand the distinction between marketing communications and service communications. These two types of communication should not be mixed to avoid confusing customers and to maintain regulatory compliance.
Contingency Plans: If a marketing mistake occurs, having policies and procedures in place to limit potential damage is essential. Companies should notify regulators as required and take steps to protect their brand reputation. After addressing the incident, take the time to analyse what went wrong and implement measures to reduce the risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

Striking the right balance between promoting your brand and protecting customers in the gambling industry is not just a matter of compliance; it’s a smart business strategy.

By: (1) embracing socially responsible marketing practices; and (2) taking proactive steps now, gambling companies can ensure their marketing efforts align with both their brand values and the welfare of their customers, creating a win-win scenario for all stakeholders involved.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about direct marketing, are interested in receiving our handy gambling advertising guide in Great Britain, would like assistance reviewing your terms and conditions and/or ads for compliance with British gambling regulatory requirements, or are looking to arrange training for marketing staff, compliance teams and/or PML holders in your gambling business.

Uncategorised