24Oct

Reminder: Updates to the RTS and transparency of protection of customer funds come into effect on 31 October 2025

24th October 2025 Ruby Duncalf 24

Licensees are reminded that updates to the remote gambling and software technical standards (“RTS”), along with new requirements regarding the transparency of protection of customer funds, come into effect on 31 October 2025. We previously reported on the upcoming changes he r e, and this post serves as a timely reminder to ensure all licensees are fully prepared for the upcoming changes. Licensees should ensure they are compliant with the requirements before 31 October 2025.

Summary of the RTS updates

Following the Gambling Commission’s response to its Autumn 2023 consultation, amendments to RTS 12 – Financial limits are scheduled to come into effect at the end of the month. These changes will apply across all gambling products, with the exception of subscription lotteries. For ease of reference, we have set out below the RTS 12 in effect from 31 October 2025. Licensees should familiarise themselves with the updated RTS to ensure they are compliant.

RTS requirement 12A

The gambling system must provide easily accessible facilities for customers to set their own financial limits at any time from the point of registration. 

Customers must be prompted to set a limit as part of the registration process or at the point at which the customer makes the first deposit or payment. The limit must be implemented as soon as practicable after the customer’s request. The customer must be informed when the limit will come into force. 

RTS implementation guidance 12A:

Limits could be in the form of:
1. deposit limits: where the amount a customer deposits into their account is limited over a particular duration.
2. spend limits: where the amount a customer spends on gambling (or specific gambling products) is restricted for a given period – this type of limit may be appropriate where the customer does not hold a deposit account with the operator.
3. loss limits: where the amount lost (that is, winnings subtracted from the amount spent) is restricted (for instance when a customer makes a £10 bet and wins £8, the loss is £2).
The period/duration of the limits on offer should include:
1. 24 hours;
2. 7 days; and
3. one month
where a customer sets simultaneous time frames, for example a daily deposit limit and a weekly limit, the lowest limit should always apply. Therefore, if a daily deposit limit of £10 and a weekly limit of £100 are both set then the maximum the system should allow to be deposited is £10 per day and £70 per week.

RTS requirement 12B

Customers must be presented with a ‘free text’ box to set a limit, or the equivalent in the case of telephone gambling. 

As a minimum, limits must be applied at the account level. 

RTS implementation guidance 12B:

In addition to account-level limits, limits could be implemented across individual products or channels. Where gambling licensees offer the facility to set limits for individual products or channels it should be made clear to customers using the facility whether those limits apply at the account or product/channel level. For example, where a limit has been set for a specific game, a customer should not be misled into assuming that the limit automatically applies to other products.
Where a customer sets simultaneous time frames, gambling licensees should provide clear information on how the interaction between those limits works.
Operators could provide links to tools or resources to inform budgeting and aid customers in determining appropriate limits for their personal circumstances.
In order to mitigate against user error, the gambling system could permit specific monetary increments for limits, such as whole pounds.

RTS requirement 12C

Financial limit facilities must be provided via a direct link on the homepage and be clearly visible and accessible. 

Financial limit facilities must be clearly visible and accessible on deposit pages/screens or via a direct link on these pages or screens. 

The gambling system must minimise the number of clicks or pages customers make in order to access financial limit facilities.

RTS implementation guidance 12C: Links to limit-setting facilities from communications such as emails or notifications should link directly to the facilities and not via a home page or other intermediate page(s), unless required by account log in security settings.

RTS requirement 12D

Customer-led limits must only be increased at the customer’s request, only after a cooling-off period of at least 24 hours has elapsed and only once the customer has taken positive action at the end of the cooling off period to confirm their request. 

Unless systems/technical failures prevent it, customer-led reductions to limits must be implemented immediately.  

The gambling system must provide a prompt to customers to review their own account and transaction information, as is currently made available under RTS 1 – Customer account information. This must be provided at a minimum of six-month intervals for accounts with activity within a rolling 12-month period. Customers must be provided with facilities to set more frequent reminders to receive this statement and review their limits. 

RTS implementation guidance 12D:

In the event of systems or technical failure not facilitating an automated and/or immediate reduction in limits, the customer should be informed when the limit reduction will take effect.
Operators should monitor engagement with and responses to alerts, in order to inform good design and best practice.

RTS requirement 12E

Financial limit-setting facilities must present setting a limit as the default choice. The gambling system must require an action by the customer in order to decline setting a limit. 

The gambling system must receive confirmation that the customer does not wish to set a limit before moving on to deposit/gamble. 

The gambling system must prompt existing customers without limits set to review this position as a minimum on an annual basis.

RTS implementation guidance 12E:

Presentation of financial limits as the default option could take the form of pre-selected fields such as tick boxes, or through visual distinction.
Action to decline setting a limit and receiving confirmation could take the form of a tick box, dismissing a message or other action by the customer.
Customers who choose to opt out of setting a limit could be provided with information or links to tools and resources such as budgeting tools and information about safer gambling.

Please note that on 7 October 2025 the Gambling Commission published its response to its supplementary consultation on the definitions of different types of financial limits, which will result in further changes to RTS 12 which will take effect on 30 June 2026.

Summary of update to transparency of customer funds

On 31 October 2025, licence condition 4.2.1 shall be amended with a paragraph added at licence condition 4.2.1(3). Subsequent paragraphs will be renumbered accordingly. The amendment shall apply to all operating licences, with the exception of gaming machine technical standards, gambling software, host, ancillary remote bingo and ancillary remote casino licences.

Under the updated licence condition, licensees who have selected a ‘not protected’ rating (i.e. in the case of a gambling company becoming insolvent, any money in a customer’s account would be classed as part of the company’s assets), will be required to remind customers every six months that their funds are not protected in the event of insolvency. The reminder must refer to the value of funds held for the customer. The licensee must require the customer to acknowledge receipt of the information and must not permit the customer to utilise the funds for gambling until they have done so.

Next steps

Licensees are strongly encouraged to review the revised RTS and implementation guidance in full, and updated licence condition 4.2.1, to ensure all necessary changes are made ahead of the 31 October 2025 implementation date.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the upcoming changes.

10Oct

Gambling Commission publishes update on emerging money laundering and terrorist financing risks

10th October 2025 Ruby Duncalf 36

As part of the Gambling Commission’s ongoing efforts to combat financial crime in the UK gambling sector, its latest emerging risk update (October 2025) highlights the continued and evolving risks posed by pre-payment methods.

This serves as a critical reminder to operators to review their money laundering and terrorist financing (“MLTF”) risk assessments and related policies, procedures and controls.

Why this matters

Under licence condition 12.1.1(3) of the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice, operators are required to remain informed of emerging MLTF risks, ensuring that such policies, procedures and controls are updated as needed, implemented effectively, and remain effective, taking into account any guidelines published by the Gambling Commission from time to time.

The Gambling Commission’s October 2025 update reinforces earlier emerging risks bulletins published in April 2020 and February 2022 and the Gambling Commission’s 2023 MLTF Risk Assessment, which classified pre-paid payment methods as high risk.

Pre-paid payment methods: Key risk factors

The Gambling Commission considers pre-paid payment methods as high risk due to a variety of factors, including:

Merging of funds – the ability to pre-pay or pre-load using cash and, in some cases cryptoassets either directly or through third party websites.
Anonymity – the anonymous nature of some pre-paid payment methods and lack of traceability.
Credit card circumvention – the ability, in some cases, to pre-pay using credit cards.
Deposits – the open-loop nature of pre-paid methods often do not allow deposits back onto the original card or voucher.

What operators need to do

Update your MLTF risk assessment

In accordance with licence condition 12.1.1, licensees must consider all payment methods in their MLTF risk assessment, including pre-paid cards and pre-paid vouchers. This October 2025 emerging risk bulletin notes that the Gambling Commission’s expectation is that pre-paid payment methods should be treated as high risk, in accordance with the Gambling Commission’s own risk assessment.

Conduct appropriate customer profiling and due diligence checks

The use of pre-paid payment methods must be factored into a customer’s risk profile, and the operator must conduct appropriate due diligence checks. Additional ‘know your customer’ (“KYC”) and source of funds/source of wealth checks are also expected to be conducted by the operator when a customer is identified as presenting a higher risk.

The Gambling Commission reminds operators that they are ultimately responsible for ensuring sufficient customer checks are conducted and that they must not rely on a third party payment processor to conduct such checks on their behalf, or rely on third parties to establish source of funds without scrutiny.

Submit a key event notification (if appropriate)

Licence condition 15.2.1(8) requires operators to submit a key event to the Gambling Commission where there are any changes to the methods by which, and/or the payment processors through which, the licensee accepts payment from customers using their gambling facilities. The Gambling Commission expects such key event notifications to contain the following information as a minimum:

The type of payment method.
The provider.
How the payment method was assessed in the operator’s MLTF risk assessment.

Do not accept payment by credit card

The Gambling Commission reminds licensees that under licence condition 6.1.2(1) they must not accept payment for gambling by credit card, including payments to the licensee made by credit card through a money service business or top up methods for pre-paid cards. Operators must ensure that where pre-paid methods are authorised, they are not used to circumvent this restriction.

Review and update policies and procedures

Licence condition 12.1.1(2) requires that following completion of, and having regard to, the MLTF risk assessment, licensees must ensure that they have appropriate policies, procedures and controls to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Licensees must therefore ensure that whenever they update their MLTF risk assessments, their anti-money laundering (“AML”) policies, procedures and controls are also reviewed and updated as needed.

Next steps

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions or would like further advice on updating your AML policies and procedures, and sign up to our blog to make sure you receive updates on any emerging MLTF risks.

17Sep

White Paper Series: Payment of the first statutory levy now due

17th September 2025 Ruby Duncalf 64

On 1 September 2025, licensees should have received their first invoice in respect of the Government’s statutory levy. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 (“the Regulations”) took effect on 6 April 2025 and introduced a mandated levy on all operating licence holders in Great Britain to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms, which replaces the previous system of RET payments, of which the amount contributed was voluntary.

The Gambling Commission has now provided its guidance on the calculation, collection and payment of the statutory gambling levy (the “Guidance”), which we outline below.

How the statutory levy is calculated

The levy is charged at a set rate ranging from 0.1% to 1.1% of the “leviable amount” (defined in regulations 2(3)-(5) of the Regulations) depending on the licensed activity.

For the majority of operators, the levy is calculated based only on gaming facilities provided to customers in Great Britain (“GB”). For licensees that hold a gambling software licence or are required to hold a licence because they site key remote equipment in GB, the levy is calculated on income deriving from those activities, whether in GB or abroad.

The calculation for the amount owed under the statutory levy is based on the data that licensees provide to the Gambling Commission via their quarterly regulatory returns. The Guidance reminds licensees of their obligation to provide ‘true and correct’ data in their returns, and that any incorrect data submitted would impact the calculation of the amount owed under the levy, and risks licensee non-compliance with the law.

Timing of the statutory levy

The calculation for the first statutory levy period for all licences (except for lottery operating (society) licences) is based on regulatory returns data covering the period July 2024 to March 2025, multiplied by one and one-third. For society lottery licensees, it is based on data for the period 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025.

Going forward, for all licensees, the statutory levy will be calculated on regulatory returns data from April through to the following March. Invoices will be issued annually on 1 September and will be based on the licensee’s activity from the previous financial year.

Payment of statutory Levy

The first invoices were issued to licensees on 1 September 2025 with full payment required before 1 October 2025. Invoices are available in the invoices tab on licensees’ eServices accounts, and payment can be made by GovPay or bank transfer.

Statutory levy payments must be paid in full (they cannot be made in instalments) only after the invoice has been issued, and before 1 October in the relevant year. Payments must be made to the correct bank account, quoting the invoice number in full, and must not be combined with any other payments to the Gambling Commission. If the levy payment does not meet these requirements, there is a risk that it may be returned and the operating licence could be at risk of revocation.

Invoices relating to GB and non-GB activity

For the first statutory levy period, each licensee will receive one combined invoice for all GB activity and a second invoice for non-GB activity, if appropriate. Operators must pay the full amount of the GB activity invoice before 1 October 2025.

In relation to non-GB activity, the Gambling Commission recognises that some operators may have submitted returns that that either do not fully account for leviable foreign income, or include non-leviable foreign income. If a licensee believes that the Gambling Commission’s non-GB invoice includes non-leviable activity from foreign customers, it is the operator’s responsibility to notify the Commission promptly, and in any case before 1 October 2025, and provide full reasons at to why they believe particular sums are not due. The Gambling Commission will suspend enforcement of that element of the levy until the query is solved.

Incorrect invoices

It is the operator’s responsibility to notify the Gambling Commission if its invoices do not include any sums that ought to be brought into account, and to pay the full sums due, including any shortfall. If it fails to do so, the Gambling Commission may take enforcement measures, including revocation of the licence pursuant to section 119 of the Gambling Act 2005.

Operators should notify the Gambling Commission of any such errors by email at [email protected].

Consequences of not paying the statutory levy

Payment of the statutory levy is a licence requirement, and therefore non-payment, or late payment of the levy, by the licensee could result in revocation of the operating licence, unless the Gambling Commission is satisfied that the late or non-payment is due to an administrative error.

Next steps

Licensees can prepare for the statutory levy payment by ensuring:

regulatory returns data is submitted correctly and on time;
they have access to their organisation’s eServices account;
the Gambling Commission holds the correct contact details (i.e. email address) for their organisation; and
payment is only made once an invoice has been received.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the Regulations or payment of the statutory levy.

28Apr

White Paper Series: The White Paper, 2 years on

28th April 2025 Jessica Wilson 135

The 27 April 2025 marks two years since the Government published its White Paper. As we reach the two-year anniversary, we take the opportunity to reflect on the last 12 months and consider what is in store for the upcoming year.

Where did we get to?

At the one-year anniversary of the White Paper, we noted in our blog that a lot of work had been done by all parties to advance the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper, particularly through the publication of numerous consultations from the Gambling Commission and Government. Whilst progress had been made, at that stage there was no clear direction of travel (until the Gambling Commission’s response to the Summer Consultation was published, just days after the one-year anniversary). Whilst the Government’s goal of implementing the main White Paper measures by summer 2024 seemed like a tight deadline – particularly for the requirements that required secondary legislation – at that time we understood that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) would be publishing responses to the consultations on the statutory levy and land-based measures “in the coming weeks”. The industry was also aware that there would be a General Election in 2024, and whilst delays were anticipated, it was thought that this was unlikely to affect the final outcome of the White Paper proposals.

What happened over the last 12 months?

Momentum continued as we entered the second year since the White Paper was published, and the Gambling Commission published its response to its Summer Consultation on the 1 May 2024. Setting out the planned approach for financial vulnerability checks, remote game design, direct marketing and some land-based changes, the consultation response provided the industry with some certainty and confirmation that tangible progress was being made.

However, all activity was brought to a halt when the General Election was announced on 22 May 2024. Originally anticipated for autumn 2024, the General Election took place on 4 July 2024, resulting in a new Labour government. As the new Government was finding its feet (and was on summer recess), momentum in progressing implementation of the White Paper proposals fizzled, and the proposals that required secondary legislation and parliamentary time were put on hold. The second half of 2024 was quieter while we waited patiently for the Government to make its next move.

The Government’s original target of summer 2024 came and went, and it was not until 27 November 2024 when DCMS published its initial response to its consultation on the statutory levy, and confirmed its approach regarding stake limits for online slots (which were originally anticipated to come into effect in September 2024).

As we entered 2025, activity started to increase. The Gambling Commission launched its January 2025 consultation regarding Gaming Machine Technical Standards and Testing Strategy on 29 January 2025, published responses to the Autumn 2023 consultation on 4 February 2025 and 26 March 2025, and launched a supplementary consultation regarding the Remote Technical Standards on 6 March 2025. Additionally, on 25 February 2025, statutory instruments for online slots stake limits and the statutory levy were signed into law.

One constant over the past year is the notable lack of progress in respect of the voluntary creation of a non-statutory Gambling Ombudsman, one of the cornerstone proposals of the White Paper. The Gambling Ombudsman is intended to be an independent, free to use, non-statutory body that will handle social responsibility complaints from consumers and was due to start taking claims from summer 2024.

Key 2024 – 2025 highlights for White Paper proposals at the time of writing are:

The Gambling Commission’s response to its Summer Consultation on 1 May 2024, which set out requirements for many White Paper proposals relating to financial vulnerability checks, remote game design, direct marketing requirements, land-based age verification, and changes to requirements to hold a personal management licence.

The introduction of financial vulnerability checks on 30 August 2024. As the most controversial White Paper proposal, the introduction of such checks is a milestone for the industry. The light-touch financial vulnerability checks involving the assessment of publicly available data came into force at £500 a month to ease introduction. The trigger was reduced to £150 a month from 28 February 2025.

The passing of a Statutory Instrument on 25 February 2025, introducing the statutory levy under The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 (“The Levy Regulations”), which came into effect on 6 April 2025. The regulations require licensees to pay a mandated levy to the Gambling Commission, unless the amount of that levy is £10 or less. The Gambling Commission published supplementary guidance on 7 April 2025.

The passing of a Statutory Instrument on 25 February 2025, under The Gambling Act (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendments) Regulations 2025. This introduced online slots stake limits at £5 for those aged 25 and over (applicable from 9 April 2025), and £2 for those aged 18-24 years old (applicable from 21 May 2025). The Gambling Commission published supplementary guidance on 30 January 2025.

April 2024 – April 2025 timeline for the White Paper proposals

1 May 2024 – The Gambling Commission published its response to its Summer 2023 Consultation. Its response confirmed (a) the introduction of light-touch financial vulnerability checks for gambling customers with a net deposit of more than £150 a month, (b) the launch of a pilot scheme to test how enhanced financial risk assessments will work in practice, (c) new remote game design requirements to extend the requirements that already apply to slots to other online products, resulting in publication of new remote technical standards, (d) changes to direct marketing requirements obliging online gambling businesses to provide options to opt-in to product types and channels, (e) requirements for all land-based licensees to carry out age verification test-purchasing, (f) changes to the LCCP to confirm that best practice for land-based operators is “Think 25”, and (g) extension of the management roles expected to hold a personal management licence.

1 May 2024 – The Betting and Gaming Council published the Industry Voluntary Code on Customer Checks and Documentation Requests Based on Spend (the “Code”). The Code was developed jointly between members of the Betting and Gaming Council and the Gambling Commission, and is a voluntary interim scheme intended to bring “consistency across the regulated sector for operators who adopt it – until the frictionless financial risk assessments set out in the Government’s White Paper can be developed, tested and implemented”.

15 May 2024 – Progression of the Criminal Justice Bill, setting out new powers for the Gambling Commission to more effectively take action against illegal online gambling, to the report stage.

16 May 2024 – DCMS published its response to its consultation on Measures relating to the land-based gambling sector. The response outlined the proposed implementation of measures to: relax casino rules for 1968 Act casinos, increase gaming machine entitlement ratios in arcades and bingo halls, accept cashless payments on gaming machines, introduce a legal age limit of 18 for Category D slot style machines, and increase local authority fees. The majority of land-based reforms require legislation to be implemented.

1 July 2024 – Quarterly regulatory returns reporting introduced. This change was originally proposed in the Gambling Commission’s Autumn 2023 Consultation, and was confirmed in its consultation response published on 27 March 2024.

4 July 2024 – UK General Election.

25 July 2024 – The Gambling Commission published the new Gambling Survey of Great Britain (the “GSGB”), collecting data from 20,000 respondents each year and set to establish a new baseline for understanding gambling behaviour in Great Britain. The GSGB publication caused widespread concern in the industry about the accuracy and reliability of the data, that it will be misused and that it will give the new Labour government a reason to depart from what was already proposed in the White Paper, and have a longer term adverse impact on gambling policy.

30 August 2024 – Introduction of new social responsibility code provision (“SRCP”) 3.4.4, which sets out requirements for light-touch financial vulnerability checks at an initial threshold of £500 a month. The pilot for financial risk assessments was also launched and is expected to run until April 2025.

30 August 2024 – Introduction of new age-verification requirements, under SRCP 3.2.1, 3.2.3(8), 3.2.5(7) and 3.2.7(9) of the LCCP. The requirements oblige all land-based gambling licensees to conduct test purchasing and change from “Think 21” to “Think 25”.

27 November 2024 – DCMS published its initial response to the Consultation on the structure, distribution and governance of the statutory levy on gambling operators. The initial response committed to having the levy in place by summer 2025, with 50% going to the NHS, 30% to gambling harm prevention, and 20% to develop bespoke research programmes on gambling.

29 November 2024 – New requirements under licence condition 1.2.1(2) of the LCCP introduced. The requirements extend the ‘specified management offices’ to include the Chair of the Board, money laundering compliance officer and money laundering reporting officer, and confirm that the individual responsible for the overall management and direction of the licensee’s business or affairs is likely to be the CEO, Managing Director or equivalent. Holders of specified management offices are required to hold a personal management licence (“PML”).

5 December 2024 – DCMS announced its Gambling Act Review evaluation plan. DCMS expect the evaluation to be reported in 2026.

17 January 2025 – The revised Remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) came into force extending the requirements that apply to slots to other online products.

29 January 2025 – The Gambling Commission launched its January 2025 consultation which sets out proposed changes to the Gaming Machine Technical Standards, the Gaming Machine Testing Strategy, and the LCCP. The proposals relate to consolidating and updating the existing 12 gaming machine technical standards into a single standard, and introducing five new standards, a licence condition and social responsibility code provision in respect of safe use of gaming machines. The consultation closes on 20 May 2025 and is a serious cause for concern for the land-based industry. We would encourage clients to respond and provide evidence as to: the disproportionate cost of the proposals and the adverse impact upon business relative to any reduction of gambling harm, whether the proposals are even necessary given existing safer gambling measures in their venues, and the huge impact on the enjoyment of gaming machines by the overwhelming majority of consumers.

30 January 2025 – The Gambling Commission published its online slots stake limit guidance on the Statutory Instrument, which clarifies the stake limits and implementation dates, and provides example scenarios.

4 February 2025 – The Gambling Commission published its response to its Autumn 2023 consultation. Its response confirmed (a) new requirements for customer led tools to give consumers more effective ways to manage their gambling by making it easier to set and maintain deposit limits on their online accounts, (b) the requirement that operators whose customer funds are ‘not protected’ in the event of insolvency must actively remind customers once every six months that their funds are not protected, and (c) the removal of the requirement to make annual financial contributions to a list of research, prevention and treatment organisations to pave the way for the new statutory levy by 31 March 2025.

10 February 2025 – The Gambling Commission published an update on the financial risk assessment pilot, which outlined the findings from Stage 1 of the three-stage pilot, identified the issues relating to data quality and implementation, and explained what can be expected with Stages 2 and 3.

25 February 2025 –Statutory Instrument, The Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, signed into law, adding a new licence condition to all remote casino operating licences which introduces a maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain. The total amount which an individual may stake in relation to any game cycle may not exceed (a) £2, where the individual is less than 25 years old, and (b) £5, where the individual is 25 years old or over.

25 February 2025 –Statutory Instrument, The Levy Regulations, signed into law, requiring all operating licence holders in Great Britain to pay a mandated levy to the Gambling Commission. The Levy Regulations came into force on 6 April 2025.

28 February 2025 – The requirement set out in SRCP 3.4.4(7) of the LCCP for financial vulnerability checks at £500 a month reduced to £150 a month, as set out in SRCP 3.4.4(6).

6 March 2025 – The Gambling Commission launched a supplementary consultation setting out its proposals for clarifying the definition of financial limits in the Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards, to ensure there is a differentiation between “deposit limits and “loss limits”. The consultation closed on 30 April 2025.

26 March 2025 – The Gambling Commission published a response to its Autumn 2023 consultation. Its response confirmed (a) a ban on operators offering mixed product promotional offers which provide bonuses on the condition the consumer plays different gambling products, such as betting and playing slots, (b) a requirement to cap the wagering requirement of promotional offers to 10, and (c) rewording SRCP 5.1.1 (Rewards and Bonuses) of the LCCP to ensure clarity of the Gambling Commission’s expectations of operators around socially responsible incentives. Requirements to come into force on 19 December 2025.

31 March 2025 – The removal of SRCP 3.1.1(2) of the LCCP requiring licensees to make annual financial contributions to a list of research, prevention and treatment organisations.

6 April 2025 – The Levy Regulations came into force. The first invoices will be issued on 1 September 2025, with payment required on or before 1 October 2025.

7 April 2025 –The Gambling Commission published its statutory levy guidance to accompany the Levy Regulations, including details of who will collect the levy, who must pay the levy, how the levy is calculated, when licensees need to pay, how to pay the levy, and the consequences of not paying the levy.

9 April 2025 – The Statutory Instrument adding a new licence condition to all remote casino operating licences which introduces a maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain came into force.

What can we expect next?

Changes which will be implemented in 2025:

1 May 2025 – New direct marketing requirements come into force.
21 May 2025 – £2 stake limit for online slots for those aged 18-24 years old to come into force.
31 October 2025 – New customer led tools and requirements regarding the protection of customer funds in the event of insolvency, and further updates to RTS in relation to financial limits come into force.
19 December 2025 – New requirements for socially responsible incentives come into force.

Other areas which will likely progress in the next year at varying speeds:

Establishment of the Gambling Ombudsman.
The publication of the Gambling Commission’s response to its December 2023 Consultation, which closed on 15 March 2024, relating to the criteria for imposing a financial penalty and penalty calculation methodology, and changes to financial key event reporting.
Implementation of the new land-based measures as set out in DCMS’s consultation response of 16 May 2024.
Progress with the Criminal Justice Bill in Parliament and extension of the Gambling Commission’s powers to tackle illegal gambling.
DCMS’s consultation on Gambling Commission fees.

The second year of the White Paper saw a number of the proposals “ticked off” with their implementation having now taken place, or lined up to take place soon. The overwhelming list of proposals has shortened, and the gambling industry is now gradually transitioning to the post-White Paper era. We look forward to seeing where things stand by the time of the three-year anniversary.

Please sign up to our blog to receive insight and commentary on the continued journey of the White Paper.

23Apr

Gambling Commission issues industry warning notice on regulatory returns submission

23rd April 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 123

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 126

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.

09Apr

Gambling Commission publishes update on emerging money laundering and terrorist financing risks

9th April 2025 Harris Hagan 131

On 8 April 2025, the Gambling Commission released a publication on the emerging money laundering and terrorist financing (“ML/TF”) risks. Under licence condition 12.1.1 of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (the “LCCP”), licensees must keep up-to-date with emerging risks information published by the Gambling Commission, and ensure their ML/TF risk assessments and related policies, procedures and controls are reviewed and revised appropriately to ensure that they remain effective.

The publication identifies the following 13 emerging risks and what licensees need to do.

Money service business activity in remote and non-remote casinos

Some remote and non-remote casinos offer money service business (“MSB”) facilities, which include foreign currency exchange, third-party cheque cashing and third-party money transfer (into and out of the casino).

The Gambling Commission is aware of casino customers attempting to deposit large denomination notes of foreign currencies (including €500 notes) into casinos. It is noted that the HMRC guidance on Understanding risks and taking action for money service businesses states the sale of high value notes, in any currency, entails a significant money laundering risk and any request to buy or sell €500 notes or quantities of other high denomination notes should be treated as high risk. Similarly, HM Treasury’s UK national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing report states that criminals have been known to use currency exchange services to convert criminal cash into high denomination foreign currency notes.

The Gambling Commission surveyed the MSB activity offered by casinos and noted a reduction in the number of casinos offering MSB activity, as well as a reduction in the number and value of MSB transactions. However, numerous high-value transactions are still completed via MSB facilities in casinos, and the Gambling Commission’s ML/TF risk assessment (“Risk Assessment”) still rates MSB activity within casinos as high risk.

The Risk Assessment also identifies other risks linked to MSB activity, such as (i) payments received from politically exposed persons (“PEPs”) or persons appearing on financial sanction lists, (ii) customers buying in using a number of different payment methods, (iii) high reliance on due diligence information from third party due diligence providers, (iv) funds transferred into accounts from unknown sources, and (v) funds transferred from unlicensed MSBs.

What licensees need to do:

Casino licensees must conduct an appropriate ML/TF risk assessment and, where MSB activity is offered, an assessment of the ML/TF risks associated with the MSB activity offered must be included. Licensees must implement appropriate controls to prevent ML/TF and review these regularly to ensure they remain effective.
Where foreign currency exchange services are offered, licensees must have appropriate controls to address the risks associated with large denomination notes.
Due to the risks associated with MSB activity, customers using MSB facilities offered by casino licensees are expected to be treated as high risk, and are subject to appropriate enhanced customer due diligence measures, as outlined in the Gambling Commission’s guidance on the prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism.
Licensees offering MSB facilities must also review and consider HMRC’s MSB guidance.

Artificial intelligence used to bypass customer due diligence

The Gambling Commission notes the increase in the scale and sophistication of attempts to bypass customer due diligence checks using false documentation, deepfake videos and face swaps generated by artificial intelligence. As noted by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) in issue 30 of their SARs in Action publication, accounts successfully created using AI are more likely to be used for criminality, such as money laundering or terrorist financing.

What licensees need to do:

Consider all information they hold on a customer and, where documents are received from a customer, ensure that these documents are appropriately scrutinised.
Ensure staff are appropriately trained to assess customer documentation, including how to identify false and AI generated documents.
If a customer has submitted a false document, licensees should consider the Gambling Commission’s guidance about what licensees must do in that situation.
When submitting a SAR in relation to AI generated documents, the NCA has requested that the reference 0752-NECC is included in the relevant field. Please see the SARs in Action publication for more information.

Money in exchange for personal details and gambling accounts

The Gambling Commission has been made aware of consumers being targeted by companies who offer money in exchange for personal details to open multiple gambling accounts in the customer’s name. Consumers are directed to upload their documentation which is then used by the third-party to open large numbers of gambling accounts. Customers are promised a financial reward in exchange for their personal details and documents, but there are reports of customers not receiving the money promised to them. Customers are also told that the documents will be treated securely, however, there is a concern that the documents may be used for other purposes or sold on.

The Gambling Commission identified the risk that those gaining access to other people’s information and using it to gamble may be acting as unlicensed betting intermediaries. The Gambling Commission is also concerned about the risk of illicit mule account activity with accounts opened in this way.

What licensees need to do:

Proactively review their processes for ID verification on a regular basis to ensure they remain effective.
Take immediate action when any gaps are identified or when learnings suggest improvements are required to tighten processes.
Have robust customer due diligence and onboarding checks in place.
Consider whether checks on ID documents are sufficient to identify false, stolen or ‘mule’ (third party) IDs, in accordance with LC 17.1.1.(1) and (4) of the LCCP which states that:

(1) Licensees must obtain and verify information in order to establish the identity of a customer before that customer is permitted to gamble. Information must include, but is not restricted to, the customer’s name, address and date of birth.

…

(4) Licensees must take reasonable steps to ensure that the information they hold on a customer’s identity remains accurate.

Third-party business relationships, including white-label partnerships and investments

The Gambling Commission is aware of licensees failing to apply sufficient due diligence measures in relation to their third-party business relationships, including white-label partnerships and monies coming into the business in the form of loans or other investments. White-label partnerships and business investments have both been noted as high risk within the Gambling Commission’s latest Risk Assessment.

What licensees need to do:

Ensure that they have appropriately risk-assessed their dealings with third-parties, including white-label partners and any entities providing loans and/or investments.
The assessment of these risks should include consideration of the risks posed by the jurisdictional location of their third-party, transactions and arrangements with business associates, and third-party suppliers such as payment providers and processors, including their beneficial ownership and source of funds. Effective management of third-party relationships should assure licensees that the relationship is a legitimate one, and that they can evidence why their confidence is justified.
Consider risks to the licensing objectives in their due diligence on white-label partners. This would include giving consideration to any activity the third-party is involved in outside of GB that the Gambling Commission considers medium or high risk, as defined by the Gambling Commission’s Risk Assessment, as well as activity that is illegal in either Great Britain (“GB”) or the territory in which it is conducted.
When accepting loans into their business, licensees are reminded of LC 15.2.1(3) of the LCCP (Reporting key events) and the licensing objective to prevent gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime and disorder or being used to support crime. The Gambling Commission is also able to request additional information about any loans or other money coming into the business, as per the Licensing, compliance and enforcement policy statement.

Open-loop payment processes

In the Gambling Commission’s latest Risk Assessment, it noted that a ‘lack of closed loop’ payment system is high risk. The Gambling Commission is aware of some licensees (particularly non-remote betting operators) still operating open-loop payment processes.

Open-loop payment systems are a known money laundering risk as they allow the transfer of funds from one payment method to another, which can be used to disguise the origin and/or destination of funds. There is also a risk that criminals use open-loop systems to gamble with fraudulent or stolen cards.

What licensees need to do:

Closed-loop systems are strongly recommended and considered best practice for licensees. Closed-loop systems mean licensees process customer withdrawals and winnings to the same payment method that was used for the deposit.
Where licensees continue to operate an open-loop payment system, they must include this risk within their ML/TF risk assessment and implement appropriate and effective controls to prevent ML/TF.

Licensed software providers’ games available on websites not licensed by the Gambling Commission

The Gambling Commission is aware of casino games that have been developed by software licensees becoming available on unlicensed websites, and accessible to British consumers illegally. As such, licensees conducting business (either directly, or indirectly through third-party resellers) with websites that are operating illegally are at risk of accepting funds derived from criminal activity.

What licensees need to do:

Gambling software licensees must consider their obligations to uphold the licensing objectives, including preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime and disorder or being used to support crime.
Casino host licensees are additionally required to comply with LC 12.1.1. of the LCCP (including the requirement to conduct a ML/TF risk assessment and implement appropriate controls), as well as the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 and the Gambling Commission’s guidance for casino operators.
Licensees are advised to actively monitor their business relationships to ensure that partners are not offering illegal gambling facilities to the GB market. Where such non-compliance is identified, licensees must terminate these relationships immediately.
It is crucial to also engage proactively with the Gambling Commission when such activity is detected, providing details of the preventative measures taken to ensure the activity ceases without delay. Actively notifying the Gambling Commission and presenting a clear and prompt plan to mitigate the issue is a minimum requirement. Licensees should also note the Gambling Commission’s Industry warning notice: licensed software appearing on illegal market.

Cryptoassets

The Gambling Commission is aware of an increasing interest in cryptoassets (also known as crypto currencies) within the licensed gambling industry, and rates cryptoassets as a high-risk payment method. As noted by HM Treasury in the UK national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing report (chapter 8), cryptoassets present several vulnerabilities from a ML/TF perspective.

The Gambling Commission is also aware of a large theft of cryptoassets from the ByBit exchange which took place in February 2025. The group alleged to be responsible for the theft are suspected of using complex online money laundering systems which, in the past, have been thought to include remote gambling licensees around the world.

As cryptoassets potentially become more prevalent, the Gambling Commission expects that more payment providers will offer crypto payment facilities.

What licensees need to do:

Have a full understanding of the services provided by their payment providers, as the use and/or acceptance of cryptoassets presents challenges.
Pursuant to LC 12.1.1(1), ensure ML/TF risk assessments consider the risks their businesses face upon the introduction of new products or technology or new methods of customer payment.
Submit a ‘Key Event’ to the Gambling Commission under LC 15.2.1(8) wherever there are changes in payment methods.
When customers indicate their funds to gamble have come from cryptoasset trading or other means linked to cryptocurrencies, it is the Gambling Commission’s expectation that this feeds into a customer’s risk profile as a high-risk indicator, with completion of sufficient due diligence.
Be mindful of the recent theft of cryptoassets (as mentioned above) and consider their vulnerabilities and controls in this area. Please see further information on the Gambling Commission’s position on crypto-assets here.

Terminals used to facilitate payments in non-remote casinos

The Gambling Commission is aware of several types of terminals used to facilitate customer deposits into non-remote casinos and has seen cases where funds received via this method are not scrutinised as closely as deposits via other methods.

What licensees need to do:

Assess the risks of their businesses being used for ML/TF, including considerations of the different types of payment methods accepted by the business, including any payment terminals within the casino.
Following this risk assessment, licensees must implement effective policies, procedures and controls to prevent ML/TF. In the case of payment terminals in the casino, licensees must ensure they are appropriately scrutinising funds received via this method, and not relying on the third-party terminal provider and/or payment processor to conduct checks on the funds being transferred.
Where terminal providers provide the receiving casino with the details of the bank account where the money has been sent from, licensees should consider whether the account belongs to the customer, and whether it matches with other information known about the customer, including other bank accounts they have used.
When money is received via terminals within the casinos, licensees must consider how the use of this payment method feeds into the rest of the customer’s risk profile and complete an appropriate level of customer due diligence, including enhanced customer due diligence for high-risk customers.

Changing customer demographics in the non-remote casino sector

The Gambling Commission recognises that some non-remote casinos have experienced changes in the demographics of their customer base, which has not been reflected in their risk assessment or policies, procedures and controls.

Prior to 2020, high-end non-remote casinos had many international ultra-high-net-worth individuals as customers. During the pandemic, casino premises in GB were closed, and many of the customers who previously came to GB to gamble in high-end casinos shifted their preference to other global gambling centres. This shift in behaviour was also thought to be consolidated by changes to VAT regulations in the UK.

It is believed that this caused some non-remote casinos to change their entry and membership criteria to attract a wider range of customers from within GB. However, the Gambling Commission has seen cases where licensees have not updated their risk assessment and policies to account for the changed customer base, which has meant the procedures in operation are insufficient in mitigating the risks present within the business.

What licensees need to do:

As per LC 12.1.1 of the LCCP, licensees must ensure their ML/TF risk assessments are appropriate and reviewed in light of any changes of circumstances, including changes in the customer demographic. They must also have appropriate policies, procedures and controls to prevent ML/TF.

Adult gaming centre premises converting to licensed bingo premises

The Gambling Commission is aware of some adult gaming centre (“AGC”) premises licensees converting to bingo premises, and there is a concern that when preparing their ML/TF risk assessment, and reviewing the Gambling Commission’s risk assessment (as per LC 12.1.1(1) and (3) of the LCCP), they may not consider all relevant risks if they only consult the bingo section, and not the AGC section, of the Gambling Commission’s Risk Assessment. The Gambling Commission intends to update its Risk Assessment to reflect this industry trend.

What licensees need to do:

Bingo licensees who operate AGC-style premises are urged to consider all relevant ML/TF risks to the premises, including those noted in the bingo and arcade sections of the Gambling Commission’s Risk Assessment.
In addition the LC 12.1.1 of the LCCP, please note the following useful links:

Crash games

Crash games have been offered within crypto casinos (which are not licensed by the Gambling Commission and are illegal if accessible via GB) for a number of years.

Crash games may have differing graphics and premises, but typically the mechanics of the games mean that, once the initial bet is made, the round begins with a starting multiplier, which grows as the game progresses. Customers have the option to cash out at any point, but if the game crashes before a customer has cashed out, they will lose the money from the multiplier as well as their stake. Rounds can last anywhere from a few seconds to a couple of minutes before either the game crashes or the customer cashes out. Crash games are highly volatile and can lead to significant losses for players.

The Gambling Commission is aware of an increased interest in crash games within the legal, licensed casino sector. There are concerns that products of this nature can allow criminals to camouflage the high-risk behaviour of cashing out quickly with limited gameplay within the context of the crash game (where these behaviours are inherently more common), and that transactional monitoring controls may not be effective in detecting suspicious activity.

What licensees need to do:

When introducing any new products (including crash games) licensees must assess the risks of that product being used to launder money and ensure they have appropriate procedures and controls in place to prevent money laundering. In this case, this would include controls to identify and prevent suspicious wagering patterns, and processes to feed the use of crash games into a customer’s overall risk profile and commence appropriate due diligence.
Where licensees know or suspect money laundering has occurred, they must submit a suspicious activity report (“SAR”).
More information about appropriate policies, procedures and controls can be found in the Gambling Commissions guidance on the prevention of money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism.

Application Registration Cards (“ARCs”)

ARCs are issued by the Home Office to individuals who claim asylum. ARCs contain information about the holder but are not evidence of identity and must not be accepted as a form of identity documentation. Those presenting ARCs when attempting to open a gambling account, or access gambling premises, may also be at a higher risk of exploitation and mule account activity.

What licensees need to do:

Have appropriate policies, procedures and controls in place to ensure the requirements for customer identification and verification are met. This includes detailing acceptable forms of identification documentation, which is not an ARC, in line with the Gambling Commission’s guidance for casinos (particularly, paragraphs 6.49 to 6.75) and the Government’s guidance (Application registration card (ARC) and How to prove and verify someone’s identity).
Train their staff members and implement measures to ensure that policies and procedures in relation to customer identification and verification are followed.
If a licensee believes that someone is being exploited, they can report it to the Modern Slavery and Exploitation Helpline on 08000 121 700 or via the online form but, if they think someone is in immediate danger, they should contact the police.
For more information please see: LC 17.1.1 of the LCCP and How to report at Migrant Help.

Jurisdictions subject to increased monitoring by the Financial Action Task Force (“FATF”)

In February 2025, FATF updated its list of high-risk jurisdictions (the FATF “black list”) and the list of jurisdictions subject to increased monitoring (the FATF “grey list”). More information can be found on the FATF’s website about the following lists:

What licensees need to do:

Review the lists above and ensure they have effective policies, procedures and controls in place to identify customers and relationships with links to high-risk jurisdictions, including those subject to calls for action and enhanced monitoring.
Conduct robust enhanced customer due diligence checks in relation to any customer relationships which are associated with high-risk jurisdictions, including those subject to enhanced monitoring by FATF in order to mitigate the risk of ML/TF, including proliferation financing.
More information about managing geographical risk can be found in the Gambling Commission’s guidance: Anti-money laundering responsibilities for casino businesses.

In light of these 13 emerging risks identified by the Gambling Commission, we remind licensees to review their ML/TF risk assessments as soon as possible to take into account these emerging risks.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about these risks or require our assistance in reviewing ML/TF risk assessments.

05Feb

White Paper Series: New rules on customer led tools, customer funds and statutory levy

5th February 2025 Harris Hagan 209

On 4 February 2025, the Gambling Commission announced changes aimed at increasing consumer control over deposit limits and greater transparency of customer funds protection by operators. Also, a further change to the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”) will also pave the way for implementation of the Government’s upcoming statutory levy. These changes are part of the consultation response to the Autumn 2023 Consultation and are consistent with the commitments within the White Paper.

What are the changes?

New customer led tools

The new rules will give consumers more effective ways to manage their gambling by making it easier to set and maintain deposit limits on their online accounts, in ways that work best for them. These rules will take good practice already offered by some operators and expand that so customers can expect the same standards across the industry.

From 31 October 2025, all gambling operators must prompt their customers to set a financial limit before they make their first deposit and make it easy to review and alter this limit at any point after.

Gambling operators will also be required to remind customers every six months to review their account and transaction information. The Gambling Commission believes this will help customers consider if they want to change existing, or set new, deposit limits.

The announcement confirms that the Gambling Commission’s work revealed recent changes by some operators on how deposit limits are offered, which could cause confusion for consumers. As a result, a short supplementary consultation will be launched on proposals to improve consistency and transparency for consumers on how financial limits work.

2. Transparency of protection of customer funds

Operators who hold customer funds must already set out in the terms and conditions whether these are protected in the event of insolvency, the level of such protection and the method by which this is achieved. They must also make this information available at the point at which a customer first deposits money.

The level of protection must be described as either ‘not protected – no segregation’, ‘not protected – segregation of customer funds’, ‘medium protection’ or ‘high protection’.

From 31 October 2025, operators whose customer funds are ‘not protected’ in the event of insolvency must actively remind customers once every six months that their funds are not protected.

Whilst there is no legal duty on gambling operators to protect customers funds in the event of insolvency, many of them do so voluntarily. The Gambling Commission believes the changes will help consumers understand which operators protect their funds and which do not – information which will support them in making choices about who they gamble with.

3. Changes connected with the new statutory levy

The LCCP currently requires operators to make annual financial contributions to a list of research, prevention and treatment organisations.

This requirement will be removed close to the introduction of the Government’s statutory levy (expected to come into force on 6 April 2025) as it will become obsolete. The Gambling Commission will notify licensees of the date of implementation as soon as the Parliamentary process is complete.

Tim Miller, Commission Executive Director for research and policy, said:

“These changes illustrate our commitment to ensuring gambling is fair and open by improving consumer empowerment and choice.

“These changes will help consumers decide on deposit limits, enable them to keep track of their spending and ensure they are fully aware of what happens to their funds should an operator become insolvent.

“We will now continue our work to deliver our remaining White Paper commitments, including our programme of evaluation.”

Next steps

The new statutory levy requirement is expected to come into force on 6 April 2025. 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 have any questions about these upcoming changes.

29Jan

Unlicensed gambling – Part 3: The warning, the webinar and the method(ology) to the madness

29th January 2025 Gemma Boore 192

In this Part 3 of our recent blogs on unlicensed gambling, we discuss recent statements made by the Gambling Commission regarding the steps that it is taking to identify, quantify and disrupt illegal online gambling in Great Britain (“GB”).

If you would like to read more on this subject please see: Unlicensed gambling – Part 1: Growing threat or exaggerated myth? and Unlicensed gambling – Part 2: Is the Gambling Commission winning the “whack-a-mole” game?

The Warning

On 20 January 2025, the Gambling Commission posted a warning notice to the gambling industry on its website in which it explained it had become aware of casino games supplied by licensed operators appearing on unlicensed websites available to GB consumers illegally, and called on its B2B licensees to help it to tackle the illegal, unlicensed market.

The Gambling Commission noted that in some instances, third party resellers (who are also commonly known in the industry as aggregators) are distributing games supplied by its licensees to the illegal market, often in breach of contractual obligations. In the Gambling Commission’s view, licensees may have been negligent in permitting this and warned that that this practice might place a Gambling Commission issued operating licence at risk.

To mitigate this regulatory risk, the Gambling Commission advised its B2B licensees:

to actively monitor their business relationships to ensure their partners are not participating in offering illegal gambling facilities to the GB market;
to terminate relationships where non-compliance has occurred; and
to actively engage with the Gambling Commission where such activities are identified, setting out the preventative measures adopted to ensure such activity ceases immediately, making clear that:

“Actively notifying the Commission and setting out a clear plan to mitigate the issue at pace is a minimum requirement.” 

The Webinar

The previous week, Harris Hagan’s Managing Partner, John Hagan hosted the International Association of Gaming Advisors (IAGA) Best Practices Webinar on 15 January 2025, titled “Setting the UK Gambling Agenda for 2025: a less political year?”. During the webinar, Andrew Rhodes (Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission) and Grainne Hurst (Chief Executive of the Betting & Gaming Council (“BGC”)) shared their thoughts on various topics, including unlicensed gambling.

Rhodes confirmed that the Gambling Commission has invested in disrupting the illegal, online gambling market during recent years, with some success. However:

“Everyone should accept there has always been an illegal market present and much as different people want to debate the size and value of it, the reality is we need to understand the flow into it and why that happens, as well as preventing its ability to operate at scale.”

Rhodes emphasised that “legitimate” licensees are expected to undertake their own due-diligence on their suppliers and partners to ensure they are not engaged in unlicensed activity facing into GB – expressing concern at why anyone in the licensed industry would want to be in business with a company that is supporting illegal competition.

Rhodes went on to confirm that in 2025, the Gambling Commission will continue to use new capabilities around covert test purchasing and other investigative tools to identify those who are assisting illegal operators, as well as targeting those illegal operators directly – concluding by making clear that where the Gambling Commission feels it is necessary to suspend or revoke the licence of any operator or supplier, they will do.

Meanwhile, Hurst confirmed that disrupting the unlicensed market is a top priority for the BGC, alongside delivering the outstanding elements of the White Paper and making sure that a sensible tax harmonisation is put in place when the new regime is announced later this year. While they are still in the process of formalising next steps, action is being taken following the Gambling Commission’s challenge to the industry last year, and B2B BGC members will soon be required to commit not to provide content to unlicensed operators serving the GB market.

The Method(ology) to the Madness

The recent flurry of warnings by the Gambling Commission regarding unlicensed gambling follow its release last year of a statistics and research paper, Unlicensed gambling – Using data to identify unlicensed operators and estimate the scale of this market – October 2024 (the “Methodology Paper”). The Methodology Paper was a first step for the Gambling Commission in sharing its work in developing its capacity to identify unlicensed operators in GB, in which it explains how it is using an evidence-led approach to disrupt unlicensed gambling.

Focus

Although the Gambling Commission acknowledges in the Methodology Paper that unlicensed gambling can also take place in land-based premises, the paper is focused on the online market ‘where data has the greatest potential to help us make an impact’. The Gambling Commission explains in the Methodology Paper that it has undertaken several stages of work to formulate its approach which include:

Understanding the motivations for consumers to enter the online unlicensed market, and the channels through which they do so

The Gambling Commission is focusing on specific areas of consumer motivation: people who have experienced gambling harms – especially those who are self-excluded; and consumers looking to avoid identity verification.

Identifying unlicensed operators and estimating the scale of usage by GB customers

Web traffic data and gambling behaviour data will be used to estimate the gross gambling yield (“GGY”) of the online unlicensed market, although the Gambling Commission concedes that making an accurate estimate will be challenging, as much activity is deliberately obscured by virtual private networks (“VPNs”).

Methodology

The Gambling Commission will use the following methods to identify and measure the scale of the online unlicensed market:

Google search results to list of search terms

Results to search terms will be monitored on a monthly basis. The search terms will be devised from a combination of industry engagement and consumer research, advice from the Gambling Commission’s intelligence and enforcement teams, and additional desktop research on to identify terms used on affiliate pages such as “not on GAMSTOP” that are used to target particular groups of consumers.

Identify affiliate pages or articles listing unlicensed sites

The Gambling Commission will identify affiliate sites and/or articles that recommend gambling websites targeting specific consumer groups, for instance, “best UK casinos not on GAMSTOP”, by checking for key words on web pages and identifying the presence of outgoing affiliate links.

Extract links to unlicensed gambling sites and obtain web traffic data

Unlicensed sites that are linked from affiliate pages and/or articles will be reviewed to determine whether they are blocked to GB customers. Under the current methodology, the Gambling Commission is able to flag sites that are blocked immediately upon opening but not sites that are blocked upon account registration. Web traffic and average visit duration data is obtained for each of the unlicensed sites using Similarweb, which is a digital intelligence platform that allows access to estimated web traffic data.

Combine web traffic data with research data to estimate spend on the identified sites

To estimate the GGY associated with identified sites, web traffic data will be combined with an estimate of average consumer spending behaviour, the latter of which will be based on data from the Gambling Commission’s Patterns of Play research.

The intended output of the above work will be twofold: (a) a dashboard of unlicensed operators ranked according to current usage by GB consumers, which can be used by enforcement teams to prioritise and target disruption activity; and (b) to allow the Gambling Commission to estimate the likely scale of the unlicensed market for GB consumers.

Limitations

The Gambling Commission acknowledges within the Methodology Paper, that its methodology cannot capture the whole online unlicensed market. For instance, GB traffic from consumers using a VPN.

Other assumptions and limitations include:

The assumption that gambling behaviour on unlicensed sites is the same as on licensed sites;
GGY estimates are based on online slots play only, as it is assumed that a significant proportion of unlicensed gambling activity is slots;
Unlicensed sites are included in the GGY estimate regardless of the average visit duration, including very short average visit durations which could indicate visits where no money is spent or very long durations which could indicate periods of inactivity; and
Not all consumer motivations are currently included in the core search terms.

Next steps

The Gambling Commission has called on the industry to report suspicious activity to the Gambling Commission’s intelligence team at [email protected] or, alternatively, through the following confidential portal: Tell us something in confidence.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions regarding unlicensed gambling in GB, your due diligence obligations and how to actively monitor your business relationships, or if you would like assistance reporting a suspicion to, or responding to an information request from, the Gambling Commission.

15Jul

Unlicensed gambling – Part 2: Is the Gambling Commission winning the “whack-a-mole” game?

15th July 2024 Gemma Boore 157

As regular readers will recall, in our blog: Unlicensed gambling – Part 1: Growing threat or exaggerated myth? which was published in November 2023, we:

discussed the threat of unlicensed gambling in Great Britain, along with steps the Gambling Commission had – as at that date – been taking to disrupt illegal, unlicensed operators;
advised businesses on the steps to take if they discover their intellectual property is being used on illegal gambling sites; and
provided a helpful checklist of actions for licensees to take, if they receive communications from the Gambling Commission regarding illegal gambling activity.

In this next instalment, we explore recently published research regarding the extent of unlicensed gambling in Great Britain, discuss the different ways in which gambling is illegally being made available to consumers, and comment on some of the newer methods the Gambling Commission is using to tackle unlicensed gambling – pending the introduction of its new powers under the Criminal Justice Bill.

What do we mean by unlicensed gambling?

As noted in our previous blog, it is an offence to provide facilities for gambling to customers in Great Britain from anywhere in the world, without holding an operating licence from the Gambling Commission – unless a relevant exemption applies.

Gambling is defined in the Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) as including “gaming”, “betting” and “participating in a lottery”. Accordingly, anyone who provides facilities that allow British consumers to (a) take part in gaming (which typically includes casino products such as slots – but also extends to more novel and even free-to-play products if the player is “playing a game of a chance for a prize”), (b) bet (which includes peer-to-peer and pool betting, as well as fixed odds); or (c) enter a lottery, without holding the appropriate Gambling Commission licence / benefitting from an exemption, will commit an offence under the 2005 Act.

Is it really that bad?

A report published by the International Betting Integrity Association (“IBIA”) in March 2024, which considered the channelisation rate (i.e. the proportion of gambling taking place with licensed vs unlicensed operators) of sports betting, seems, at first blush, to indicate that black market gambling is less of a threat in Great Britain than elsewhere.

The study, which is entitled: The Availability of Sports Betting Products: An Economic and Integrity Analysis analysed channelisation rates in a range of jurisdictions:

Great Britain, which permits a wide range of sports betting products (including in-play bets) had the highest channelisation rate across the surveyed jurisdictions, of 98% in 2022.
Italy, which has minimal restrictions on pre-match and in-play betting, was a close second with a channelisation rate of 93%.
By contrast, in markets such as Australia and Germany, where access to sports betting markets is more tightly controlled, the rates were 78% and 59%, respectively.

The IBIA study hypothesised that these statistics indicate a strong correlation between the wide availability of sports betting products and the proportion of consumers who place bets with onshore regulated sports betting operators. Citing Canada as a case in point; the authors noted that channelisation in Ontario, a province that introduced an online sports betting licensing system in 2022, is expected to reach 92% in 2024. This figure is a stark contrast to the channelisation rate for the rest of Canada combined, which continues to operate a limited monopoly model, and is forecast to have an onshore rate of 11% in 2024 and lose an estimated $2bn in taxable sports betting gross gambling revenue between 2024 and 2028.

So Great Britain must be doing something right when it comes to sports betting… but is this the whole story?

To work out the answer, it is important to remember that sports betting makes up only a fraction of licensed gambling in Great Britain. In fact, according to an interactive dashboard published by the Gambling Commission in February 2024, only 31.5% of GB gross gambling yield (“GGY”) during the 2022/2023 financial year derived from remote and non-remote betting (which also includes non-sports betting, for example, on politics) – with the lion’s share of the remaining proportion being derived from casino, bingo, lottery and licensed amusement arcades.

Putting non-remote gambling to one side, the Gambling Commission’s interactive dashboard reveals that the percentage of industry GGY from remote betting dips to 15.1% (or £2.29bn) – with the largest contribution to remote gambling actually deriving from online casino, which made up an impressive 26.7% (£4.04bn) – or just over one quarter of total industry GGY – during the 2022/2023 financial year.

Surely it follows, therefore, that a significant percentage of money staked by British customers in the unregulated black market, ought to be on online casino?

At the time of writing, we are unaware of any studies that have recently considered the channelisation rate for online casino only, in Great Britain. However, research in other jurisdictions has indicated that casino channelisation tends to be lower than for other verticals. For example: in Sweden, AB Trav och Galopp estimated that the channelisation rate for remote casino in Q3 2023 was 74% vs 82% for remote sports betting.

Applying this rationale in Great Britain suggests that 98% channelisation rates for sports betting are unlikely to also apply in respect of other verticals. Pending regulatory changes in Great Britain impacting the online casino market may also detrimentally impact the licensed sector – with reforms proposed in the Government’s White Paper: High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age (the “White Paper”) including lower stake limits (£5, with a lower £2 limit for young adults aged between 18 and 24), game design changes and financial vulnerability checks, all due to come into force in the near future. For further information please see our blogs: White Paper Series: DCMS announces online slots stake limits and Gambling Commission publishes Summer 2023 Consultation Response and Betting & Gaming Council announces New Industry Voluntary Code.

Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole?

Even when properly measured, traditional methods for calculating channelisation might not reveal the whole story.

A more modern phenomenon that must be considered in the round, is the growing popularity of pay-to-enter competitions that often incorporate a question and free entry route to mitigate the risk that they are an illegal lottery. These arrangements can, if properly structured, lawfully be operated in Great Britain without an operating licence. However, the Gambling Commission actively monitors these competitions – and has recently been increasing its enforcement action in relation to arrangements that cross the line and are, in fact, illegal lotteries.

Similarly, many other new and disruptive product types run the risk of constituting gambling (and may thus be illegal gambling) in Great Britain. These include mystery, or loot boxes, where participants pay for a chance to win a prize that is allocated to them at random; and even traditional prize competitions such as crosswords or sudoku, where the underlying activity is presented as involving an element of chance.

The bottom line is that if a new product falls within the statutory definitions of “gaming”, “betting”, or “participating in a lottery” under the 2005 Act then, unless the person offering it in Great Britain does so in reliance upon an operating licence or exemption under the 2005 Act, they may be conducting illegal gambling in Great Britain and could face enforcement action by the Gambling Commission.

In addition, it is less likely that lost revenue from such products will be considered in the calculation of channelisation rates in Great Britain, which has historically focused on more traditional product verticals.

What is the Government doing to curb unlicensed gambling?

Within the White Paper, the Government acknowledges that estimating the size of black market gambling is difficult. Unlicensed gambling sites can appear, disappear and change without warning and until recently, the Gambling Commission’s resources for responding to unlicensed gambling have been concentrated on acting on complaints and intelligence with a risk-based approach.

Accordingly, one of the solutions presented by the Government in the White Paper was to increase the Gambling Commission’s powers, with the aim of creating a safety net and versatility for the Gambling Commission to “apply to court as a last resort” if required. However, the relevant legislation remains pending: although the Home Office’s Criminal Justice Bill contains provisions to confer new powers on the Gambling Commission to apply to court for an application to suspend an IP address or domain name if it is being used for the purposes of serious crime connected with unlicensed gambling, the Bill is still at the Commons Report stage and certain onlookers have queried whether, as currently drafted, the Bill goes far enough. Particularly given that equivalent powers are not granted to the regulator and competition authority for UK communications industries, Ofcom, which could be well placed to work alongside the Gambling Commission in taking action against unlicensed gambling websites.

We also note that, from a political perspective, Labour’s recent election has cast doubt over the timing of the Bill’s enactment, as newly elected members of Parliament will need time to get up-to-speed on the Bill and settle into their new roles.

What can the Gambling Commission do in the meantime?

At the Westminster Media Forum on the future for the betting and gaming industry in the UK, which took place online on 13 May 2024, Ben Dean, director for Sport and Gambling at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport commented that tackling illegal gambling continues to be an arduous process, akin to a game of “whack-a-mole”. He attributed this in part to the flexible nature of unlicensed organisations in circumventing restrictions, but stressed that:

“Working with internet service providers and payment agencies is key.”

Indeed, Andrew Rhodes, Chief Executive Officer and Commissioner of the Gambling Commission, confirmed at the same event that whilst the Commission awaits its new powers, a significant portion of its work in this sphere has been with third parties such as Google, resulting in the removal of over 7,000 URLs from search results in the last six months.

In addition, Rhodes confirmed that the Gambling Commission has:

in January 2024, issued 98 cease and desist and disruption notices with 39 successful disruption outcomes; and
more than trebled the number of successful positive illegal website disruption outcomes – from 25 in FY21/22, to 79 in FY22/23.

Rhodes explained that the Gambling Commission is focussing on identifying and undertaking high impact interventions with a view to “making it difficult to provide illegal gambling at scale”. Notably, and in addition to the measures outlined in our November 2023 blog (e.g. the Gambling Commission’s work with web hosting companies, registrars, internet search providers, social media firms and payment providers – as well as international regulators and its own licensees), recent efforts have included:

using intelligence and software programmes to identify those websites with the largest British footprint or profile and focus on those which pose the highest risk, especially websites and affiliates which target vulnerable consumers such as GAMSTOP self-excluded players;
engaging with banks to raise awareness and identify consumer protection protocols to identify and stop payments to illegal websites;
agreeing protocols with search engines to remove illegal websites from search results; and
actively identifying UK-facing online advertorial articles and engaging strongly with publishers (for example, by threatening public prosecution) to get these articles, and the marketing affiliates that are posting them, removed.

Rhodes also confirmed that the Gambling Commission has been working in conjunction with other bodies and regulators, such as the National Crime Agency, Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”):

“For example, our work with HMRC where we have been tackling illegal Facebook lotteries has not only seen those lotteries shut down by the Gambling Commission, but the organisers have found themselves paying £600,000 in penalties to HMRC as well.”

Conclusion

Dean and Rhodes’ comments highlight the importance of and continued need for cooperation and unity in efforts to tackle illegal gambling, to maximise their effectiveness. Pending the introduction of the Gambling Commission’s new powers under the Criminal Justice Bill, there is still much that can be done to deter unlicensed operators from targeting customers in Great Britain – and ultimately protect the businesses (and revenue) of those that have invested the time, money and resources in obtaining, and complying with, operating licences issued by the Gambling Commission.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the lawfulness of new gambling products in Great Britain, the process for obtaining a gambling operating licence from the Gambling Commission and/or if you require assistance with licensing and compliance matters generally.

With sincere thanks to Yue-Ting Fung for her invaluable co-authorship.

Compliance