26Mar

White Paper Series: Gambling Commission announces new rules increasing safer and simpler gambling promotions for consumers

26th March 2025 Harris Hagan 110

On 26 March 2025, the Gambling Commission announced changes aimed at increasing the safety and simplicity of consumer promotional offers. The changes include a mixed product promotion ban and limiting the bonus wagering requirements to 10. Changes will also be made to the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”) regarding Social Responsibility Code 5.1.1 (Rewards and Bonuses) to increase clarity as to the Gambling Commission’s current expectations of operators. These changes are part of the consultation response to the Autumn 2023 Consultation and are in line with the commitments within the White Paper.

What are the changes to be expected?

Mixed product promotion ban

The new rules ban operators from offering mixed product promotional offers which provide bonuses on the condition the consumer plays different gambling products, such as betting and playing slots. The Gambling Commission highlighted that this ban aims to reduce harm and boost fairness and openness, due to evidence showing consumers are more at risk of harm when they gamble on multiple products rather than a single product. There is also the risk that mixed product promotions confuse consumers because of complex terms and conditions.

In the consultation response, the Gambling Commission clarified that this ban applies to the mixing of products within an individual incentive or promotional offer, where terms are linked and shared.

From 19 December 2025, all gambling operators, except holders of gaming machine technical and software licences, will be banned from offering such mixed product promotional offers.

Bonus wagering requirements limited to 10

This new rule will require operators to cap the wagering requirement of promotional offers to 10, in order to decrease the likelihood of harm, reduce complexity, and improve transparency, while maintaining consumer choice. The Gambling Commission highlighted that some promotional offers provide bonus funds to consumers on the condition the consumer re-stakes any winnings multiple times before being allowed to withdraw winnings from the bonus. For example, a £10 bonus with 50 times wagering requirement requires the consumer to play through £500 before the winnings can be withdrawn. As such, high wagering requirements could confuse consumers and lead them to gamble for longer, and faster, than they are used to.

From 19 December 2025, all gambling operators except holders of gaming machine technical and software licences will be required to cap the wagering requirement to 10.

Rewording the Rewards and Bonuses section of the LCCP

To ensure increased clarity of the Gambling Commission’s current expectations of operators, the structure and wording of LCCP Social Responsibility Code 5.1.1 (Rewards and Bonuses) will be amended.

From 19 December 2025, SRCP 5.1.1 will read:

The following applies where a licensee makes available to any customer, or potential customer, an incentive or reward scheme or other arrangement under which a customer may receive money, goods, services or any other advantage (including the discharge in whole or in part of any liability of his) (‘the benefit’).

Licensees must:
1. Set out terms and conditions, in relation to an incentive, which are clear, transparent, and fair and readily accessible to any customer or potential customer to whom it is offered.

Licensees must not:
1. Apply wagering requirements, which requires a customer to play through bonus funds, over a maximum of 10 times. A wagering requirement is a where a customer is required to make wagers totalling a particular value for funds to become withdrawable.
2. Include more than one type of gambling product (betting, casino, bingo, and lottery) within an incentive.
3. Alter or increase the receipt or the value, or amount of the incentive if the qualifying activity or spend is reached within a shorter time than the whole period over which the benefit is offered.
4. Construct incentives where, if the benefit comprises of free or subsidised travel or accommodation which encourages the customer’s attendance at a particular licensed premises, it is offered on terms that directly relate to the level of the customer’s prospective gambling.

If a licensee makes available an incentive or reward scheme for customers, designated by the licensee as ‘high value, ‘VIP’ or equivalent, it must be offered in a manner which is consistent with the licensing objectives.

Licensees must take into account the Commission’s guidance on high value customer incentives.

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

“These changes will better protect consumers from gambling harm and give consumers much better clarity on, and certainty of, offers before they decide to sign up.”

Next steps

The changes to mixed product promotions, bonus wagering requirements and SRCP 5.1.1 of the LCCP will come into force on 19 December 2025.

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

27Feb

White Paper Series: Statutory Instrument published for online slot stake limits

27th February 2025 Harris Hagan 128

Following the final Parliamentary procedures, The Gambling Act 20 05 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 was signed into law on 25 February 2025 as a statutory instrument (“SI”).

As a reminder, the SI will have the effect of adding a new licence condition to all remote casino operating licences to introduce a maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain.

Operators will have a transitional period of 6 weeks from the day after the SI was made (until 9 April 2025) to implement the £5 limit per spin for adults aged 25 and over (which will temporarily apply to all adults), and a further 6 weeks (until 21 May 2025) to implement the £2 limit per spin for 18 to 24 year olds.

For further details of the SI and the Gambling Commission’s guidance, see our previous blog: White Paper Series: Gambling Commission publishes online slots stake limit guidance

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the SI or the related Gambling Commission guidance.

12Feb

White Paper Series: Gambling Commission publishes online slots stake limit guidance

12th February 2025 Harris Hagan 150

On 30 January 2025, the Gambling Commission published its Online slots stake limit guidance following the Statutory Instrument (“SI”) (The Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024) which was laid on 10 December 2024. The SI follows the Government’s response to its consultation to introduce a maximum stake limit for online slots games in Great Britain. Subject to the final Parliamentary procedures, the SI will have the effect of adding a new condition to all remote casino operating licences.

What does the SI say?

The SI states:

1. The condition specified in this regulation is attached to each remote casino operating licence, including remote casino operating licences issued before this regulation comes into force.

2. The condition is that, for an online slots game, 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.

3. Where this condition is attached to a remote casino operating licence which was issued before this regulation comes into force, the condition has effect from the date on which this regulation comes into force.

4. This regulation is subject to the transitional provision in regulation 6.

5. In this regulation:

“game cycle” means, for an online slots game, the period beginning with the initiation of the game by the individual and ending at the point at which all money staked during the game has been lost or all money won during the game has been or delivered to or made available for collection by the individual, as the case may be;

“online slots game” means a casino game that is—

(a) a reel-based game, and

(b) is played online.

“reel-based game” means a game in which—

(a) moving or changing images or text are displayed by the use of visual representations of reels or other means, and

(b) an individual may win a prize or some other opportunity or advantage, as represented by the resulting arrangement of those images or text;

“stake” means to pay or risk an amount in connection with an online slots game.

Gambling Commission’s Guidance

As the SI sets out, all games which meet the definition of an online slots game will be subject to a maximum stake per game cycle. A game cycle begins when the customer presses spin and the stake is deducted from their account balance and ends when any winnings are paid to the player’s balance, or when the stake has been lost.

For customers who are aged 25 and older, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £5.

For customers who are aged 18 to 24, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £2.

Separately, the Gambling Commission confirmed in a consultation response for online games design that for remote slots, it must be a minimum of 2.5 seconds from the time a game is started until the next game cycle can be commenced.

Examples

The Gambling Commission also set out some examples:

Scenario A: A customer aged 27 stakes £5 on an online slot game. No other opportunities to stake can be offered until the game cycle has concluded as £5 is the maximum stake permitted for customers aged 25 and over.

Scenario B: A customer aged 27 stakes £2 on an online slot game. Further staking opportunities could be offered within the same game cycle up to the value of £3 for a total staked per game cycle of £5.

Scenario C: A customer aged 19 stakes £2 on an online slot game. No other opportunities to stake can be offered until the game cycle has concluded as £2 is the maximum stake permitted for 18 to 24 year olds.

Scenario D: A customer aged 27 stakes £5 on an online slot game and wins a prize offer which they can accept (and end the game cycle) or reject (and gamble their stake again for a chance to win a larger prize). Importantly, the customer is not being asked to stake any additional funds. The customer chooses to accept the additional gamble but is unsuccessful and therefore receives £0. The customer’s balance is reduced by £5 when they initiate the spin, and as they receive no prize their balance remains unchanged following the conclusion of the game cycle.

Who does the SI apply to?

As explained in the SI, the condition will apply to operators who hold remote casino operating licences, including those licences that were issued before the regulation comes into force. The SI states that for licences issued before the regulation is in effect, the condition will have effect from the date the regulation comes into force.

Timeline

The SI for this measure was laid in Parliament on 10 December 2024.
This legislation needs to be debated (usually scheduled for 6 to 8 weeks after the legislation is laid, although not guaranteed) and approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
After the legislation is debated and approved it will be made (signed by the Minister) and come into force.
From the day the legislation is made, operators will have an implementation period of 6 weeks to implement the £5 limit per spin for adults aged 25 and over (which will temporarily apply to all adults), and a further 6 weeks to implement the £2 limit per spin for 18 to 24 year olds.

Please get i n touch with us if you have any questions about the SI or Gambling Commission guidance.

13Jan

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

13th January 2025 Tiffany Babayemi 129

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

Background

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

Summary of the proposals and the new requirements

Proposal 1: Player-led ‘spin stop’ features

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

RTS implementation guidance 14E:

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

Applies to: all casino.

Proposal 2: Minimum speed of play

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

RTS implementation guidance 14G:

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

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

Proposal 3: Prohibition on autoplay

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

RTS implementation guidance 8A:

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

Applies to: all gaming (including bingo).

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

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

RTS implementation guidance 14F:

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

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

Applies to: all casino.

Proposal 5: Operator-led simultaneous products

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

RTS implementation guidance 14C:

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

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

Proposal 6: Display of net position and time spent

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

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

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

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

RTS implementation guidance 13C:

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

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

Proposal 7: Update to security audit requirements

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

Next Steps

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

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

16Dec

White Paper Series: Gambling Act Review Evaluation Plan – finding “the right balance of regulation in the digital age”

16th December 2024 Ting Fung 129

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) announced on 5 December 2024 that it will work with the Gambling Commission to deliver an appropriate programme of work to evaluate the impact of the policy measures implemented following the Gambling Act Review (“GAR”).

The previous Conservative Government’s plans for reform of gambling regulation involved over 60 key policy proposals, which were set out in its White Paper: High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age (published in April 2023). In its announcement, DCMS recognised the difficulty of attributing observed changes to any one policy measure in this complex piece of work, particularly given that policy measures have different timeframes and implementation processes, and potentially intersecting outcomes and impacts, but emphasised the importance, nonetheless, of evaluating the collective impact of the GAR.

What has happened so far?

In January 2024, DCMS and the Gambling Commission commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (“NatCen”) to undertake an evaluation scoping study. As part of this study, the impacts and outcomes of specific proposals will be evaluated individually, as well in a package to understand the collective impact of policy measures that have been implemented so far.

NatCen then held a series of Theory of Change (“ToC”) workshops with DCMS and Gambling Commission colleagues to identify a series of specific policy measures that had been developed since the publication of the White Paper. The scoping work highlighted that this evaluation plan requires a proportionate approach, focusing on a number of specific policy measures in detail.

What will happen next?

The forthcoming evaluation will focus on evaluating the impact that can be attributed to a number of specific policy measures implemented under the GAR. For each policy change, the evaluation will aim to gather evidence and formulate findings to answer the following questions:

What intended and unintended outcomes and impacts have been brought about in the short and longer term by the Gambling Commission, DCMS and independently led proposals in the two-year evaluation that were introduced following the GAR?
a. In what ways, if any, did these outcomes and impacts link and interact?
Were the proposals implemented as intended?
a. Did the proposals introduced reach online and land-based gambling providers and consumers as intended?
b. In what ways, if any, did implementation vary from that intended and why? If there was variation, what were the associated impacts?
What was the distinct contribution of the DCMS, the Gambling Commission and independently led proposals in achieving the observed outcomes and impacts?
a. How and why did the proposals contribute to reducing gambling-related harm to vulnerable groups and their wider communities in the short-term and longer-term (or not)? What worked best for whom, why and when?
b. How and why did the proposals contribute to increasing gambling protections, while ensuring a fair and open safeguarding of gambling-related consumer freedoms and choice for customers in the short-term and longer-term (or not)? What worked best for whom, why and when?
c. How and why did the proposals contribute to regulating the online and the land-based gambling industries more equitably in the short-term and longer-term (or not)? What worked best for whom, why and when for the online and the land-based industries?
What was the combined contribution of the proposals in achieving the above observed outcomes and impacts?
What conditions were necessary for the proposals to achieve the above observed outcomes and impacts?
What internal and external influencing contextual factors supported or impeded the proposals to achieve the above observed outcomes and impacts?
a. In what ways, if any, did internal and external influencing contextual factors interact with the proposals?
What are the implications of the findings from the evaluation for the implementation of future gambling-related policy changes?

The aim of the evaluation is to understand the impact and outcomes of specific policies – both individually and collectively – and also to establish plausible causation related to the GAR policy measures with a high degree of certainty, carefully factoring in the impact of alternative explanations. DCMS emphasises the importance of the latter given the “many and diverse” nature of the policy measures in an implementation context that “is complex, dynamic and evolving”.

How will the evaluation be designed?

With the aim of establishing a clear degree of confidence in each claim, the hypotheses (i.e. the causal contribution claims) will be developed using Contribution Analysis, which is a step-by-step approach to data collection, triangulation and analysis based on a ToC and testable causal contribution claims. Process Tracing will then be used to ensure that the hypotheses are empirically testable and guide data collection.

The evaluation will draw on multiple sources of evidence, including qualitative insights and findings from quasi-experimental quantitative analysis. DCMS believes that quasi-experimental designs “will enable robust causal estimates of the degree to which changes in outcomes can be attributed to specific GAR policy measures”.

What methodology will be used?

The quasi-experimental designs will draw from online and land-based operator data, whilst in-depth interviews, focus groups, diary studies, and surveys will be used for qualitative impact and process evaluation. The latter would involve a range of participants, including operators, people who gamble, and other relevant stakeholders, such as local providers of support services. This will run alongside periodical tracking of GAR policy implementation and external influencing factors.

Who else is involved?

NatCen will establish two independent groups to provide advice and guidance throughout the evaluation, but these groups will not play a direct role in policy development:

Lived Experience Panel
This panel will work alongside the Gambling Commission’s pre-existing Lived Experience Advisory Panel, aiming to ensure that the voices of different groups with lived experience of gambling and gambling harm, including family, friends and colleagues of people who gamble (affected others) are considered.
Evaluation Advisory Group
This group will comprise researchers, academics and evaluators with expertise and experience in the field of gambling policy, research and regulation. They will provide independent assurance for key evaluation products and outputs, and assist evaluators in the anticipation and mitigation of risks and issues which may impact the evaluation.

Next steps

NatCen and the Gambling Commission will start reaching out to stakeholders in the coming weeks, with elements of evaluation fieldwork planned to begin in January 2025. Bryony Sheldon, Gambling Commission Director of Policy added in a blog post:

“The experience of consumers, operators and other stakeholder groups will be a key part of the evaluation in the coming months, as we welcome participation in surveys, interviews and other planned research. We will also use existing Gambling Commission advisory groups, and Industry Forum to both promote participation in the evaluation and help shape how we collect data efficiently.”

Several outputs of evaluation findings will be provided to DCMS and the Gambling Commission during and at the end of the evaluation to enable evidence-based insights in ongoing policy development and decision-making.

DCMS expect the evaluation to report in 2026.

Please get in contact with us if you have any questions regarding gambling regulation in Great Britain, the White Paper or the GAR evaluation plan.

29Nov

White Paper Series: Initial Consultation Response on Statutory Levy and Update on Online Slot Stake Limits

29th November 2024 John Hagan 146

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) announced on 27 November 2024 that the Government will bring forward the statutory levy on gambling operators to generate £100 million for the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms. The Government has also confirmed online slot stake limits of £5 for adults aged 25 and over and £2 for young adults aged 18 to 24.

Statutory Levy

Gambling Minister Baroness Twycross indicated in her Ministerial Statement that the update is only an initial response to the consultation on the structure, distribution and governance of the statutory levy on gambling operators launched on 17 October 2023 (see our previous blog on the consultation), and that its aim is to publish a further response document in the coming months. The Government maintains its commitment to having the levy in place by the summer of 2025.

The Government has confirmed that the mandated levy will be charged to all licensed operators at varying levels depending on the sector, at a set rate for all holders of a given Gambling Commission licence, with rates accounting for the difference in operating costs and the levels of harmful gambling associated with different gambling activities. “In recognition of the higher rates of problem gambling associated with products online compared to most land-based products, as well as the higher operating costs in the land-based sector, the levy will see online operators pay more towards research, prevention and treatment.”

The Government believes that a mandated levy “will guarantee increased, ringfenced and consistent funding to prevent and tackle gambling harm” and “ensure all operators contribute a fair share”, stating that “under the current voluntary system not all gambling companies contribute equally, with some operators paying as little as £1 a year towards research, prevention and treatment”.

The levy will be introduced via secondary legislation. It will be collected by the Gambling Commission and overseen by a Gambling Levy Programme Board that will have central oversight, and which will in turn be assisted by a Gambling Levy Advisory Group that will provide expert advice on funding priorities and other emerging issues.

Levy funding will be split as follows:

50% will be directed to NHS England and appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales to develop a comprehensive support and treatment system. This will include referrals and triage, through to recovery and aftercare. So “half of funding to directly benefit NHS-led gambling treatment system”.
30% will go towards investment in gambling harm prevention, which could include measures such as national public health campaigns and training for frontline staff. A lead commissioning body in this crucial and novel area has not yet been appointed, with the Government taking the time to get the important decision on the future of prevention right.
20% will be directed to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Gambling Commission to develop bespoke Research Programmes on Gambling, undertaking vital research to inform future policy and regulation.

“The current funding system for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms reliant on voluntary donations from industry is no longer fit for purpose. While the industry’s significant uplift in the level of donations in recent years is welcome, we recognise that the quantum of funding is not the only requirement for an effective and equitable system.”

Baroness Twycross, Gambling Minister

The Government emphasises in its initial response that with distribution of funding to the NHS, UKRI and the Gambling Commission, “the gambling industry will have no say over how money for research, prevention and treatment is spent”.

A formal review of the levy system will be conducted within five years, where the structure and health of the levy system will be assessed, and adjustments can be made to ensure that the Government is achieving its aims.

Online slot stake limits

As widely anticipated, stake limits will be set at £5 per spin for adults aged 25 and over and £2 per spin for young adults aged 18 to 24, “bringing online slot games in line with existing restrictions on slot machines in casinos”. DCMS’ press release cites Evidence from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Gambling Survey for Great Britain which shows that young adults can be particularly vulnerable to gambling related harm with under 25s having one of the highest proportion of respondents scoring eight or more on the Problem Gambling Severity Index of any age group. It also reiterates that online slots are “a higher-risk gambling product associated with large losses, long sessions, and binge play”.

Next steps

Operators are required to maintain voluntary financial contributions to research, prevention and treatment until the levy comes into force, with Baroness Twycross adding that its initial response “should provide sufficient notice to licensees of our approach”.

As stated above, the Government aims to publish its full response to the statutory levy consultation in the coming months, which will also include further detail on the 30% investment of levy funds in gambling harm prevention. The Government notes that the statutory instrument is silent on the distribution of levy funding, including in relation to prevention, and it is pressing on with its initial response and progressing the legislative process to meet its commitment to have the levy in place by the summer of 2025.

In respect of online slot stake limits, these will be subject to an implementation period. This means that, following debates in Parliament, operators will have six weeks from the day the statutory instrument is made to implement the £5 limit and a further six weeks thereafter to implement the £2 limit.

We will provide you with updates in due course but please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions.

Our preliminary thoughts on the initial response

At the heart of the White Paper is a balance between consumer freedoms and choice on one hand, and protection from harm on the other. The White Paper was broadly well received when it was delivered in Parliament, within all sectors of industry, by the NHS, in the third sector and at the Gambling Commission, because the (Conservative) Government had achieved a healthy balance in its reforms; crudely put, there was something in it for everyone. As we said in our inaugural blog on the White Paper in May 2023, however, “it is imperative that the process remains balanced and that all the key stakeholders see comparable progress in relation to their interests”.

The announcement of the bringing forward of the statutory levy by the Labour Government is undoubtedly a momentous day for certain stakeholders and a cause for their celebration, and perhaps unsurprisingly the language is emotive and provocative, with for example the NHS saying problem gambling has “skyrocketed” and resolving to do all it can “to protect gamblers from this billion-pound industry”, and the All Party Group for Gambling related Harm saying that “for the first time the gambling industry will be mandated to pay for the harm they cause”. Even the Government itself in its press release makes more of the £1 some operators have been paying than the £50 million in voluntary contributions by Betting and Gaming Council members this year alone.

That said, we believe that it was always inevitable that the Government (whether Labour or Conservative) would lead with the statutory levy before introducing any measures relating to consumer freedom or choice, such as the long overdue land-based casino modernisation. The new Labour Government had to establish its credentials as being tougher on the gambling industry than the previous government and deliver on its manifesto promise commitment to reduce gambling harm. And we would suggest it was also sadly inevitable that the rhetoric would be critical of industry, even unfair and misleading, particularly at a time when fundamental gambling statistics such as the percentage of problem gamblers in the population are so keenly contested.

But the statutory levy itself was a fundamental plank of the White Paper, so it does not come as a surprise, even if as rumoured the rates transpire to be slightly higher than proposed, again Labour being tougher than the Conservatives. Indeed, industry has been supportive of a statutory levy in principle for some years now. Nor are the online slot stake limits a surprise, with the previous government making a similar announcement before disastrously calling an early General Election. Further, the financial implications of both the statutory levy and online slots stake limits should already be baked into industry projections and should not have a punitive impact, at least in the near future, the risk of course being that the levy rates will again, inevitably, increase in the years ahead.

For all the above reasons, we are not for the moment overly concerned that the Government is heading in a new direction when it comes to gambling reform. This is not a policy area where the new Government might argue that it was left a “black hole”, quite the reverse, it was left a fully-fledged policy developed over many years and wrapped in White Paper, which it would be well advised to adopt and move on with other legislative priorities free from gambling distractions. Nothing has happened this week which was not expected and we remain optimistic that the delicate balance of the White Paper will be delivered by the Government and the Gambling Commission in the year ahead. We will of course continue to monitor for any departure from that course in future blogs.

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

11Sep

Julian Harris to speak at the International Association of Gaming Regulators and International Masters of Gaming Law conference in Rome

11th September 2024 Harris Hagan 135

Consultant & Founder, Julian Harris will be speaking on the panel at the International Association of Gaming Regulators (“IAGR”) and International Masters of Gaming Law conference in Rome which takes place this year from 21-24 October 2024.

The panel, How do the regulator, the regulated and the interested and affected parties work best together? will seek to provide a fresh perspective on where the opportunities to work better together really exist, especially in light of the different values and goals that the gambling sector stakeholder ecosystem is trying to achieve.

Julian will be joined by fellow panellists on Wednesday 23 October:

Atle Hamar, General Director, Norwegian Gambling and Foundation Authority, Norway
Annette Kimmitt AM, CEO, Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, Australia
Kevin Mullally, CEO, General Commercial Gaming Regulatory Authority, United Arab Emirates
Ewout Keuleers, General Counsel, Kindred Group, Germany

For further details and to book your tickets, see IAGR’s website.

30Jul

Gambling Survey of Great Britain: Publication of first annual report

30th July 2024 Chris Biggs 182

After more than 3 years of development and significant industry scrutiny, the Gambling Commission published the first Gambling Survey for Great Britain (“GSGB”) Annual Report on 25 July 2024 (“GSGB Annual Report”).

In a press release announcing the publication, the Gambling Commission stated that this first edition features responses from 9,804 people “but will increase to around 20,000 by next year.” The Gambling Commission goes on to state that the GSGB Annual Report provides greater insight into attitudes and gambling behaviours:

“presenting a fuller picture, illuminating participation rates, the type of gambling activities participated in, experiences and reasons for gambling, and the consequences that gambling can have on individuals and others close to them.”

We have previously explained the GSGB’s structure and purpose in our blog Gambling Survey of Great Britain: Gambling Commission’s new approach to collecting gambling participation and prevalence data.

We now turn to the key facts outlined in the GSGB Annual Report and consider the information published by the Gambling Commission to support the GSGB.

Key Facts

The GSGB Annual Report highlights key facts from the data collected from adults aged 18 years and older living in Great Britain, summarised below.

Participation

48% of GSGB participants participated in any form of gambling in the past four weeks. This figure dropped to 27% when those who only participated in lottery draws were excluded.

GSGB participants were more likely to gamble online (37%) than in-person (29%), however this difference was largely accounted for by people who purchase lottery tickets online. Excluding those individuals, GSGB participants were more likely to gamble in-person (18%) than online (15%).

The most commonly reported gambling activities were the National Lottery (31%), purchasing tickets for other charity lotteries (16%) and buying scratchcards (13%). The average number of activities for those who had participated in gambling in the past 4 weeks was 2.2 activities during that period.

Experiences of and reasons for gambling

41% of GSGB participants who had gambled in the past 12 months rated the last time they gambled with a positive score (6 or above on a scale of 0 to 10), 37% expressed they neither loved nor hated it (score of 5) and 21% gave a negative score. When participating in lottery draws was excluded the pattern displayed a slightly higher proportion of positive scores, with 50% positive, 31% neutral and 19% negative.

The most common reasons that GSGB participants gambled were for the chance of winning big money (86%), because gambling is fun (70%), to make money (58%) and because it was exciting (55%).

Figure 11 of the GSGB Annual Report displays the full list of reasons for gambling in the past 12 months surveyed, represented below where the percentages comprise individuals who reported ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ or ‘always’ as a reason for gambling for each statement.

Notably, GSGB participants were also surveyed on the types of leisure activities in which they participated in the past 4 weeks. The vast majority of participants indicated they spent time with friends and family (98%), watched TV (95%) and listened to music (91%), with many also reported shopping (80%), eating out at restaurants (73%), participating in sports or exercise (64%), doing DIY or gardening (61%) or going to pubs, bars or clubs (50%).

Consequences from gambling

GSGB participants who had bet on non-sports events in person were over 9 times more likely than average to have a score of 8 or higher on the Problem Gambling Severity Index (“PGSI”), which represents problem gambling by which a person will have “experienced adverse consequences from their gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour.”

GSGB participants who had gambled on online slots were over 6 times more likely than average to have a PGSI score of 8 or higher.

41.4% of GSGB participants with a PGSI score of 8 or higher reported experiencing at least one of the severe adverse consequences asked about.

The severe adverse consequences surveyed required ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses and consisted of: (1) losing something of significant financial value because of gambling; (2) relationship with spouse or partner or family member breaking down because of gambling; (3) experiencing violence or abuse because of gambling; and (4) committing a crime to fund gambling or pay gambling debts. Overall, 2.8% of GSGB participants who had gambled in the past 12 months reported experiencing at least one severe consequence.

The Gambling Commission also highlights that the GSGB is the first time that it has collected data on the consequences of someone else gambling. 47.9% of GSGB participants reported that someone close to them gambled. The most reported severe consequence of someone else gambling was the breakdown of a relationship with a spouse, partner or family member (3.5%).

Gambling Commission Guidance

To accompany the GSGB Annual Report, the Gambling Commission released Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (“GSGB Guidance”). The purpose of the GSGB Guidance is to ensure the GSGB data is reported correctly, with the Gambling Commission reiterating that these official statistics are new and are collected using a different methodology than previous official statistics.

The GSGB Guidance therefore lists the purposes for which the GSGB can and can’t be used, as well as where it can be used with some caution, in relation to the data on: (1) gambling participation; and (2) the consequences of gambling within the GSGB Annual Report. Of note, the GSGB can be used:

to look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups;
to assess future trends and changes in gambling participation and consequences of gambling, measuring changes against the 2024 baseline; and
to describe the range of consequences that someone may experience as a result of their own gambling and as a result of someone else’s gambling.

The GSGB can be used with some caution “until further work is completed”:

to provide estimates of gambling participation amongst adults in Great Britain;
to provide estimates of PGSI scores amongst adults in Great Britain; and
to provide estimates of the prevalence of consequences of gambling amongst adults in Great Britain.

The GSGB should not be used:

to provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys;
as a measure of addiction to gambling; and
to calculate an overall rate of gambling-related harm in Great Britain.

The GSGB Guidance also addresses the misuse of GSGB statistics. The Gambling Commission encourages the use of the statistics to support the understanding of important issues relating to gambling, but expects that “anyone using official statistics should present the data accurately and in accordance with the guidelines presented .”

Reiterating the message issued by Andrew Rhodes, Chief Executive Officer of the Gambling Commission, in his open letter to the industry in August 2023, if an individual or organisation is found to be using the GSGB inaccurately, the Gambling Commission “may contact them and request that they correct the statistics.” In “severe cases or continued misuse of official statistics”, the Gambling Commission may refer the individual or organisation to the Office of Statistics Regulation (“OSR”).

Whilst the Gambling Commission’s expectations for the use of the GSGB statistics have been made clear, it has not defined what it considers a “severe” case of misuse. However, the Gambling Commission’s Executive Director, Tim Miller, stated during the VIXIO Regulatory Intelligence webinar on 23 July 2024 that the Gambling Commission will challenge any misuse “in an appropriate way” such as by referral to the OSR, which has included “some examples in recent months where has taken those sorts of approaches.” We therefore encourage the industry to ensure its adherence with the GSGB Guidance.

Strengths and Limitations

The Gambling Commission has acknowledged that measuring adverse consequences from gambling in surveys is a challenging task, and cites Professor Patrick Sturgis’ statement in his Assessment of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB):

“Given the widespread negative social norms around gambling, particularly harmful gambling, obtaining representative samples and accurate response data is at the more difficult end of what survey researchers seek to measure in general populations.”

Furthermore, the Gambling Commission states in its press release that Professor Sturgis warned that estimates of problem gambling rates should be used with caution due to the risk that the new methodology “substantially overstates the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population.” The Gambling Commission updated its Gambling Survey for Great Britain – technical report to include a list of the GSGB’s strengths and limitations and caveats for the interpretation of PGSI score estimates produced in the GSGB.

Having set out these strengths and limitations, its expectations for the correct use of the GSGB statistics and the consequences for misuse, the Gambling Commission has seemingly attempted to temper the industry’s concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the new official statistics. During the VIXIO webinar, Miller stated that the Gambling Commission has listened to “recognised experts in data and statistics in developing the GSGB methodology”, as well as the GSGB Guidance. Acknowledging that all methodologies have limitations, Miller stated that a key difference is that the Gambling Commission is “very open and transparent about what the GSGB’s current limitations are”.

Miller defended criticism of the GSGB’s methodology and noted that the Health Survey for England is not without significant issues, having presented an “inflexibility” to update questions for relevance and an inconsistent method for the Gambling Commission to collect data on gambling activity. Miller confirmed the Gambling Commission continues to invest “a significant amount” into the GSGB methodology and is “confident that as to develop , this will become the new gold standard”.

Next Steps

The Gambling Commission explains that in a typical year, there will be four wave-specific publications from the GSGB, plus an annual report. In his blog accompanying the GSGB Annual Report, Ben Haden, Director of Research and Statistics at the Gambling Commission, explains that the GSGB removes its over-reliance on the PGSI as a “proxy for harms” and, even at a headline level, “a more general analysis of wider consequences and behavioural symptoms will give a far more nuanced picture than ever before.” Haden also states that two “in-depth reports” will be released before Christmas as the Gambling Commission commences its deeper analysis of the GSGB statistics.

Where the Gambling Commission acknowledges that the GSGB may overstate the true level of gambling and gambling harm in Great Britain, the release of the GSGB Annual Report will not calm industry concerns about the accuracy of these official statistics. Indeed, we share this concern where the proposals outlined in the White Paper may be evaluated, and potentially derailed, by these statistics. The Gambling Commission promised a “gold standard population survey for the whole of Great Britain”, in its effort to improve the quality, robustness and timeliness of official statistics on gambling behaviour in Great Britain: this is no doubt a challenging task. Therefore, noting Miller’s confidence in the GSGB as the Gambling Commission continues to develop the methodology, we will continue to follow the GSGB closely with the hope that the Gambling Commission moves closer to its aim.

Please get in contact with us if you have any questions about the GSGB Annual Report, the GSGB Guidance or how these statistics may impact your business.

24Jul

White Paper Series: UK Gambling Act Review: What Now? VIXIO Webinar

24th July 2024 Harris Hagan 158

On 23 July 2024, Bahar Alaeddini appeared as a panellist on a VIXIO Regulatory Intelligence webinar titled “UK Gambling Act Review: What Now?” together with Tim Miller from the Gambling Commission, Sarah Fox from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Dan Waugh from Regulus Partners, and moderated by Joe Ewens, Global Managing Editor from Vixio. This was the third webinar on the White Paper organised by Vixio. The panellists had an insightful and lively discussion about the current status of the White Paper proposals following the General Election:

Two earlier webinars took place on 16 May 2023, titled “The End of the Beginning”, 15 September 2023, titled “Defining the Future”. Please click on the dates to watch the earlier webinars.

20Jun

Reminder: Quarterly regulatory returns in force for all licensees from 1 July 2024

20th June 2024 Chris Biggs 132

On 1 July 2024, the Gambling Commission will update licence condition 15.3.1 of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (“LCCP”) to require all licensees to submit their regulatory returns on a quarterly basis, within 28 days of the end of each quarterly period.

The Gambling Commission will also update its regulatory returns guidance from 1 July 2024, to remove guidance that applies to questions that will be removed from regulatory returns and amend the wording of guidance “in some cases” to clarify what data is required, based on feedback from licensees.

As we discussed in our previous blog, Quarterly regulatory returns across the board from July 2024, this change to the LCCP follows the Gambling Commission’s publication of its Frequency of regulatory returns: Consultation Response in March, and will harmonise regulatory return reporting dates across the industry.

The Gambling Commission has published information on its website to explain how it will transition licensees from their current regulatory returns reporting period, in addition to information about the questions it will be removing from regulatory returns from 1 July 2024, split by reference to licence type.

The first set of regulatory returns that will relate to the quarterly return period 1 July 2024 to 30 September 2024 must be submitted by 28 October 2024.

Importantly, licensees with current regulatory return periods containing 30 June 2024 will have their reporting period end date changed to 30 June 2024. In such cases, licensees may have shortened reporting periods and due dates. The Commission has published worked examples on its website, to illustrate how the reporting periods for different licence types will align.

The guidance also contains a reminder that once these changes have taken effect, licensees’ reporting periods will not, in most cases, reflect the regulatory year applicable to their licences, which will continue to be used to calculate the correct fee category, and thus annual fee, for operating licences.

If a licensee believes that they will exceed their fee category limit at any time after they have paid their annual fee, they must submit an application to vary their fee category to the Gambling Commission. Details of how to submit applications to vary licence fee categories can be found in the Gambling Commission’s guidance on how to make changes to your operating licence.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about regulatory returns and your obligations, licence fee categories, or if you would like assistance with any compliance or enforcement matters.

Gambling Regulation