UK Gambling Laws 2026 Rules Information & Guidance
The UKGC is responsible for regulating arcades, betting, bingo, casinos, fruit machines, and lottery games as well as remote gambling, which including internet sites and telephone betting. A substantial number of responses drew upon the higher levels of customer spend which is evidenced on Category B gaming machines by comparison to Category C and D gaming machines, particularly as this relates to potential indicators of gambling-related harm. Equally, we want to ensure that customers receive a genuine offer of lower staking gaming machines as an important mitigation against gambling-related harm.
Independent Game Testing
We also welcome international evidence. If you cannot access the link, please send responses to in a document format like PDF or Microsoft Word. Is any of the information you have provided confidential, commercially sensitive or otherwise unsuitable for publication (including in anonymised)? Which of the following best describes your interest in gambling policy (select up to two options)?
Most forms of licensed gambling are currently illegal for under 18s and there are requirements to make sure children cannot access them either in person or online. However, if we see evidence that this non-statutory arrangement is not delivering the protections for customers as we expect, then we will legislate to create a statutory ombudsman for the sector. The scheme should ensure customers have timely access to the independent ombudsman to deal with social responsibility complaints where the gambling operator has not been able to satisfactorily resolve the complaint. To introduce further protections for customers and deal with the gap in redress quickly, we will look at how industry can set up an ombudsman that is fully operationally independent and is credible with customers, working with all stakeholders in the sector. More broadly, this could enhance data collection and drive improvements across the industry as a whole as the ombudsman could feed back trends in the disputes it investigates to the Gambling Commission. One operator told us they tackle this risk by making any voluntary payments related to social responsibility complaints conditional on the complainant registering with GAMSTOP, the online self-exclusion scheme.
The 2014 Act changed the licensing requirements so that any company wishing to advertise gambling and take bets from consumers in England, Wales, or Scotland must hold a licence issued by the Gambling Commission. Whilst, those operators who wish to advertise their services in England, Wales, or Scotland, but are based outside the country, have to obtain a licence from the Gambling Commission following the passage of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014. For remote gambling, the Commission issues licences to those operators whose remote gambling equipment is located in the territory of Great Britain.
Impacts on gambling-related harm
After paying a licensing fee, the site is free to offer services and games to UK residents. At the core of this legal shift was the desire to regulate remote operators more closely and ensure players were afforded the best protection possible. At the close of 2014 the region introduced a number of regulatory innovations that have since strengthened the country’s iGaming credentials and reconfirmed its status as an industry leader. We help British players find safe, fair, and enjoyable casino sites.
As part of the arrangements for allocating existing 2005 Act licences, where more than one operator wanted to develop a casino, local authorities were able to take into account the financial contribution of operators towards regeneration and harm prevention. Increased machine allowances across the casino estate will bring commercial benefits to casino operators, and allow them to compete on a more equitable footing with online operators. We estimate around 50 casinos smaller than the 2005 Act Small casino would also be able to benefit from increased machine allowances, proportionate to their size and non-gambling space. 1968 Act casinos which do not meet these size requirements will also be able to benefit from extra machines on a pro rata basis commensurate with their size.
In at least some of these instances, customers in this country are incidental to the main purpose of the arrangement which is often to attract customers in overseas jurisdictions to the brand. In these instances, the target market is mainly customers in Great Britain, and the licensee is leveraging the third-party’s brand to expand its appeal. It is the licensee which contracts with any customers and is responsible for providing the ‘facilities to gamble’ as set out in the 2005 Act, in spite of any branding on the website.
The lack of direct cashless payment methods on gaming machines contrasts with the cashless options that consumers have within the wider retail economy. Gaming machines are currently permitted in a variety of locations and divided into various categories based on factors such as maximum stake and prize available, as well as the premises where they may be used. As they are an extension of card payment, the direct use of contactless mobile systems such as Google Pay or Apple Pay on gaming machines is also prohibited. The Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) Regulations 2007 prohibit the use of debit cards for direct payments to gaming machines, and prohibit any use of credit cards. What impact would Options 1, 2 and 3 have on the overall number of Category B, C and D gaming machines?
The Commission’s continued close monitoring of licensees who enter into white label partnerships is unlikely to have new impacts on the sector, but will help ensure that the existing rules are followed and consumers are not put at risk. Gambling Commission enforcement against a major white label provider provides a wide-ranging example of the types of compliance risks which can emerge when licensees fail to maintain sufficient oversight and control of their white label partners. Social responsibility provision 1.1.2 (responsibility for third parties – all licences) makes clear that licensees are responsible for overseeing all third parties they contract with and ensuring they fully comply with the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice.
It suggests that many smaller operators already undertake test purchasing voluntarily or through membership of a trade body, and while there is a financial cost to each test purchase, this is normally low (under £50). The Gambling Commission’s ordinary code says that all land-based licensees should require their staff to check the age of any customer who appears to them to be under the age of 21, also known as ‘Think 21’. While low test purchasing rates demonstrate serious failures of process at venues, this does not necessarily mean that significant numbers of children are illegally accessing gambling. For instance, the Gambling Commission’s Young People and Gambling Survey (2019) found a higher proportion of children than adults reported having visited a casino in the last 7 days. Increasing the age limit to play Category D cash payout slots to 18 years — moving it from a voluntary to a legal footing to include all operators — will break the link between cash payouts and slot-style adult play for children.
This is consistent with the intention of the non gamestop casino 2005 Act to create destination venues with a balanced offer of gaming products and other leisure activities. Data was provided for a London casino over a four-week period in October 2019 for carded play, which represented 45% of overall slots play. The second recommendation supports amending land-based controls to take account of changes in technology and consumer behaviour, ensuring that amendments include appropriate safeguards for consumers, avoid unintended consequences and have due regard to the original intentions of Parliament.
A small minority called for a full ban on all gambling activity, but this sentiment was not widespread. Some of these individuals’ responses were provided in templates circulated by charity or campaign organisations in an effort to facilitate personal experience engagement with the call for evidence. These came from a diverse range of respondents (Figure 31) and varied from short letters outlining personal experiences of gambling (both good and bad), to full analyses responding to every question which ran to hundreds of pages in length. This annex gives an overview of the responses we received and the other sources of evidence we considered.
This relates to ensuring that casinos which share the same building, or adjoin or are adjacent to another casino, are wholly distinct and separate from one another. ” and “can the premises only be accessed from any other gambling premises? However, there must be some degree of physical separation between the licensed premises in order for the operation of these separate licences to be permitted. Further detail on the different gambling and table gaming space requirements are outlined later in this chapter. Ensuring that regulation of land-based and online sectors is more equitable will assist recovery and enable the sector to remain viable. Evidence suggests that this can make customers who have secured a machine reluctant to take a break as they may be unable to play again.
Under this option, for every device with higher maximum staking there would be a lower maximum staking machine of equivalent size and nature available to customers. The same rule would apply to all other gaming machine device types. This is in addition to a 9 percent increase in the overall number of B3 machines, representing approximately 900 machines across the total AGC estate. Projections on the impact of this proposal for the AGC sector suggest there will be a 10 percent reduction in the number of Category C machines and a 20 percent reduction in the number of Category D games, in-fills, and tablets.
Alongside the harm to the individual, gambling-related harms can have negative impacts on other people and wider communities. Due to a lack of longitudinal evidence the PHE report did not establish causal relationships with these other health harms, or in the case of mental health issues, found that relationships appeared to go in both directions. It is also important to recognise that problems with gambling can be one of a number of harms individuals suffer simultaneously; for instance while gambling addiction can impact mental health and wellbeing, poor mental health and heavy alcohol use are commonly suffered alongside gambling harms. For instance, PHE’s evidence review found that the problem gambling rate is 0.3% among graduates, compared to 1.0% for people with no qualifications, and is around three times higher among unemployed people (2.1%) than employed people (0.7%). In a recent pilot for a new approach to collecting data on population problem gambling rates, the Commission found the sample surveyed had a higher problem gambling prevalence rate of 1.3%, although this is an experimental rather than official statistic and the methodology is still being refined. Figures may also have been impacted by the recent fall in gambling participation or other behaviour changes linked to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including the unavailability of some gambling activities.
The UK Gambling Commission notes a 4.2 per cent drop in online harm since affordability trials began late 2024. Still, industry leaders tread cautiously; the Betting and Gaming Council warns that heavy red tape may nudge bettors toward risky offshore sites that skirt UK safety rules. An online casino guide here shows which brands follow the 2025 rules on game fairness and affordability tracking, and such guides have become a compass for users moving through the tighter online world. Online casino operators have been forced to make major tweaks in order to stay inside the new rulebook. Although the reforms attempt to rebalance gambling freedom with public protection, industry groups still worry about how expensive and practical the changes will prove to be. This article walks through the main 2025 changes, explains the impact on operators and on ordinary players, and charts the industry’s uneven path forward.
There is evidence of a concerning trend across these forms of advertising whereby those at the greatest risk of harm have the highest exposure. The limited high-quality evidence we received shows a link between exposure to advertising and gambling participation, but there was little evidence of a causal link with gambling harms or the development of gambling disorder. In particular, individuals with personal experience of gambling harms provided personal accounts of feeling ‘aggressively’ targeted with large quantities of direct marketing and online ads and being ‘groomed’ into problem gambling by VIP scheme managers.
Most spend small amounts which are similar to or less than spending on other leisure activities and do not report experiencing any harm from gambling. We also need to have the right controls in place on the products people can be offered, safeguards covering how those who gamble are treated by operators, and the right safety nets in place to stop harm where it occurs. We recognise that people should be free to spend their money as they choose, but when gambling poses the risk of becoming a clinical addiction the government needs to ensure there are proper protections. Adults who choose to spend their money on gambling are free to do so, and we should not inhibit the development of a sustainable and properly regulated industry which pays taxes and provides employment to service that demand. Millions of us enjoy gambling every year and most suffer no ill effects, so state intervention must be targeted to prevent addictive and harmful gambling. We are enormously grateful to all of those who have contributed to our Review, especially those with personal experience of gambling-related addiction and harms who have spoken out about their own struggles or those of people they love.
- The Gambling Act review white paper published in April 2023 set out the government’s plans for modernising the regulation of gambling in Great Britain.
- The product evolved to let customers buy and sell bets, with price fluctuation largely driven by consumer demand.
- A number of operators involved in high profile sponsorships have also been subject to enforcement action.
- A sliding scale was proposed in the consultation which detailed potential requirements across (i) gambling space; (ii) table gaming space; (iii) non-gambling area; and (iv) machine to table ratio.
- Unlicensed FECs are entitled to make only Category D machines available, once they have successfully applied for a permit from the licensing authority (local authority in England and Wales, licensing board in Scotland).
Financial Vulnerability Checks
57% of men compared to 51% of women had participated in some gambling activity within the previous 12 months according to Health Survey England (2018). We will consider the case for measures proposed by the sector, such as including overseas races in the scope of the levy and/or increasing the overall level of contribution and/or basing the calculation on gross amount staked rather than GGY. The government has committed to review the horserace betting levy by 2024, and we are now starting that process. However, nothing in the Review affects the ability of operators to sponsor racing and the incentive to promote and differentiate their products will remain. NERA Economic Consulting, the Social Market Foundation (SMF) and other studies have assessed potential displacement effects of gambling reforms.
We will also permit casinos of all sizes to offer sports betting in addition to other gambling activities and will take steps to reallocate unused 2005 Act casino licences to other local authorities. We will allow smaller casinos to benefit from more machines on a pro rata basis commensurate with their size and non-gambling space, subject to the same table to machine ratios and other conditions. The 2005 Act sets out a range of restrictions for land-based gambling based on the assumption that restrictions on supply (for example casino numbers and gaming machine availability) are an important protection.
The Gambling Act 2005 paved the way for larger resort style casinos to be built, albeit in a controlled manner with one being built every few years until the Act is fully implemented. The Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65) liberalised the law, paving the way for more commercial casinos. James opened several casino-cum-cabaret and fine dining establishments in the 1960s, including the Charlie Chester Casino and Golden Horseshoe in London and the Kingsway and Grand Casino in Southport.
We propose to introduce a stake limit for online slots, consulting on a limit of between £2 and £15 per spin, to structurally limit the risks of harmful play. The Gambling Commission intends to consult on mandating participation in a cross-operator harm prevention system based on data sharing, following assessment of the currently live operator trials which have had input from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Commission. Individual operators can take steps to prevent harm on their own platform but people suffering gambling harms usually hold multiple accounts or can open new ones easily. Further information will only be requested from customers as a last resort where it is necessary to complete an assessment, and the use of any data gathered through such checks will be restricted to assessing financial risk and indicators of financial distress.