Gambling Act 2005
1968 Act casinos will be entitled to an enhanced gaming machine entitlement if their gambling area is at least 280sqm. 1968 Act casinos with a gambling area of at least 280sqm will be able to exercise the increased gaming machine entitlements shown in Figure 3. For example, a casino with two premises licences that meets the size and physical separation requirements could site 160 machines – more than a Large 2005 Act casino. Where 1968 Act casinos are smaller than these requirements, we have proposed that they are able to benefit from an increased number of machines on a pro rata basis commensurate with their size and non-gambling area, and subject to the same ratio. The number of gaming products that land-based casinos can provide will always be constrained by physical space in a way that online casinos are not, but this is made worse by the existing caps on numbers.
This includes lotteries, betting on sports and horse races, bingo, as well as gaming machines at pubs and land-based casinos. We do not see this as being an issue for operators or manufacturers as it is already widely available on Category B gaming machines within all land-based gambling premises. While it is acknowledged that the risk of gambling harm may increase somewhat following a transition to 50/50, the stipulation outlined in Option 2 would ensure that operators offer a balance of higher and lower stake gaming machines.
The 2025 changes in the UK are massive, which to many could make gambling laws as complicated as the rules of cricket. This should lead to better-informed decisions about gambling. This change is intended to reduce the number of bets people place, which should eradicate a good amount of problem gambling.
‘Cash-out’ slot-style machines have a maximum stake of 1 pence and a maximum prize of £5, while ‘ticket-out’ slot-style machines have a maximum stake of 30 pence and an equivalent of a prize worth up to £8. There are 2 types of Category D slot-style machines, one that pays out a small amount of cash, and one that pays out tickets which can be exchanged for a small prize, toy or sweet. Currently, Category D machines have no age restrictions and include a range of low stake machines, such as coin push, crane grabs and slot-style fruit machines. The consultation proposed to make it an offence for a person to invite, cause or permit a child or young person to use ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines. We do not view this as a necessary player protection for these lower stakes machines and we are conscious that it could impose a barrier to implementing direct debit card payments, particularly on machines such as crane grabs. We propose that Category D machines are not required to show net position or session time.
The United Kingdom Gambling Commission also has rules that dictate how operators can advertise their platforms. The latest stipulation regarding the handling of player funds is just one of many licensing conditions the UKGC has put in place to ensure the safety of all players. The arrangements falling in the medium category include Quistclose accounts and insurance arrangements. Therefore, when you choose one of our recommended UK casino sites, you can ante-up safe in the knowledge that every game is fair and all your funds will be protected and insured by the UK government.
The UK Gambling Commission plays a crucial role in regulating and overseeing all gambling activities to ensure fairness, safety, and compliance across the industry. New rules target addictive features in online casino games to promote safer play. These limits apply per game cycle and are designed to reduce gambling-related harm. Wiggin serves as the leading advisor to the global gambling industry’s top players, setting itself apart by understanding both national and international laws and regulations like no other firm. The firm’s Brussels office provides legal support and lobbies EU decision-makers on behalf of clients on a wide range of matters, including EU copyright, audio-visual regulation, data protection, competition policy, trade and e-commerce.
This will avoid duplicating the earlier work on online slot design, reduce unnecessary complexity in our regulatory framework and retain flexibility for future product innovations while also efficiently curtailing harmful game design innovations. For example, online roulette shares some structural similarities with online slots in being a random number generator casino game which allows for relatively rapid, intense and repetitive play. This disparity is unlikely to be commensurate with the risk which other products, particularly some casino games, pose to consumers. While we are confident that the data-driven system of account level protections has been improved and can be improved further, we also note that it is primarily reactive; interventions are largely only triggered when at least some signs of potentially concerning gambling behaviour have been detected. This would reduce the opportunity for those experiencing gambling problems to exacerbate harm by avoiding safer gambling controls and limit the scope for potential harm to affected others.
All stakeholders recognise the potential for a so-called single customer view (SCV) to tackle this risk. Customers’ ability to swap to another account risks undermining the effectiveness of an individual operator’s safeguarding interventions. Likely impacts are explored in more detail in Annex A of this white paper, and the Commission will give further consideration to impacts, including the potential for any unintended consequences, through its detailed consultation. The Data Protection and Digital Information (No .2) Bill, currently before Parliament, includes some important clarifications to the rules around lawful processing and the circumstances in which personal data collected for one purpose can be used for other purposes, which should make the law clearer in this area. We will also make sure consumers’ financial lives are not impacted through these checks, with credit scores being unaffected and potentially adverse consequences of reciprocal data sharing avoided. We recognise these proposals have significant implications for collection and handling of sensitive consumer data, raising important questions around privacy, data protection, proportionality, data accuracy, and reciprocal data sharing.
However, over the longer term, some industry representatives have suggested that operators would likely further reduce their number of Category C and D cabinets in favour of multi-staking Category B cabinets. Under the scenario outlined in Option 2, it is anticipated that a genuine balance and choice of higher and lower stake machines would be achieved across venues. Indeed, we reviewed data that showed some operators, particularly in the bingo sector where tablets are in widespread use for playing bingo games, have significantly greater numbers of Category B cabinets than Category C and D cabinets. It would also provide greater flexibility in determining the make-up of their machines and potentially lead to the removal of machines, such as tablets and in-fills, that are infrequently played. Consequently, it would deter operators from offering tablets and in-fill devices as a way to increase the number of Category B cabinets on their premises.
However, we want to avoid any regulation that would allow table gaming areas to be placed in obscure or less accessible areas for customers so that a genuinely mixed offering of products remains in the casino. This will ensure that only distinct and sizeable table gaming areas can count towards the total, giving customers a genuine mix of products that are easily accessible in a casino. However, if a casino has 600sqm of gambling space, it would only be required to have at least 250sqm of table gaming space.
While there is a level of integration between NHS and non-NHS treatment services, for example, through referrals to the NHS by GambleAware commissioned services, we recognise that there are improvements to be made to the treatment pathway. The precise funding mechanism for raising sufficient resources to develop and sustain the capacity to analyse data will be considered in a detailed review of the Gambling Commission’s fees in 2024. However, anonymised data originating from its regulatory activity should be a rich source for research. Collecting detailed operator data on a regular basis will form an important part of this work and is supported by existing powers in the Act for the Commission to make data requests for its regulatory activities. As outlined above, the Gambling Commission will pursue a robust data-led strategy to bring about a step change in compliance and enforcement.
In addition to failing to identify those suffering harm, respondents identified wider practices which might be detrimental to consumers, such as the profiling of customers and the restriction of winning accounts. Operators broadly argued in favour of these tailored controls, rather than measures which may limit the enjoyment of gambling for the majority of players who suffer no ill effects and may (if curtailed in their gambling) turn to unlicensed operators. Many operators were confident that their current and increasingly sophisticated harm detection algorithms would have prevented ‘historic cases’ where harm occurred without sufficient action. Given the Review’s focus on ensuring our gambling laws are fit for the digital age, it is unsurprising that a significant amount of evidence was submitted in response to the remote gambling questions in our call for evidence. When used in conjunction with self-exclusion, payment and website blocks can add a further layer of protection for people recovering from gambling harm.
The Gambling Commission’s annual Young People and Gambling survey found that the past week gambling participation trend for 11 to 16-year-olds had decreased from 23% in 2011 to 7% in 2022 (Figure 17). In 2020, gambling was included in the Department for Education’s relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education statutory guidance for England. In December 2020, following a consultation, the government announced that the minimum age to play National Lottery products (including draws, instant win games and scratchcards) would be increased to 18 years old from October 2021. Football pools and society lotteries have a statutory minimum age for play of 16 years, but some operators voluntarily apply a higher age limit of 18 years. Currently most licensed gambling activities and products are restricted to 18 and over, and it is an offence under the 2005 Act to offer gambling products which are intended only for adults to children. However, children remain a vulnerable group, and even young adults (18 to 24-year-olds) who are legally permitted to gamble may still be particularly susceptible to harm.
If even the smallest casinos are mostly running their full allowance of 20 machines profitably, there is likely to be significant untapped demand in larger casinos for more machines. This includes changes made recently that have yet to take effect, such as the new rules on customer interaction (in the online protections chapter), and changes to be taken forward in future, such as the review of game design rules (section 1.3) or the data sharing on high risk customers (section 1.2). The revenue reduction is expected to be mainly online, largely because our new measures increase the obligations on remote operators to check on high spending customers and prevent continued spending where the customer may be experiencing harm. In order to reduce gambling-related harm, we tackle practices and products which evidence shows exacerbate risks and help ensure opportunities to prevent harm are taken.
- Players who register with GamStop are blocked from all UKGC-licensed online casinos simultaneously — one of the most powerful tools available anywhere in the world.
- Industry leaders and regulators have laid a roadmap for the UK casino sector’s future, emphasizing pivotal changes.
- In the Sorare.com prosecution, the UKGC charged Sorare.com with providing unlicensed gambling facilities to consumers in Britain, with a listed hearing at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.
- However, there are continuing cases of operators failing to respond appropriately to gambling spend which would be clearly unaffordable for the vast majority of the population.
- You can also find more information about different topics relating to money and rights when gambling in our guides.
Figure 10: Proposed sliding scale limit on number of Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs) in casinos
The minimum table gaming area for Small 2005 Act casinos, which is currently 500sqm, will be reduced to 250sqm to align the minimum space requirements for these different regimes. Land-based casinos, which provide employment and contribute to the night-time leisure and tourism economy, non gamstop were like other sectors of that economy severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We also intend to permit a smaller increase in machines for venues that do not meet these size requirements, proportionate to overall size and non-gambling area. The white paper set out the government’s intention to bring the two regimes closer together, with similar requirements on machine numbers proportionate to size, non-gambling area and gaming tables.
For example, 5 out of the 7 operators focus on betting, so the PoP dataset accounts for operators providing 86% of online betting in Great Britain, as against 38% of online gaming. We recommend that licensing authorities update their policy statements using a wide range of data and analysis, including making use of spatial tools and public health data to identify vulnerable areas and to state their position on additional gambling premises in these areas. CIAs could allow licensing authorities to put a presumption against new premises in a particular area, based on evidence related to harm, which may take the form of ‘high impact zones’ being identified within a licensing authority boundary. We consider that allowing bingo premises to offer side bets in a more flexible or expanded form as described by industry, within a defined set of parameters, would allow them to diversify their offer to customers and that conditions could be attached to reduce the risk of harm. When granting a premises licence, a licensing authority must consider the impact the premises might have on the surrounding area, for example, the risks of anti-social behaviour or of children attempting to access gambling facilities.
They also said that there should not be a maximum transaction limit on Category D crane grab machines. For example, a person leaving a gaming machine to go to an ATM will be required to enter their PIN. It was also raised that these machines can be converted to adapt a card reader for contactless payment, but adding a chip and pin device for every transaction in most cases would either not be technically feasible or cost effective. Respondents from the pub sector also raised issues with verification for each transaction on Category D crane grab machines.
Figure 4: Current machine to table ratio for different types of casinos
The increased complexity of operators’ business structures has made it increasingly difficult for the Commission to manage requests for changes of corporate controls and identify and assess the ultimate beneficiaries of applicants for licences. While the Commission is able to respond with its existing powers to many issues that arise, it has advised that certain issues have emerged due to operators becoming larger, more organisationally complex and internationally-based. The Commission has a wide range of powers that allow it to regulate the industry effectively and respond to any emerging risks, particularly through the LCCP which all licensees must adhere to. This should involve more timely data to enable quicker assessment of the risks to consumers and to enable regulatory action to be taken more swiftly where necessary. The government and the Commission are clear that an enhanced approach to compliance enforcement is required to effectively monitor the industry and ensure that operators are abiding by the rules. We welcome these additional steps which businesses have taken to ensure their operations are safe and sustainable, and welcome the continual drive to raise standards which can then be underpinned by licence conditions to ensure compliance across the industry.
On the other hand, the position taken by the ASA in its regulation of gambling advertising is that gambling is already normalised as a legitimate leisure activity for adults in Great Britain. Many responses from those with personal experience reported how harm can be intensified by ad targeting and direct marketing, and that even with self-exclusion tools in place which prevent direct marketing, the exposure to marketing elsewhere could nonetheless be triggering, especially during recovery. The responses we received particularly emphasised that regardless of the form of advertising, it can have much stronger, and adverse, impacts on those who are already experiencing problems with gambling.
We will consult on raising the cap for the fees licensing authorities can charge adult gaming centres, betting premises, bingo premises, casinos and family entertainment centres for premises licences. In the land-based sectors, operators and industry bodies highlighted high pass rates for test purchasing and the adoption of ‘Think 21’ and ‘Think 25’ policies in licensed betting offices, bingo premises and casinos. The Patterns of Play data project, commissioned by GambleAware and based on industry-provided data, has been an important step forward in maximising the value of the rich data which operators collect to inform understanding of how players and online gambling interact. Unlike land-based gaming machines, such as in casinos, they have no statutory stake limits.
The government proposes that gaming machines accepting direct debit payments must allow customers to set time and monetary thresholds. The majority of responses stated that there should be the ability for customers to set voluntary limits on gaming machines accepting direct cashless payments. Having considered the consultation objectives, stakeholder responses and supporting evidence, we are proposing to lift the prohibition on direct debit card payments on gaming machines subject to the introduction of the player protection measures detailed within this chapter. The government will introduce regulations through a draft affirmative statutory instrument to ensure that, for every 2 Category B gaming machines sited in AGC or bingo premises, at least one Category C or D gaming machine of a similar size is also sited on the premises. This will allow for targeted supportive measures to be taken for the sector, potentially including a more liberalised ratio of Category B gaming machines in these venues.
Respondents were in favour of venues having to comply with all of the sliding scale requirements in order to increase their gaming machine allowances. • Any non-gambling area may consist of one or more areas within the premises. This will ensure that gaming products, such as single-player games in which the player presses a switch or button, or pulls a plunger or lever, to release a ball or set of balls cannot count towards the machine to table ratio. Therefore both wholly automated gaming tables and table games of equal chance do not attract any gaming machine allowance for the purposes of meeting the machine to table ratio.
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 BA customer aged 27 stakes £2 on an online slot game. For customers who are aged 18 to 24, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £2. For customers who are aged 25 and older, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £5. Separately, the Gambling Commission confirmed in our online games design response in 2021 and our remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) 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 (RTS 14D).
In this new regulatory era, success won’t be measured purely by revenue per machine, but by how effectively an operator manages risk, safeguards players, and shows credible, data-backed compliance. For the first time, staff training on gambling harm is a statutory requirement, not just a licensing expectation. By embedding self-regulation tools directly into the gaming experience, these requirements mirror protections familiar to online gambling—and levels the regulatory playing field.
These fees are used on a cost recovery basis to enable licensing authorities to undertake their gambling enforcement and administrative duties. To ensure this, we outlined in the white paper our intention to increase the cap on the maximum chargeable premises fees which can be charged by licensing authorities. The government will make inviting, causing, or permitting under-18s to play ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines a criminal offence through a draft affirmative statutory instrument. Bacta currently operates a voluntary age restriction on these machines for all of its members. We believe it is appropriate to make inviting, causing, or permitting under-18s to play ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines a criminal offence. Eighty-two per cent of respondents agreed that it should be a criminal offence for a person to invite, cause or permit children or young persons to play on ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines.
Given how gambling harms are distributed across society, reducing gambling harm is part of addressing wider economic and health disparities. We nonetheless have high confidence that our proposals will reduce the risk of significant unaffordable losses, play that is designed to be intense, and aggressive advertising, which have all been shown to contribute to harm. The Gambling Commission is currently developing a new approach to participation and prevalence statistics which, alongside the policy in Section 3.5 of making more regulatory data available for researchers, should improve our understanding of how changes to regulation impact harm. Therefore we cannot straightforwardly quantify the likely reduction in gambling-related harm for individuals or at a population level from this package, although we hope to revisit this in future policy-specific impact assessments.
So in common with the previous legislation, there has been a recognition that consent will not always be the appropriate basis for data processing. Consent is one way to comply with GDPR, but the new law provides five other ways of processing data that may be more appropriate than consent. The rules around consent only apply if a business is relying on consent as its basis to process personal data. One example of this is the myth that “data can only be processed if an organisation has explicit consent to do so”.
Commentaires récents