Measures to improve access to data

Date: August 5, 2026

What we regulate

We have high confidence that the proposals address practices and products which can cause or exacerbate the risks of harm, but due to the complexity of gambling harms we cannot precisely project the reduction in gambling-related harm we expect to see at this stage. We will adjust the 80/20 ratio which restricts the balance of Category B and C/D machines in bingo and arcade venues to 50/50, to ensure that businesses can offer customer choice and flexibility while maintaining a balanced offer of gambling products. The Gambling Commission will undertake a review of gaming machine technical standards, to include the role of session limits across Category B and C machines. We challenge industry to improve age verification and will legislate when Parliamentary time allows to strengthen licensing authority powers in respect of alcohol-licensed premises by making provisions in the Gambling Commission’s code of practice binding. We think therefore that the mechanism for funding projects and services to tackle gambling harms should no longer be based upon a system of voluntary contributions.

All operators must also adhere to our Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP). Our guidance summarises the legal background and legislation which operators must follow to be compliant. The NRA sets out the key money laundering and terrorist financing risks for the UK. HM Treasury and the Home Office have published the national risk assessment (NRA) of money laundering and terrorist financing 2020 (opens in new tab).

The maximum annual fee for an adult gaming centre (arcade) is £1,000 in England and Wales, and £700 in Scotland. For example, the maximum annual fee for a large casino is £10,000 in England and Wales, and £7,500 in Scotland. Licensing fees vary by premises type. Therefore, the proposals set out in this chapter will only apply to licensing authorities in England and Wales.

If you are a local authority/ licensing board, how many premises licence applications did you receive in the 22/23 financial year? We expect that wider benefits will arise from the increase in oversight and enforcement activity by licensing authorities of gambling premises in their area and are seeking further information to better understand these benefits. The primary cost of this measure is the additional costs incurred by gambling operators resulting from the increased licensing fees. Note that the different fees currently charged for large and small casinos may be subject to review and harmonisation following the consultation outlined in Chapter 1. The Gambling (Premises Licence Fees) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 established the maximum level of fees that local authorities in England and Wales can charge for gambling premises licences. This activity may include inspecting gambling premises to ensure that they are complying with their licence or dealing with complaints from residents or neighbours.

Non-compliance by affiliates can lead to fines, reputational damage, or licence reviews for the operator. The UKGC holds operators accountable for any breaches committed by their affiliates. Gambling advertising in the UK is subject to strict regulation to protect vulnerable audiences, including minors, and to keep marketing honest.

Some land-based operators proposed that players in venues other than casinos should be able to choose to allocate a small proportion of their stake towards an additional prize pot. A number of proposals from the land-based industry related to concepts of new machine games and categories of gaming machine which do not currently fit into existing regulations or current technical standards. In response to this, we received a number of proposals for changes to rules surrounding gaming machines in venues. We agree that operators should maintain a range of payment options, including cash, to allow for customer choice and ensure that gambling harm is kept to a minimum.

You should consider whether you understand how spread bets and CFDs work, and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. Spread bets and CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. Some respondents pointed out how this voluntary albeit multifaceted arrangement varies from the finance sector, where the FCA publishes guidance on how financial promotions must present information about risk (an example is in Box 10 below). However, the limitations of such tools are documented in research, and further research is needed to understand the risk of unintended consequences such as distorting player perceptions of risk (explored further in the previous chapter’s section on safer products).

The most recent year for which we have combined Health Survey data is 2016, in NatCen’s report Gambling Behaviour in Great Britain in 2016. These have also been updated a number of times since 2005, with guidance also tightened where needed to mitigate particular risks (e.g. banning content with strong appeal to children from October 2022). Gaming machine stake and prize limits are set out in secondary legislation and have been changed a number of times by the Secretary of State since the 2005 Act.

The majority of these respondents argued for measures which tended to be more restrictive of the gambling products available within the land-based sector. In general, responses received from gambling industry respondents typically argued for the most liberalised position across the range of measures outlined in the consultation. We received 87 responses to the land-based gambling consultation. DCMS has commissioned a third party, Qualtrics, to collect your personal data on its behalf.

Firstly, much of the available data on children being able to access age restricted forms of gambling comes from their own self-reporting which may be unreliable. However, evidence suggests that some children are still able to participate in gambling which they should be barred from. It should create a clear distinction between gambling products for adults and lower risk products for children which have non-cash prizes or (like a penny pusher) are entirely unlike an adult gambling product. Although we will consult further on the details of our proposal above, slot machines in FECs  which are legally adult-only (Category C machines) are required to be in a segregated part of the venue to prevent children accessing those machines. Category D machines which do not pay out cash will not be subject to the increase in the minimum age to play. We welcome Bacta’s voluntary commitment, but to ensure all operators comply with it, we propose to move that requirement into legislation, making the legal minimum age to play cash-out Category D slot machine style games 18 years old.

Measures to improve access to data

In England, there are currently eight NHS specialist gambling clinics in operation, including a national children and young persons’ clinic (part of the National Problem Gambling Clinic in London), covering London and the North East, North West, Yorkshire, South of England and West Midlands. While treatment of gambling-related harms is not currently mainstreamed across the NHS, limited numbers of people may seek support through existing services such as Mental Health Services and Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT). Others pointed to difficulty accessing operator data without being dependent on the goodwill of the industry. They said gambling research has attracted a narrow pool of researchers, in part because of reluctance to accept voluntary funding originating from industry donations and the consequent low status of gambling as a research area. Unlike for alcohol, substantial funding for gambling-specific research, as well as education and treatment, is available through the system of voluntary donations from industry outlined above.

Therefore, a general shift in the economic model of remote gambling away from a reliance on a high spending minority is likely desirable to achieve the government’s objectives and create a more sustainable industry. A recent survey of UK gamblers estimated that moderate-risk and problem gamblers (collectively comprising 14.1% of the sample population) accounted for 43.5% of overall gambling spend but more for certain product types. In addition to submissions to the call for evidence, we also received advice from the Gambling Commission, which emphasised the importance of measures to prevent harm throughout the remote customer journey, and committed to build on recent work to improve protections.

While we know the majority of people who use these tools do not have a problematic relationship with gambling, we have heard repeated evidence of the enormous benefits they offer to those who rely on them as part of their toolkit for stopping gambling altogether. The Commission will consult on requiring operators to improve these tools, such as by making deposit limit setting mandatory for all customers on account creation and pre-populating the limit with a reasonable default. A recent study by the Behavioural Insights Team suggested this model may support greater and more meaningful usage of financial limit setting tools, but further research including in a ‘real world’ gambling environment is likely to be beneficial. Gambling operators in Australia must now provide such activity statements to customers on a monthly basis and there is guidance setting out how information should be presented. Academic evidence has shown that online gamblers can struggle to keep an accurate track of their spend, suggesting many could benefit from objective activity statements and previously set financial limits rather than purely internal budgeting during and between sessions.

The full impact is explored in further detail in Section 10 of Annex A. Alongside the changes to this ratio, we expect operators to continue to improve player safety controls as outlined above, and work with regulators to ensure full compliance. Without an increase in stakes or a change to the 80/20 rule, operators have highlighted their difficulties in meeting increased costs. Concerns regarding energy efficiency are particularly relevant, with operators estimating that costs have increased significantly over recent months. The code includes a commitment to introduce standards to all new land-based slots products such as ensuring cash payout games do not appeal to children and that awards below the stake are not celebrated.

• Applicants face significant disclosure requirements covering ownership, management, finances, and operating model, including technical, AML, and safer-gambling controls.
• Significant increases in Category B machines may increase the amount of money staked by customers, and/or the risk of harm.
• A two-tier financial risk framework now applies to all UKGC-licensed casino accounts.
• This will include assessing the role of session limits across Category B and C machines alongside safer gambling tools.
• It is concerned that the risk of harm could increase if high volatility games were available to players who were not as closely supervised as those at a table and without the safeguards that typically apply to electronic gaming.

For instance, since 28 February 2025, online gambling operators have been required to undertake a financial vulnerability check where a customer’s net spend exceeds £150 in a rolling 30-day period and, following the passing of secondary legislation, since May 2025 maximum stake limits per spin for online slot games are in place (£2 for those aged 18–24; £5 for those aged 25 and over). The main legislation governing gambling in the three forms identified in English law (gaming, betting and participating in a lottery) is the Gambling Act 2005. Free-to-play casino games with prizes are regulated as gaming and require a licence. Casino gaming (including slots and casino table games such as roulette & blackjack) The outcome of the Commission’s consultation on changes to financial key event reporting – which closed in March 2024 – is pending.Finally, in June 2025 the UK Government announced that it plans to introduce a “Voluntary Code” for prize draw operators whose offerings do not require a licence under the gambling framework because of the presence of a free entry route. Are there any specific licensing or operational requirements for operators accepting digital currencies (including cryptocurrencies)?

A common theme in these responses was the need for a ‘precautionary’ approach to the regulation of advertising, arguing that the absence of evidence of harm must not be treated as evidence of an absence of harm. The differences in regulation for gambling advertising in broadcast and online channels are particularly noteworthy. Although the IGRG code is an industry code, compliance with it can be considered alongside compliance with the Gambling Commission’s own rules when the regulator is assessing an operator’s suitability to hold a licence. The code bans most broadcast gambling advertising before 9pm, with the exception of bingo and lotteries, and sports betting advertising in the build up to and after (but not during) a live sporting event. Additionally, the trade bodies representing the gambling industry have developed the Industry Code for Socially Responsible Advertising (‘IGRG Code’), which was last updated in October 2020. The Gambling Commission also sets some specific rules on how gambling operators advertise through its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice.

There are numerous charitable lottery operators that operate under certain regulatory constraints. On 1 February 2024, the Gambling Commission granted Allwyn Entertainment Ltd a 10-year licence to operate the National Lottery, replacing the previous licensee Camelot. Casinos in the UK are generally operated under historic licences that were rolled forward under the “new” Gambling Act 2005. In addition to the LCCP, the British regulator also publishes a large body of literature comprising regulatory advice, policies and guidance which licensees are expected to take account of.The financial regulation of gambling is set out mostly in the British Finance Acts and provides for various levels of duty upon different types of gambling.

Chapter 4: Introduction of an age limit on ‘cash-out’ slot-style Category D machines

This includes ensuring that appropriate safeguards against gambling-related harm are in place. The policy proposals set out in this government response are intended to modernise the land-based gambling sector and help it to thrive sustainably. In September 2019, the Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) generated by remote gambling overtook that of land-based gambling for the first time (excluding lotteries). The white paper acknowledged that the emergence of new technology and the availability of online gambling since the Gambling Act 2005 came into force has substantially altered the gambling landscape. Measures relating to casinos – one draft affirmative and one made negative statutory instrument. This response provides non-remote gambling operators with clear notice of our intention to introduce the measures set out within this government response.

The white paper indicated that we would expect industry to strictly adhere to this ratio and we would set out detailed requirements in further consultation. We welcome further evidence on the unmet consumer demand in the consultation response. A number of premises, particularly those located in motorway service stations, chose to retain their existing entitlements. Please explain your answer, including an alternative proposal for SSBT entitlements where applicable. Do you agree with the proposed entitlements for Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs) based on the sliding scale? Casinos that are currently permitted to offer betting may site a maximum of 40 Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs).

When did the stake limit come into effect?

In our view, it would be premature to pursue legislative options without first pursuing enhanced industry-led protections, given the potential downsides. As set out in the response, we do not intend to adjust the legal definitions of gambling at this time in order to capture loot boxes. The government’s response to that call for evidence was published in July last year, setting out our plan to improve protections for children, young people and adults, and to support better longer term research into the impacts of video games. In September 2020, the government launched a call for evidence on loot boxes in video games to understand their impact and whether changes are needed to ensure consumers are effectively protected. We will consult on the potential for regulating large scale prize draws with a view to identifying options and developing an evidence base against which their impact and the extent to which different regulatory measures would be proportionate can be properly assessed. The Commission’s current approach adequately deals with that risk at present, but it will continue to monitor the development of new technologies and payment vehicles closely.

This requirement was intended to ensure a balanced offer of gaming products in 2005 Act casinos, which had a significantly higher gaming machine entitlement than 1968 Act casinos. The government is proposing to operate two regimes for 1968 Act casinos whereby they can either operate under the existing rules with no increase to their gaming machine allowance or they can take up their new gaming machine entitlements under the new rules. Do you perceive there to be any issue with allowing multiple casino licences in the same physical location if gaming machine entitlements are increased as proposed? Do you agree with the proposed gaming machine entitlements based on the sliding scale for (i) gambling space; (ii) table gaming space (iii) non-gambling area; and (iv) machine-to-table ratio? The implications for operating and premises licence fees, bringing 1968 Act casinos in line with existing fee scales for 2005 Act casinos, are also discussed later in this chapter. It is our intention that these casinos can continue to operate under the existing regime, whereby they are permitted no more than 20 machines where at least one is of Category B (or they may elect to have any number of Category C or D machines instead).

However, the intended objective is to allow customers to pay by the means they prefer and preserve the viability of the not on gamstop gaming machine sector which is at risk of being eroded by the move to a “cashless” society. This standard applies to feasible B3 gaming machines and provides players with a 30 second cooling-off period once voluntary limits are hit. In order to slow the speed of direct cashless transactions and provide a break in play, the government proposes that there should be a minimum transaction time for players making direct cashless payment transactions on gaming machines. What should the maximum transaction value be for direct cashless payments on gaming machines?

Data provided for a London casino over a four-week period in October 2019 showed a clear correlation between average dwell time and occupancy rates. Casino licences originate from two legislative regimes – the Gaming Act 1968 and the Gambling Act 2005. In order to ensure local authorities can continue to carry out their licensing and enforcement duties effectively, we are proposing to raise this cap by either 10%, 20% or 30%. We are also seeking views and evidence on what the impact would be if the 80/20 rule were to be removed completely.