Non-remote casino legislative changes
Neither partially automated nor wholly automated gaming tables, including products such as pinball roulette, will count as ‘gaming tables’ for these purposes. If you are an operator with more than one premises licence at the same location, do you intend to take up these new entitlements for each licence? Shown if Yes is selected Do you intend to site the maximum number of machines available to you? If you selected ‘No’, please provide an alternative proposal for gaming machine entitlements if you have one. As at present, a 1968 Act casino with a gambling area of at least 200sqm would also need to provide a non-gambling area equivalent to at least 10% of its total gambling area.
Opposition tended to come from those who are opposed to any increase in supply of gambling opportunities in land-based premises, while the industry was expectedly supportive. An identical proportion of respondents thought sports betting should be permitted as shouldn’t be permitted in land-based casinos, with a small number selecting ‘I don’t know’. As referenced in our response to the ‘Gaming machine allowance for 1968 Act casinos’ section, we acknowledge concerns from stakeholders about the necessity of a table gaming area requirement given the sliding scale includes a specified number of tables. These products do not count as gaming machines, but neither do they provide any of the benefits of a multiplayer table in contributing to a balanced mix or affording opportunities for social interaction.
The evidence we have seen suggests that bonuses (as defined by the CMA), general promotional offers, and direct marketing communications are the forms of advertising most likely to impact an individual’s gambling behaviour. The proposals set out in the following sections target practices identified as likely to increase the risk of harm. While we agree that it would be harmful for any form of advertising or marketing to ‘normalise’ harmful practices (for example underage or unaffordable gambling), we do not consider participation in gambling in and of itself a form of harm. One argument that was frequently raised in responses calling for greater restrictions on advertising was that the ‘normalisation’ of gambling is a form of harm caused by advertising. The authors suggest that limiting children and vulnerable people’s exposure to gambling advertising could mitigate the potential harm that advertising poses to these groups.
To further raise standards, a more prescriptive and risk-based model will be introduced, where remote operators are required to investigate the customer’s financial circumstances in response to certain loss triggers to understand if their gambling is likely to be harmful to them. However, while these tools are helpful for many online gamblers, they are not enough to fully mitigate the risks, so there are also a range of obligations on operators to identify and prevent gambling-related harm. All online play is account-based, and recent years have seen significant strides in the development of harm detection algorithms which monitor every aspect of a customer’s gambling to spot signs of risk and trigger interventions without human input. The proportion of people suffering harm might also be identified through other sources such as bank transaction analysis, hospital admission data, and operators’ own harm detection algorithms which flag the customers displaying indicators of harmful gambling. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to update specific provisions (such as the maximum stakes and prizes for gaming machines) and to set licence conditions via secondary legislation. A key concern for some of the land-based sectors is the ban on direct use of debit cards on gaming machines and we recognise that substantial changes are happening to how payments in society are being made.
Remote licence types
The regulator also makes use of the system of personal management licences to act against individuals and there have been licence suspensions in cases where the regulator considered the operator to be substantially non-compliant. The usual pattern of regulatory enforcement is for the regulator to instigate a review of the operating licence in question, with the consequences described above. The British regulator continues its series of enforcement actions against its licensees, as described above, including follow-ups from previous enforcement actions. Have fines, licence revocations or other sanctions been enforced in your jurisdiction? Anyone who is involved to any material extent in the provision of gambling, or gambling software, may be committing an offence in the UK if they are not correctly licensed or if they cannot take advantage of one of the limited range of exemptions in the legislation.
When asked about the impact on GGY from sports betting, all operators stated that this would have either a slight increase or no impact on their overall GGY. It was also highlighted that sportsbooks are a common expectation in casinos in other jurisdictions, and this move would bring Great Britain’s casino experience in line with other countries. The same 12.5% rule that applies in 2005 Act casinos is also proposed to apply for 1968 Act casinos that seek to move onto the new regime. Furthermore, this exemption is tightly drawn to reduce any advantages that these casinos may gain compared to their competitors.
Our team of legal gambling analysts developed this page as a hub for legitimate and up-to-date information regarding the legal framework of gambling in the United Kingdom. Information on the advice provided by the Gambling Commission to help inform government policy on updates to the Gambling Act 2005 along with gambling legislation in Great Britain. We also license the individuals and businesses that offer gambling and provide them with advice and guidance. There have also been a number of major reports from think tanks and Parliamentary groups which have contributed to gambling discourse over recent years. Ministers and officials from other departments have also had a number of meetings with gambling stakeholders. The advice reflects the Commission’s own insights and its reflections on responses to the government’s call for evidence which were shared with Gambling Commission officials.
According to evidence from the Betting and Gaming Council, casinos received more than 17 million customer visits in 2019, including a large number of visits from tourists and overseas customers. Around 45 current 1968 Act casinos meet the minimum overall size and non-gambling space requirements for a 2005 Act Small casino and would therefore be able to offer a maximum of 80 machines. Casinos originally licensed under 1968 Act provisions are limited to 20 Category B gaming machines regardless of size, and a Small 2005 Act casino would need 40 tables to be allowed 80 gaming machines whereas a large would only need 16. Its final recommendation in this area is that any move towards the use of debit cards on gaming machines should strike an appropriate balance between regulation applicable to modern payment methods, consumer benefits and protection of the licensing objectives. The first recommendation focuses on the importance of account-based play in protecting customers in land-based settings, asking the government to encourage operators to use such technology to identify and protect customers at risk of harm, subject to a proportionate approach.
This empowers consumers with granular control over the gambling advertisements they receive. This ensures steady funding for research, prevention, and treatment services while removing industry control over how the funds are spent. The voluntary industry contributions have been replaced with mandatory payments under the new statutory levy system.
Cash-only gambling was assumed to give players more control by providing natural interruptions in play to obtain more cash, helping players play within budget limits. Please outline any other proposals relating to machine allowances in arcades and bingo halls that you think that we should consider. We welcome further evidence on this in the consultation response.
This is an important measure to create a clear distinction between gambling products for adults and lower risk products accessible to children (such as crane grabbers or coin pushers) which have non-cash prizes or are entirely unlike adult gambling products. Based on responses to the consultation, we will proceed with making 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. However, there was some disagreement over some of the additional proposals that we set out in the consultation aimed at preventing those under 18 from using these machines.
We propose to introduce a maximum stake limit for online slots games of between £2 and £15, subject to consultation. Products which are safer by design will help prevent harm at source and reduce the reliance on reactive harm detection systems. With new technologies and payment regulations now in place, the Commission will work with others to consider what more can be done to reduce this risk.
We know from the evidence available that while public health campaigns cannot be used as a universal solution to reduce gambling-related harm, with effective targeting they can help raise awareness among target audiences and promote behaviours to mitigate harms. In the shorter term, industry will update the IGRG Code to extend the BGC’s existing commitment of at least 20% of TV and radio ads space being safer gambling focused to all advertising space across online and broadcast media. Once appropriate campaigns and messaging are developed, the Commission will consult on further requirements for gambling operators to engage with and apply the new messaging appropriately alongside product-based information in order to inform and empower consumers. The evidence suggests it would be beneficial to develop systematic messaging, independent from industry, to maximise the information available to consumers and enable them to make informed decisions with a better understanding of the risks. Most respondents, including those within the industry, recognised the need for safer gambling messaging to go beyond a vague ‘play responsibly’ message.
We propose therefore that these machines are allowed to stay in unrestricted areas in licensed and unlicensed FECs, and other premises including but not limited to pubs and travelling fairs. This change will not only strengthen the existing voluntary commitment from industry, by making it an offence to allow under-18s to play this type of gaming machine, it will also level the field between operators who are signed up to the voluntary code and those who are not. However, due to the lack of substantive research or evidence clearly identifying harms resulting from general Category D machines, we do not support a ban on children accessing other Category D machines, such as those that pay out in tickets, crane grabbers or coin pushers. As set out in the white paper, we believe that a more precautionary approach is justified for slot-style games which mirror the mechanics of adult-only gaming machines, particularly those which pay out cash. Whilst there are some forms of indirect cashless payment methods under the current framework, as well as ATMs near some gambling locations, the lack of future-proofing for payment methods does risk a real decline in gaming machine GGY.
- The vast majority of responses stated that specific safer gambling messaging should be considered within cashless gambling.
- Up to 40% of the UK population watches live Premier League coverage, meaning that reducing the visibility of gambling sponsors should result in a meaningful reduction in exposure to gambling branding for millions of children and adults alike.
- For customers who are aged 18 to 24, the maximum they can stake per game cycle for online slots is £2.
- Many of the measures proposed within this consultation are modernising measures which are intended to support the land-based gambling industry to thrive sustainably.
- It also highlighted that inflexible funding negatively impacts ‘the Commission’s ability to ensure consumers are protected from … new risks’.
- Bonus terms have been completely overhauled under the UK casino regulations 2026.
They collect fees for applications and annual renewals to cover the costs of gambling licensing and enforcement (and the fees can only be used for such costs). We do not propose that these machines should be required to be moved to an age-restricted area. We propose to move the voluntary commitment into legislation, introducing a legal age limit of 18 on Category D ‘cash-out’ slot-style machines. To achieve this, we are consulting on options for amending the 80/20 rule to a new requirement that 50 percent of machines must be Category C or D. This included a number of measures to adjust outdated regulatory restrictions applying to the land-based gambling sector.
In the years following the enactment of the Gaming Act, the UK witnessed a gradual rise in the number of licensed casinos across the country. As a result of the Gaming Act of 1968, the landscape of gambling in the UK underwent significant transformation, marking a shift towards a more regulated and controlled industry. Among the stringent measures implemented were protocols to curb criminal activities and maintain the integrity of games, such as thorough background checks on both casino operators and staff.
Conversely, a number of think tanks and campaigners have proposed far more expansive SCV solutions, involving the pooling of every customer’s online and potentially offline play data for analysis by an independent public body which flags concerns and directs operator interventions. As part of the trial, codes of practice are being developed to ensure operators respond appropriately when they are notified of customers in this situation. While supportive in principle, industry initially had concerns regarding potential data protection and privacy implications. For example, a person showing signs or disclosing that their gambling is out of control could have their account closed by one operator doing the right thing to prevent harm, but within minutes they could have a new account with a different operator and a ‘blank slate’.
We would also like machines that use the BGC’s Anonymous Player Awareness System (APAS) to implement these limits and for APAS not to act as a substitute for these thresholds. Furthermore, the average stake size on B1 machines is similar to the stake size on B3 machines and therefore we do not think that the mandatory limits should be different between the different categories. In line with their responses to other questions, the pub sector did not want these limits to apply to Category D crane grab machines.
Financial risk checks and affordability: what players should expect
For example, wagering requirements, sometimes called ‘re-wagering’ requirements, are a common feature of bonus offers in the gambling sector, whereby customers have to stake bonus funds a number of times (potentially adding some of their own money) before being permitted to withdraw any winnings. However, we encourage land-based operators to consider any use they make of targeted monetary or free bet bonuses and their purpose and we will continue to monitor whether there is a case for any further restrictions. Loyalty schemes in land-based venues are also a way of encouraging account-based play, meaning that a ban on them could have the unintended consequence of reducing the amount of available data on player behaviour. They emphasise that land-based play allows for close oversight of customers to ensure that bonuses are issued responsibly. In the majority of casinos, targeted offers are often through loyalty programmes that are open to everyone, with higher tier memberships offering higher value rewards. The schemes are intrinsic to high-end casinos’ business models, and the benefits tend to emphasise building a luxury experience rather than monetary rewards and free bets designed to be staked.
In addition, the current GGY derived from betting in casinos where it is permitted, is very small. However, at this stage we do not know precisely what these costs will be, as we do not have any evidence on how casinos will respond to this. All casinos to be permitted to offer sports betting. We would not non gamstop permit betting in Scottish 1968 Act casinos until Scottish Ministers have had the opportunity to consider what (if any) restrictions or protections they would like to put in place by way of amendments to the Mandatory and Default Conditions Regulations. While permitting betting in 1968 Act casinos is not a reserved matter, as outlined above, we intend to impose a limit on the number of SSBTs that can be made available in a casino.
Players in the UK pay no gambling tax on winnings, one of the few places in the world where that is still true. UK gambling laws include strict measures to protect players and encourage responsible gambling. Separate licences cover software suppliers and the key individuals who run the business.
Subject to all of the above, in accordance with the licensing authority’s policy statement published under section 349 of the Act. In accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Commission under section 25 (this section requires the Commission to issue guidance on how licensing authorities should exercise their functions, and the principles they should apply in doing so); In England and Wales, the licensing authority is the local authority, whereas in Scotland it is the licensing board.
UKGC licence is current, the responsible-gambling tools are properly integrated, and the affordability checks kick in at the regulated thresholds without making routine play feel surveilled. UKGC licence is current, GAMSTOP is integrated, and the responsible-gambling controls are properly placed. UKGC licence is current and the responsible-gambling tools are properly integrated.
The Gambling Act 2005 creates specific offences around inviting children and young persons to gamble, including sending gambling advertising to them or bringing gambling information to their attention to encourage gambling. The UKGC emphasises that providing gambling facilities to Great Britain consumers without a licence, or a valid exemption, is illegal. Suitability is a core part of the licensing decision and continues through compliance work after a licence is granted. Applicants face significant disclosure requirements covering ownership, management, finances, and operating model, including technical, AML, and safer-gambling controls. Remote gambling in the UK is divided into specific licence categories rather than covered by a single all-purpose remote licence.
Gambling harms can wreck lives, impact families and communities, and even lead to suicide in extreme cases. Gambling in its variety of forms is a popular pastime in Great Britain, with nearly half of all adults participating in at least one form (including the National Lottery) each month. Having a strong regulator with the powers and resources needed to oversee an increasingly high-tech industry is essential to ensuring this. To help ensure that, I encourage all of those with an interest in gambling regulation to continue working with us as we refine the ideas, consult on specifics, and deliver real change. Great Britain has been seen as a world leader in the oversight of gambling, with our comparatively low problem gambling rate but internationally successful gambling sector.
Check our Top UK Casino List for expert recommendations.What payment methods are available at UK online casinos? Popular titles include Starburst, Gates of Olympus, and Megaways slots from providers like Big Time Gaming and Pragmatic Play.Who regulates online casinos in the UK? All the casinos we recommend hold a licence from the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC).
Recent Comments