Online gamblers betting more than £1,000 to face new checks

UK Gambling Laws 2026: Complete Player

There is a higher prevalence of problem gambling among people with poor health, low life satisfaction and wellbeing scores, and the problem gambling rate is higher among more deprived groups than less deprived groups. However, there are limitations to all of these sources including incomplete coverage and lack of detailed information. In particular, it found men were more likely to be experiencing problem gambling than women and that 16 to 24-year-olds had the highest average PGSI score of any age group.

The government understands some of the arguments put forward by industry, particularly about the potential impact on player behaviour if net position and time was permanently on display on the machine. Industry also stated that it is a different environment to online gambling where this information can be displayed at all times without impacting the customer’s privacy or influencing other player’s behaviours. This work could then feed into the messaging that is displayed on machines. This will ensure that the breaks designed to allow customers to make more informed or dispassionate decisions about their gambling are supplemented by safer gambling messaging and not used for any other purposes, such as promotional offers. This research recommended that the use of personalised messaging based on an individual’s own patterns of gambling may be more effective than generic messages.

While the majority of operators were supportive of Option 2(b), one small multi-site operator stated that this option would be commercially detrimental, requiring it to make an additional 12 Category C or D cabinets available to meet this ratio. As with the original consultation, Option 3 continued to be the preferred option for bingo operators. Therefore, under Option 1, we believe there is significant potential for operators to offer predominantly Category B cabinets while meeting their Category C and D ratio through in-fills and tablets. This consultation sought to gather evidence as to how best to achieve our 2 policy objectives. We are particularly concerned that Option 1 may encourage new operators to enter the market with the specific intention of maximising their Category B cabinet offer in this way. Therefore, some respondents argued that Option 3 would be the most sensible long-term approach for securing safer gambling functionality and messaging across these venues.

While estimates vary, data from the Gambling Commission suggests financial limits are only used by 11% of online gamblers (although some evidence submitted to us suggests uptake is higher among higher spenders), and only a small minority make use of other limits like time outs (5%) or reality checks (6%). In our view, the evidence does not currently support stake limits on non-slot gaming or betting products. For instance, the opportunity for data-driven monitoring of online play may justify a higher limit for online products than in relatively anonymous land-based settings.

The knock-on impact of the gambling White Paper on the horseracing industry will be minimal, but there will be a review into the current horserace betting levy to make certain racing continues to be appropriately funded for the future. The call for evidence showed that while millions of people enjoy an occasional bet every year without issue, particular groups such as those suffering addiction and harm, are at greater risk from certain aggressive advertising practices. Without the right support in place gambling can easily become harmful – especially for at-risk players – leading to devastating impacts on people’s savings, relationships and health. But for some people the availability of 24/7 online betting has compounded or created problem gambling, which can lead to life-changing financial loss and in the most tragic cases suicide. Technology has transformed the industry and people can bet 24 hours a day through ‘mobile virtual casinos’ in their pockets.

The number of gaming machines a casino may host depends on its classification. Under Section 20 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Commission replaced the Gaming Board for Great Britain and now has jurisdiction over arcades, betting, bingo, casinos, slot machines, and lotteries. It allowed larger casino establishments to operate with more gaming machines and granted patrons easier access. Benefits to business are increased gross gambling yield for casinos and unquantified benefits to gaming machine suppliers and manufacturers. The Commission has become aware that in some instances, operators who hold a combined non-remote casino licence and betting operating licence, have looked into converting part of their casino premises to betting premises. In Scotland the licensing boards are licensing authorities and continue to have responsibilities for granting permissions for casinos in the form of premises licences.

Working with the Gambling Commission and others, we will now make online gambling safer with an overhaul of game design rules to remove the features known to exacerbate risks, and put new obligations on operators to prevent unchecked and unaffordable spending. By the second quarter of 2025, five online casinos based in Britain shut their virtual doors, listing compliance headaches and higher bills as key reasons. A fresh batch of rules is reshaping the day-to-day running of online casinos in the United Kingdom, bringing big changes for operators and players alike. The proposals were opposed by the gambling industry, including the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association.They also regulate crypto gambling websites and mitigate the risk of money laundering through such sites.

Online gamblers betting more than £1,000 to face new checks

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) is the independent regulator for all commercial gambling in Great Britain and also oversees the National Lottery under the National Lottery etc. The big 2025–26 moves are the 1% statutory levy on operators (from 1 April 2025) and the 40% Remote Gaming Duty (from 1 April 2026), both enacted via the Finance Bill 2025–26. Those changes are being delivered through updates to the Gambling Commission’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) and through the annual Finance Acts, rather than through a new gambling statute.

However, online bingo will still fall under Remote Gaming Duty, and operators must continue to meet Gambling Commission regulations. For players, the levy funds research, prevention, and treatment for gambling harm, so clearer rules help ensure funding is calculated correctly. Following a review, the levy now applies only to gambling revenue generated from Great Britain customers, not income earned from overseas markets. For players, it is intended to ensure machines on the market meet regulatory standards and operate fairly. The goal is to ensure the Commission understands who owns and finances gambling businesses, helping reduce risks linked to crime or financial misconduct.

• Gambling has been a part of British culture for centuries and nowadays, nearly all forms of gambling are legal and fully regulated across the United Kingdom.
• It would also like customers to be able to choose to place a bet when they wish rather than pay for a fixed number of bets up front via the participation fee.
• 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.
• Industry estimates based on previous trials are that between 70% and 90% of customers would not comply with requests for such documents to be shared.

Gaming machines must also have suitable characteristics to mitigate against the risk of gambling-related harm, and these characteristics will be in place for any additional gaming machines. In this instance, a casino with 3 premises licences could theoretically site a maximum of 240 gaming machines, which would not be the policy intention. The introduction of direct forms of cashless payments on gaming machines, subject to suitable safeguards, therefore represents an opportunity to future-proof the land-based gambling industry. These changes would only come into effect if 1968 Act casinos elect to make more than 20 gaming machines (including at least one Category B machine) available to the customer.

These responses also argued that ‘self-regulation’ is too prevalent in gambling advertising and could not be relied upon to reduce harm, particularly with regards to online formats such as social media advertising, affiliates and direct marketing. Recent reforms such as the Gambling Commission’s toughened regulations for VIP schemes or the voluntary suspension of broadcast advertising during the initial COVID-19 lockdown were cited as evidence that the current system is able to respond quickly where new risks emerge or evidence of harm is found. The shift towards online data-driven marketing outlined above is not unique to the gambling sector, and should be considered in the context of the broader digital ecosystem. We welcome industry’s expansion of its commitment to safer gambling messaging to constitute 20% of all advertising across both online and broadcast channels.

Similarly, PHE’s evidence review found no substantial evidence to establish that exposure to advertising is a risk factor for harmful gambling, although this may only indicate a lack of evidence rather than a lack of relationship as PHE only examined systematic review level evidence. We are calling on operators to take existing commitments in the industry code further, and use the full potential of available advertising technology to target all online advertising away from children and vulnerable people and those showing indicators of harm. The Commission will also take forward work to strengthen consent for direct marketing for online gambling, with both new and existing customers given more choice on what offers they want (including requiring consent to ‘cross-selling’ new products) and how marketing is sent to them. Although there are no specific laws preventing customers’ use of cryptoassets to fund gambling, operators may only accept them as payment if they can comply with all Gambling Commission requirements, including anti-money laundering, ‘know your customer,’ and safer gambling measures. Not only is self-exclusion an unsuitable substitute for account closure in most circumstances, but it is also a key proxy for harm used by operators to learn how to identify potentially harmful gambling within play data.

Without greater control for consumers, the negative impacts range from nuisance to casual players to exacerbating harm for those struggling with their gambling, who feel ‘bombarded’ by calls to action from operators. Considering the inherent risks of gambling, we believe there is a case to ensure that operators present bonuses in the most transparent language possible. Responses to our call for evidence which called for not on gamstop restrictions on bonuses were chiefly concerned by the risks posed by online bonusing and schemes. For high-end casinos, rewards can take the form of personal concierge services, including dinners, hospitality and events. To prevent individuals showing strong indicators of harm from being encouraged to gamble, the Gambling Commission recently published new requirements on customer interaction which require operators to prevent these customers from receiving any direct marketing or taking up new bonus offers. Measures to drive future research, including greater use of industry data, are outlined at Section 3.5.

Therefore, the risk of increased gambling harm is assumed to be higher for Options 1 and 3 than Option 2. Although the data on mixed sessions creates some uncertainty, we conclude that overall, Category B machines lead to higher losses than Category C or D machines. This suggests a higher risk of unaffordable spending on Category B machines. On the other hand, the data shows that a substantially higher proportion of sessions on Category B machines ended in a loss over £200, compared to Category C, Category D and mixed machines.

In addition to these regulatory requirements, specific steps have been taken to prevent and treat gambling harm in children and young people. Category D also includes crane grab machines and penny pushers typically found in seaside family entertainment centres. To increase protections, the Commission will consult on lower thresholds for online financial risk checks when these are set, and our consultation on online slot stakes will include options for extra protections for this group (see Chapter 1).

Call for evidence respondents provided a number of proposals for how the uptake of these tools could be increased in Great Britain. This has been supported by research by the Australian government Behavioural Economics team which found proactive sharing of activity statements, presented in a user-friendly format, could help customers spend less. A study of Norwegian gamblers found 34% accessed an activity statement when notified it was available, while another study found as few as 10% of Australian gamblers had done so (although they are not consistently available on Australian gambling platforms). Similarly, when presented with a free text box which encouraged reflection, the average deposit limit set by customers fell by 46%. For example, financial limits are the most widely used tool but can be set at levels which are clearly far beyond the means of most gamblers and therefore unlikely to mitigate harm. We have conducted our own estimate, and project that a universal limit set at £8.50 (as the midpoint in our consultation) would reduce online slots GGY by between £135 million and £185 million.

This is outlined in Gambling Commission licence conditions, and the broader requirements under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) and UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — both enforced by the ICO. To reduce the potential risks of bonus offers, the Gambling Commission will consult further on appropriate action, considering issues such as maximum caps on wagering requirements and minimum time limits before offers expire. However, re-wagering requirements are still often set at high thresholds — for example, a bonus of £10 with a 50x wagering requirement requires the customer to bet £500, and the funds, including any winnings, can often expire after a given time limit — often as brief as seven days. Operators told us such schemes in land-based venues are important because they improve the customer experience which is inherent to their business model. These are typically low value, using loyalty schemes with no personalised account management; for instance, ‘Best Odds Guaranteed’, ‘Acca Boost’ or ‘Fail to Finish’ promotions which allow customers to get money back if a horse fails to finish. In bingo and adult gaming centres, promotions generally consist of small scale incentives/ rewards such as introductory offers for new products, free teas and coffees, or free games.

Some respondents used this section of the consultation to further highlight their opposition to the minimum table gaming area requirement. • Lobby areas and toilet facilities may be taken into account but the non-gambling area shall not consist exclusively of lobby areas and toilet facilities. • Facilities for gambling cannot be provided in the non-gambling area.

Box 16: Westminster City Council’s proposed new gambling policy statement

Responses from licensing authorities to the call for evidence focused more on powers than on raising the maximum fees which can be charged for premises licences. For example, Westminster City Council recently published a comprehensive policy statement that uses a range of evidence to specify those parts of its licensing area which are particularly vulnerable to gambling-related harm. As outlined above, the Gambling Act does provide licensing authorities with a wide range of powers to assess and set out the risks in their local areas as well as the ability to attach conditions to premises licences to manage these risks.

Each should have its own casino premises licence and its own principal entrance from a street, and it must not be possible to enter one of them from other gambling premises. Currently, a number of 1968 Act casinos operate more than one premises licence at the same physical location. Allowing 1968 casinos to increase their machine offering above their current allowance of 20 could result in greater customer willingness to take breaks, which will likely increase reflection and reduce risk. The rules have also incentivised holders of multiple 1968 Act casino licences to operate them as separate entities in the same premises for the purpose of increasing machine numbers.

As the Commission has set out, experience has shown that such applicants are normally unable to provide complete and satisfactory evidence to answer the questions used to determine applications, including those to assess whether criminal activity has been a source of funds. Similar issues have been raised by the Commission in relation to operating licence applicants seeking to use cryptoassets as evidence of source of funds. The volatility of cryptoasset prices may also impede safer gambling measures, including setting financial limits and identifying unaffordable gambling, and can effectively create a double unknown where the theoretical value of the stake fluctuates alongside the actual bet. Operators must declare to the Commission any changes to the payment options (including cryptoassets) through which they accept deposits and provide assurance this would not pose any risks to compliance. This will include further reinforcement on the due diligence checks necessary to mitigate risks to the licensing objectives. To ensure all licensees fully understand their responsibilities when entering into such arrangements, the Gambling Commission will consolidate existing information and good practice for operators on contracting with third parties, including white labels.