Gambling Act 2005
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, 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.
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 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.
When the 2005 Act was passed, licensees under the 1968 Act could apply to convert those permissions into premises licences under the 2005 Act. The sections below set out some of the main features of land-based gambling settings alongside an explanation of the rules and particular characteristics of that type of gambling activity. In principle, subject to privacy requirements, they could also provide a central architecture which would allow operators to track play and bring in safer gambling measures. Apps are also available which allow customers to pay for machine games indirectly via a debit card or bank transfer, while keeping track of their spend. There is less scope for monitoring via account-based play, which can help to protect consumers, than in online settings as considered in Chapter 1 above.
DHSC is working with NHS Digital to enhance the NHS ‘Help for problems with gambling’ webpage as part of its response to the report. This, they argue, can help make safer gambling tools and interventions as appealing and frictionless as the gambling products themselves. 38% reported they were trying to ‘tap out’ before placing a bet and 24% reported that they were actively using ‘tapping out’ to help cut down on their gambling. Some respondents also argued that current narratives, particularly ‘play responsibly’ messaging, could stigmatise those experiencing harm and transfer responsibility to prevent harm from the operator to the individual. While GamCare’s Industry Code for the Display of Safer Gambling Information has improved standards for the display of information on operators’ own websites, there is not an equivalent standard in place for the display of messaging in advertising. Good practice guidance and mandatory inclusion of safer gambling messages in broadcast ads are set out in the IGRG Code, and Betting and Gaming Council members are required to dedicate 20% of broadcast advertising to safer gambling adverts.
- Responses from industry advocated for either no increase in the maximum chargeable premises fees or a small increase of 10%.
- In making this recommendation we recognise the potential advantages that 1968 Act casinos may have over Small 2005 Act casinos that elect to move to the new regime, in terms of Schedule 9 payments and the portability of licences.
- There was some emphasis on cashless gambling and acknowledgement of arguments both against and in favour of allowing greater use of debit card payments.
- Making the Gambling Commission’s code of practice for alcohol licensed premises binding would provide licensing authorities with greater powers on underage gambling in premises, but we do not expect it to create an additional burden for them.
Should card account verification (such as chip and PIN or Face ID on mobile payment systems) be required if direct cashless payments are permitted on gaming machines? Therefore, the government’s position is to consult on what principles and player protections should be put in place to support any relaxation of the rules around playing gaming machines with a debit card. Permitting cashless in a targeted way, for example allowing debit cards to be used to pay for particular types of gaming machines or machines in certain types of venues, would not provide clarity on the principles and player protections required within a cashless framework.
3 Gambling Commission’s approach to the unlicensed sector
This tax was abolished with the general reform of the gambling acts. Many bookmakers such as 888sport, Betfair, Ladbrokes and William Hill have offshore operations but these are largely for overseas customers since no tax is due on winnings of bets in the UK. The major part of these gamblers was represented by those playing the National Lottery online. According to the survey conducted by the Gambling Commission, as of March 2010, 10.7% of the 8,000 adults surveyed said they had participated in at least one form of remote gambling in the previous 4 weeks. Until the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 off-course betting in person was illegal, but bets by telephone were legal since this was not considered, by the letter of the law, « resorting to a house kept for the purpose of betting ».
Licensees should also consider whether any other exemptions to data subject rights (such as those set out in Schedule 2 of the draft Bill) may apply. The processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party (except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data)5. Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contractiii. GDPR provides for a number of lawful circumstances which are designed to allow legitimate processing in circumstances where non gamstop sites it may be not practical to acquire consent, and to ensure that public policy objectives (such as the reduction of problem gambling) are met.
Football Index was a novel betting platform that allowed customers to place bets on the future performance of footballers. In recent years, some products have started to blur the boundaries between gambling and investments or operators have marketed their platforms in such a way. Surrender of a licence means that an operator whose actions were causing concern is no longer able to offer services to customers in Great Britain, which may address the principal concern. In particular, it is concerned that licence holders are able to take action that can hinder or frustrate an investigation, including surrendering their licence during the course of the investigation.
Chapter 5: Review of licensing authority fees
The remaining third are known as “ticket-out Category D slot machines” and are limited to a 30p stake and the equivalent of a prize worth up to £8. There are two types of Category D slot style machines, those that pay out winnings as money, and those that pay out tickets. A similar conclusion was reached by the House of Lords Select Committee, which noted that banning children from using Category D machines could have a “devastating impact on individuals, businesses and communities”. Category D machines include a diverse range of low stake and prize machines such as coin pushers, crane grabs and slot style machines (also known as fruit style machines).
Any remote gambling operators that kept all their equipment, facilities, etc. offshore were exempt from applying for a licence. Before this act, remote operators were only required to obtain an English licence if they had at least one piece of remote gambling equipment located within UK borders. Residents can access multiple domestic and offshore entities for casino gambling, poker and sports betting.
Consultation responses included views from industry, academics, treatment providers and individuals. Responding to evidence, a lower level stake limit for young adults aged years old will be set at £2 per spin. In August 2026, a survey conducted by GamblingNews.uk found that 68% of Brits believe bookmakers sometimes « use anti-money laundering and responsible gambling checks as pretexts to void winning bets or delay payouts ».
We intend to take a similar approach by giving the Gambling Commission the power to apply to court for such an order and use these powers to disrupt illegal gambling operators. In the most serious instances of non-compliance or risks of harm, Ofcom will also have the power to apply to the courts for “business disruption measures”. The Gambling Commission, as well as evidence from the Review, has shown that unlicensed sites pose an increased risk to the most vulnerable consumers. The black market is relatively easy for people to access who are actively trying to find and gamble with illegal operators online. From the limited evidence that is available, we would assume that the size of the black market does not currently account for more than 2.5% of remote gambling that takes place in Great Britain. The Danish Gambling Authority’s 2022 Report on illegal gambling estimates that the online gambling channelisation rate (the percentage of all gambling that takes place legally) is 98% in Great Britain and therefore the black market accounts for 2% of online gambling.
On balance, we do not believe that it is proportionate to mandate that ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines be moved to age-restricted areas. Industry responses highlighted that it is disproportionate to require that these machines be moved to an age-restricted area for 2 key reasons. The majority of these responses came from industry operators. Twenty-two per cent of respondents stated that these machines should not be placed in age-restricted areas. The rationale most commonly expressed for the movement of these machines into age-restricted areas was to increase the effectiveness of staff monitoring. Sixty-seven per cent of respondents to this chapter of the consultation stated that ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines should be required to move to an age-restricted area.
We cannot predict the extent to which data sharing will influence the impact of financial checks at this stage since key implementation details are still subject to consultation (e.g. the data shared and the triggers for sharing it). Similarly, we assume CRAs can provide frictionless enhanced checks for 80% of customers who hit the enhanced spending check thresholds, with half the remainder subject to semi-agreeable checks (e.g. open banking) and the other half (10% of all those who hit the higher thresholds) subject to disagreeable checks. However, many people will simply complete the checks and no concerns would be raised, so for those individuals (as long as they are not showing other signs of harm) spending would not necessarily decrease. We used this as the best available data, but are aware that some features of the market have changed since 2019 (e.g. new player protections). The data underlying our modelling is the data tables produced as part of the Patterns of Play (PoP) research.
The Gaming Act 1968 restricted casinos to “permitted areas” based on population density and seaside resorts. This spend information is not currently provided to operators, but customers can use a range of safer gambling interventions on the apps themselves. In general, there is an element of staff supervision and intervention in land-based venues which can help to identify and support people suffering gambling harms. This appears to be driven by a return to in person gambling activities, particularly lotteries, fruit and slot machines, horse racing and bingo. Licensing authorities have a wide range of powers under the 2005 Act to refuse or place conditions on applications for gambling premises licences where there is cause for concern, and we fully support use of these powers.
The proposal to offer up unused casino licences for reallocation has the potential to bring economic benefits to communities where a casino would add value to their area as a destination. Some licences within permitted areas remain dormant as operators do not consider that there is sufficient demand. The proposal is also expected to lead to casino experiences being more in line with international gaming jurisdictions, potentially elevating the reputation of Great Britain as a gaming destination for international tourists. The proposal is expected to contribute to customer enjoyment by better matching the demand and supply of machines, and to player protection by encouraging players to take breaks in the knowledge that it is much more likely a machine will be available if they want to return. While significant changes can be made through secondary legislation, we may also consider whether changes are required to simplify the system of casino licences, when Parliamentary time allows. The Gambling Commission’s review of gaming machine technical standards will be relevant here and is described in more detail in the following section.
We intend to place some restrictions on the number of SSBTs to avoid a scenario in which the product offering becomes unbalanced and a large number of these machines are sited in a relatively small gambling area. Where a machine is made available to take bets on virtual races, it is classified as a gaming machine and would therefore count towards the maximum permitted number of such machines. The authorisations required may include a remote betting operating licence (required if customers are to be able to bet via Self-Service Betting Terminals), as well as a non-remote betting operating licence. The white paper proposed that all casinos should have the ability to offer betting, should they wish to do so. Sportsbooks are also a common expectation for international visitors, and permitting betting in 1968 Act casinos would bring Britain’s casino product offering in line with other jurisdictions.
Particular concern was raised in some submissions to the call for evidence that free bets or other promotional offers might encourage harmful engagement with gambling both in the present, and following a period of abstinence, and this was reflected in some of the most robust evidence available. Online gambling operators, like many other technology firms, have developed sophisticated means of segmenting their audience and keeping key customers engaged. The same study found a similar but much less pronounced trend for other advertising (influencing 3% of the ‘non-problem/low-risk’ group versus 9% of the ‘moderate/problem’ group), indicating the particular risk posed by direct marketing to those who are experiencing harm from their gambling.
While we anticipate that many casinos of a suitable size will take up the option to increase their gaming machine allowances under these proposals, we are aware that some casinos will not want to site more than 20 gaming machines. Under the increased gaming machine allowances that we propose, if a venue held multiple premises licences, it could theoretically gain access to 80 gaming machines per licence. In these instances, the parent premises may be adjoined by an ‘electric casino’ that consists largely of gaming machines with a very limited table offer. As set out in the white paper, the availability of gaming machines in British casinos is also very low compared to international jurisdictions, and an increase will help to meet the expectations of overseas visitors.
Additionally, the Commission’s research into why consumers gamble found that of the 14% of past month gamblers who reported binge gambling, 24% had done so on online slots — more than any other gambling activity, including online casino games (Figure 7 below). Some industry respondents viewed these as poorly targeted as they would apply to all consumers, including those not experiencing harm, so advocated for a greater emphasis on protections targeted towards individual accounts showing signs of risk. We therefore see merit in reducing the reliance on account-based harm reduction systems through universal measures to make the online gambling environment safer for all participants, with a particular focus on the products themselves and how they are designed. For operators, clearer obligations and greater confidence in the identity of the account user will support more effective prevention of harm, while closing off compliance risks around the prevention of illegal underage gambling and anti-money laundering due diligence.
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.
CIAs for alcohol licensing also cannot include considerations of demand, which would be consistent with section 153(2) of the Gambling Act 2005. An option suggested by licensing authorities and the Gambling Commission was to introduce cumulative impact assessments (CIAs) as used in the Licensing Act 2003, which created CIAs for alcohol licensing. 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.
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.
At the heart of our Review is making sure that we have the balance right between consumer freedoms and choice on the one hand, and protection from harm on the other. We received around 16,000 submissions to our Call for Evidence, and ministers and officials have held hundreds of meetings with a huge range of stakeholders to inform a package of policies which will make our gambling laws fit for the digital age. Our aim is to ensure our gambling regulation meets the challenges and seizes the opportunities which have come with the changes since the Gambling Act 2005 was passed. Punters who bet more than £1,000 online in a 24-hour window will have to undergo an assessment, the regulator says.
Last modified: 05/08/2026
