Compliance
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.
Economic and fiscal impact of gambling reform
Regulator data shows that there is broadly a good standard of compliance with the existing advertising regulations. Many outdoor media owners therefore apply a ‘100 metre rule’, meaning they will not place certain ads, for example those that promote age-restricted products such as gambling, alcohol or e-cigarettes, within 100 metres of a school boundary. It also requires mandatory inclusion of safer gambling messaging, and has been updated to include the use of adtech to ensure social media ads are only targeted to users aged 25 and over where age verification is not in place, and that ads do not appear where keyword searches suggest vulnerability. The Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP), which set the rules which the ASA enforces, maintain and periodically update a dedicated broadcast and non-broadcast code (which also applies to out-of-home advertising, such as posters and billboards) for gambling and lotteries products. However, the continual growth of gambling marketing since 2005 has not resulted in an increase in gambling participation rates, which were higher overall prior to the Act’s implementation, or in population problem gambling rates which have remained broadly stable.
Additionally, it advises the government and local authorities on various gambling-related issues and may recommend amendments to the current legislative framework. The agency has investigative powers and may prosecute illegal gambling operations. The UKGC has no authority over spread betting, which is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. On 1 October 2013 the National Lottery Commission was abolished, and its responsibilities – including monitoring and regulating the National Lottery – were transferred to the Gambling Commission.
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.
Legal vs. Illegal Forms of Gambling in the UK
With the current evidence base, we do not support the prohibition of all Category D machines such as crane grabbers and coin pushers for under 18s. There is currently no substantive research or evidence clearly identifying harms resulting from general Category D machine play. Based on evidence submitted to the call for evidence we estimate that those that pay out money (known as “cash-out Category D slot machines”) currently account for approximately two thirds of Category D slot style machines. The economic value of FECs, which rely heavily on Category D machines, was highlighted in responses to our call for evidence.
Gambling in other venues
Please provide any evidence you have on the potential harm of implementing Options 1, 2 and 3 on customers. If available, please provide evidence of the potential impact of Options 1, 2 and 3 on the GGY of operators and on the wider gambling sector. A healthier land-based gambling sector, able to compete on a more even basis with similar online gambling opportunities, is likely to support local employment opportunities, regeneration effects and contribute to business rates. We do not currently have sufficient data to estimate the likely uptake of additional Category B machines under each option, nor on how the average GGY per machine will change as a result. In the financial year to 2022, the average GGY per Category B machine (across all licenced land-based venues) was £30,360, compared to £2,030 per Category C machine and £1,350 per Category D machine. Category B machines are significantly more profitable for operators earning considerably higher GGY than Category C and D alternatives.
‘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.
It therefore created local regulators through the 368 licensing authorities of England, Wales and Scotland. The 2005 Act established the Gambling Commission as the dedicated regulator at a national level but it also recognised the potential local impact and importance of gambling. This percentage change in session loss distribution could indicate gamblers’ behaviour changing, with comparatively fewer large session losses on machine games due to the reduced maximum stake limit. The number of betting shops in Great Britain has dropped by 16% from a recent peak of 9,128 in 2012 to 6,219 in March 2022.
Checks will happen in the background against information already available online, so those who are checked will not notice. Betting companies will be required to conduct seamless player protection checks on the highest spending gamblers to check they’re not incurring harmful losses. A new stake limit for online slots will be introduced with the default maximum stake of between £2 and £15 per spin, subject to consultation. The rate will be subject to further consultation, which will take into account factors such as business size, operating costs and problem gambling rates.
Further, the measure will provide evidence on the risks for children in smaller operators’ premises and potentially reduce the number of children gambling illegally in these venues. The licensing authority would have greater powers, for example, to cancel the entitlement to additional gaming machines, vary the permit to change the number of machines allowed or even remove the automatic entitlement to site gaming machines where there is a breach of the code. The Commission suggests introducing a condition to gaming machine entitlements in alcohol licensed premises to control access to gaming casino not on gamestop machines by under 18s.
The cross-industry submission from the Cashless Group cited evidence of technological change and developments in consumer behaviour over recent years to support its argument that enabling cashless payments would meet consumer expectations. If a wider range of games were to be permitted, limits would need to be set on the total number of automated machines to minimise the impact of this change. They propose that new games would be subject to the same player protection measures applied to existing play in casinos. Betting is currently only permitted in 2005 Act casinos, which were intended to offer a wider variety of products as part of the destination casino model. Travel restrictions in the UK and overseas have compounded the impact of COVID-related closures for the high-end casinos, which competes with jurisdictions such as Monaco, Singapore and Macau rather than mainstream British venues.
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.
The greater involvement of UKRI will encourage a multidisciplinary approach to gambling research which will create greater diversity and innovation in knowledge production around gambling. The government, the Gambling Commission, UKRI and the third sector will together work to stimulate interest, capacity and investment in the domestic gambling research field as an area that is attractive and sustainable for researchers. NHS England has also established a new Gambling Harm Clinical Reference Group, providing a forum for sharing learning and best practice across specialist gambling clinics, while providing clinical leadership for the expansion programme under the Long-Term Plan. It will also complement the National Institute of Healthcare Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline on gambling treatment, currently in development, and expected to publish in 2024. The final report is expected in spring and the findings will provide vital evidence to support improvement of current services. The OHID (part of DHSC) is in the process of undertaking a needs assessment of the treatment system in England, looking at both NHS provision and third sector commissioned services.
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).
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.
This entitlement will not be restricted by any space requirements or whether the casino has decided to increase its number of gaming machines under the new regime. Moreover, this measure would bring greater consistency to the different licensing regimes and bring greater parity between the online and land-based casinos. We do not currently have sufficient data to estimate the likely uptake of additional machines by casinos. Finally player protections are in place in casinos to mitigate increased risks of gambling harms. We can also analyse average loss and session length data to consider the possible risks of gambling harm for those customers who increase their gambling participation as a result of these measures.
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.
Last month, the Gambling Commission fined William Hill over £19 million for failures including allowing a customer to spend £23,000 in just 20 minutes. If gambling stops being fun, use one of the free independent services below. Independent UK casino reviews and regulatory guides. NHS-funded assessment and treatment, including the National Problem Gambling Clinic. Independent charity providing safer-gambling information and tools.
Pool betting is different in that there are more individual wagers in play. Fixed odds betting is the most common type of betting on the market. Betting – Betting in the UK comes in the forms of fixed odds betting, pool betting, acting as a betting intermediary and spread betting. UFECs must possess a permit from the presiding local licensing authority.
- However, as set out in the white paper, there are concerns that ‘cash-out’ slot-style machines share similarities with higher stake machines, restricted for adults.
- 1968 Act casinos that have a gambling area of at least 500sqm will be eligible for the same number of machines as permitted in a Small 2005 Act casino.
- Knowing the legal frameworks in both countries is crucial for operators and players alike to make informed decisions.
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.
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.