Figure 20: Gaming machine types including stakes, prizes, location and speed of play

What we regulate

We propose to introduce a stake limit for online slots, consulting on a limit of between £2 and £15 per spin, to structurally limit the risks of harmful play. The Gambling Commission intends to consult on mandating participation in a cross-operator harm prevention system based on data sharing, following assessment of the currently live operator trials which have had input from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Commission. Individual operators can take steps to prevent harm on their own platform but people suffering gambling harms usually hold multiple accounts or can open new ones easily. Further information will only be requested from customers as a last resort where it is necessary to complete an assessment, and the use of any data gathered through such checks will be restricted to assessing financial risk and indicators of financial distress.

The high-end casinos are not distinct in legislation, and all have licences based on the 1968 Act; but their business model is very distinct in practice from that of most casinos in Great Britain and gaming machines contribute just 1% of their GGY compared with 20% to 30% in mainstream casinos. In support of its case for additional machines, the industry provided evidence that the current low availability of machines can in fact increase the risk of gambling-related harm, as customers play for longer on machines due to fear of losing their place. Gaming machines are permitted in a variety of locations, including casinos, licensed betting offices, licensed bingo premises, adult gaming centres and family entertainment centres and members clubs. Alcohol licensed premises, including pubs, are also able to offer two Category C and D gaming machines in reliance on their alcohol licence, or more if they apply to the licensing authority. Where casinos whose licence originates in the Gaming Act 1968 meet the requirements of a 2005 Act Small casino, including for size and non-gambling space, they will be eligible for the same gaming machine allowance and we will align fees and mandatory premises licence conditions as appropriate.

There are more than 150 casinos in the UK, and the number of online licenses is growing rapidly, now exceeding 2,000. Gambling Laws and Regulations 2025 common issues in gambling laws and regulations – including relevant authorities and legislation, application for a licence, licence restrictions, digital media, enforcement and liability – in 40 jurisdictions. Similarly, the benefits are likely to be greater for larger operators as they are more likely to have the physical space and financial ability to invest in new machines. Whilst there is no legal duty on gambling operators to protect customers funds in the event of insolvency, many of them do so voluntarily. These rules will take good practice already offered by some operators and expand that so customers can expect the same standards across the industry. Gaming machines like slots, fruit machines and betting terminals are commonplace in the UK nowadays but they do require licenses to operate.

Other evidence suggests adolescents have a greater risk tolerance compared to older adults and this may be reflected in their attitudes towards gambling specifically. PHE’s evidence review highlights a higher problem gambling and at risk rate among younger age groups than older age groups. 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. In their submissions to the review, representatives of the pub sector outlined a number of steps they are taking to address this, including regular staff training and building age verification into the machines themselves to reduce the reliance on staff supervision. However, due to the exemption, the Gambling Commission currently has an incomplete picture of the risks from underage gambling in premises run by smaller licensees. There have been calls from both industry and  campaign groups to introduce ‘Think 25’ as standard for all land-based gambling, a position shared by the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling (ABSG) in its 2018 report which pointed to findings from the retail alcohol industry.

Figure 20: Gaming machine types including stakes, prizes, location and speed of play

The LCCP imposes extensive obligations upon licensees in, amongst others, the fields of social responsibility, anti-money laundering and the prevention of terrorist financing, consumer fairness and transparency, responsible advertising and obligations to comply with various technical standards that apply in respect of both non-remote and remote forms of gambling. It is important to note that this instrument does not extend to Northern Ireland, where legislation based on the Gaming Act 1968 (namely the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (NI) Order 1985 (as amended by the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022)) continues to apply. Local authorities (for Premises Licences).Sports/horse race betting (if regulated separately to other forms of betting)As above.As above.Fantasy betting (payment to back a ‘league’ or ‘portfolio’ selection over a period of time, for example in relation to sport)As above.As above.LotteriesLotteriesThe Gambling Commission.The Gambling Commission (for Operating Licences). It is free to use and one of the most effective responsible gambling tools available to UK players.

The Review has not seen data which robustly quantifies behavioural nudges or barriers in the online gambling sector, so it is difficult to estimate how much they may drive consumer spending/ revenue that would not have otherwise happened, or the impact of any changes. For instance, a recent audit of online operator platforms by the Behavioural Insights team found 8 of the top 10 GB operators stated a minimum account balance was required for customers to withdraw their funds. This approach assumes that those using self-exclusion facilities do so to manage harmful gambling, as opposed to things like marketing and / or data processing preferences. Several specific areas of concern were identified in responses, including how the design of online gambling platforms (the so called ‘choice architecture’) can make it difficult to access tools or information intended to support consumers to make informed and safer decisions about their gambling.

• The Gambling Commission continues to keep this area under review and will not hesitate to take action if there is evidence of standards slipping.
• It will be designed to improve standards where gambling sponsorship is prevalent in sport similar to what is in place in the alcohol industry.
• For example, some operators allow customers to stake an additional amount via a tablet on certain numbers being called, with those numbers randomly allocated rather than chosen by the customer.
• A number of submissions to our call for evidence highlighted the relationship between horse racing and gambling, including the importance of the horserace betting levy for maintaining the sport.

The main piece of legislation that regulates both land-based and online casinos in the UK is the Gambling Act, passed in 2005 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In the following sections, we will examine the legislation concerning casinos in the United Kingdom, an industry that now generates more than £3.2 billion in gross gaming yield. As noted above, from 1 May 2025, operators may only directly market to customers that have consented to marketing on a granular per product (i.e., casino, bingo, betting) and per channel (i.e., SMS, email) basis. The IA should, however, provide a more robust, balanced assessment of societal costs because of the risk of increased gambling harm, as well as providing more narrative on international evidence. Costs to business include for familiarisation, and purchasing and implementing additional gaming machines. The package is intended to modernise the rules that apply to casinos and to help the sector to grow, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards against gambling-related harm are in place.

Where these background checks fail to provide sufficient assurance that the account holder is of legal age, operators are required to have alternative age verification methods in place, which could involve requesting documentation. Some campaign groups called for even stronger online age verification measures, such as requiring ID document photos for all accounts or mandatory video calls on account creation. The largest football pools operator already prevents under 18s from creating an online account and supports increasing the minimum age to 18.

Where dispute resolution processes between a customer and operator in relation to a social responsibility complaint are not successful, the primary route for individual customers to seek independent adjudication and redress is through the courts. In these circumstances, customers sometimes report their complaint to the Gambling Commission as the sector’s regulator. Therefore, where a complaint relates to whether the operator complied with the Gambling Commission’s social responsibility requirements to prevent harm, it is out of scope of ADR provision. Licensees’ obligations around preventing harm, which are set out in the LCCP or Gambling Commission guidance, are not generally part of terms and conditions and so do not form part of the contract between non gamstop sites a customer and licensee. The current ADR system is based on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations of 2015, which originate from the EU Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive of 2013. Where cases have a value not exceeding £10,000 (the threshold for the small claims court), it is expected that ADR rulings will be binding on operators (if accepted by the customer).

Research from Professor Ian McHale commissioned by the English Football League (EFL), which is sponsored by Sky Bet, looked at data from the Health Surveys and the Gambling Commission’s Young People and Gambling Survey, as well as a YouGov survey of football fans. The evidence we have seen on sport sponsorship indicates that it does have a level of impact on gambling behaviour, although this may not be as marked as for other forms of marketing addressed in this chapter. A more varied and targeted approach to public health messaging also has the potential to address specific high-risk audiences, for example young adults who are getting used to new levels of financial independence at the same time as gambling has become available to them (explored further in section 5.4 below). DHSC, DCMS and the Gambling Commission will work together, drawing on public health and social marketing expertise, to develop a robust approach to informational messaging throughout the user journey, replacing industry owned safer gambling messaging. The Prevention of Future Deaths report issued following the inquest into the suicide of Jack Ritchie identified a lack of adequate information on gambling harm and signposting to support as an area for action. Safety messaging on gambling-related harms should be led by statutory bodies, drawing on relevant public health expertise, ensuring impartiality and rigorous evaluation.

Under the point-of-consumption approach, overseas operators whose remote facilities are used in Great Britain, with knowledge or constructive knowledge, must either become UKGC-licensed or prevent access from Great Britain to avoid committing an offence. The next sections cover when the licence requirement triggers, the categories of remote licence available, and what the application process actually involves. The UKGC is the independent regulator of commercial gambling in Great Britain. In late 2025, the UKGC announced further alignment of the LCCP with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, including updates to consumer protection references and ADR-related changes. Finance Act 2014 and related duty legislation reformed several gambling duties to apply on a place-of-consumption basis for remote activity, which interacts with the regulatory regime by increasing fiscal incentives to monitor Great Britain-facing remote operations.

5 Licensing authorities: powers and resources

The 2014 Act changed the licensing requirements so that any company wishing to advertise gambling and take bets from consumers in England, Wales, or Scotland must hold a licence issued by the Gambling Commission. Whilst, those operators who wish to advertise their services in England, Wales, or Scotland, but are based outside the country, have to obtain a licence from the Gambling Commission following the passage of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014. For remote gambling, the Commission issues licences to those operators whose remote gambling equipment is located in the territory of Great Britain.

The regulator has indicated that it may be less inclined to “settle” regulatory enforcement actions, particularly where operators have been made the subject of prior regulatory enforcement action, leaning towards the imposition of sanctions and penalties or, in more serious cases, suspensions and revocations of licences. An “economic crime levy” is payable by entities that are regulated for anti-money laundering purposes (currently only casinos in the UK) and which generate more than £10.2 million in UK revenue. 15% of the commission charges charged by betting exchanges to users who are UK citizens Eligibility for a British gambling licence depends upon the Gambling Commission’s assessment of a variety of factors, primarily the integrity and probity of the applicant and the applicant’s ability to conduct gambling in a solvent and responsible manner in compliance with law and regulation.

It has also argued that as bingo games are required to have a participation fee which creates a retention pot for future winners, operators are constrained in offering further choice of side bets within their session. While the pay-out per game can be variable, the participation fees create a pot in retained prize fees should multiple customers win. These additional games are compliant with current rules of bingo in that they require participation in the main game of bingo and the numbers are allocated to the customers. Licensed bingo operators already offer in-game bonus prize opportunities under current rules defining bingo. While there is an initial outlay, we believe this gives operators some flexibility on late night opening and falls within the discretion of local authorities, ensuring decisions are made at a local level.

One effect of the amendments made by the 2025 regulations is to make it clear that only gaming tables controlled or operated by casino staff can qualify as a gaming table for the purposes of calculating gaming machine allowances. 5.—(1) The condition specified in this regulation is attached to each remote casino operating licence, including remote casino operating licences issued before this regulation comes into force. Find out how to comply with your anti-money laundering (AML) responsibilities if you’re operating a gambling business in the regulated sector (remote and non-remote casinos).

To install three or more machines, the holder of an alcohol licence (for consumption on the premises) must obtain a Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permit (LPGMP) from the local authority. A premises licence holder in Scotland is entitled to install up to two machines once the proper notice (Licensed Premises Notification (LPN)) has been given and fee paid to the local authority. These limits apply where any machines offered are Category B. Nearly all machines in casinos are Category B1, which has a maximum stake of £5 and is restricted to casinos only. Despite this, the land-based sector has a significantly larger workforce than online gambling, and in the Gambling Commission’s industry statistics published in May 2020, it was estimated to employ approximately 80,500 people.

This Act applies to both remote and non-remote gambling conditions and has received approval from HM Treasury. It serves as the regulatory agency for all gambling operations in the UK. The Gambling Commission is responsible for administering and enforcing the Gambling Act 2005, which is the primary legislation regulating most forms of gambling in the country. The Gambling Commission’s guidance for licensing authorities.

Its proceeds will be ring-fenced for funding for research, education and treatment, including through the NHS. As it stands not all betting companies pay their fair share and some have paid as little as £1. The first statutory gambling operator levy will replace the current voluntary levy which is not fit for purpose.

Changes and effects yet to be applied to the whole Act associated Parts and Chapters:

Gaming Machines – The GA 2005 defines gaming machines as a machine designed for use by individuals to gamble. Licensing credentials are strict regarding small versus large venue distinctions, how many gaming machines can be present and more. The effects of this helped keep casinos and other gambling operators in check with new technologies.

There were mixed views on casinos’ ability to hold multiple licences at the same physical location. More respondents were opposed than in favour, but this largely stemmed from those who are opposed to any increases in the supply of gambling opportunities, rather than operators and industry stakeholders. It was proposed that the requirements would form part of a new regime that operators would have the option of moving onto, taking up a new gaming machine entitlement under the new rules. Subsequent discussions with industry have indicated that this would equate to the majority of casinos in practice.

Cryptocurrencies facilitate faster transactions, appealing to tech-savvy customers and ensuring smoother payment processes. Blockchain technology and cryptocurrency add layers of transparency and security to the industry. Players seek convenient access, leading to the proliferation of apps and platforms offering seamless gaming experiences. Introducing stricter regulations, including meticulous age and identity verification, complicates compliance. Staying informed about these changes is crucial for adapting to the industry’s future dynamics. The evolving landscape of casino regulation in the UK presents significant changes and challenges for entrepreneurs and businesses in the sector.

We do not believe that a 10% increase is sufficient to future-proof licensing authority funding in line with the recovery of the land-based sector from the challenges of COVID-19 and rising energy prices in recent years. Increased fees will enable licensing authorities to undertake more enforcement and engagement activities with licensed premises. We believe that on balance an increase to the maximum cap on premises licence fees by 15% is proportionate. A low number of premises visits may also be indicative of the lack of funding received by licensing authorities to fully undertake duties, such as inspections, alongside other administrative and enforcement functions. However, premises visits are only one aspect of a licensing authorities regulatory work. A number of these responses acknowledged the financial pressures placed on licensing authorities, which was reflected by the substantial number of industry responses that advocated for a 10% increase.

You are required to tell us about certain things that happen in your business, these are dependent on the licences and activities you hold. Including information on how we carry out assessments, your responsibilities under the LCCP and other gambling-related legislation. Guidance and information for running a compliant gambling business.

Overall, they would either prefer the current contactless payment restrictions to apply for debit card payments on machines or for chip and pin to only be required at the beginning of any session. While this option does not provide as great an increase in commercial flexibility as Option 3, Option 2(b) and, potentially for some operators, Option 1, the evidence received suggests that the vast majority of operators would benefit under this option. We also received a small number of responses from gaming machine manufacturers and suppliers to the supplementary consultation. The majority of these respondents stated a preference for Option 2, as this would place the greatest restriction on the number of Category B machines available in arcades and bingo clubs.