UK Gambling Commission Updates: What Players and Operators Need to Know
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published its gambling white paper in April 2023, which set out the government’s plans for modernising the regulation of the gambling sector. If these changes affect how your personal data is processed, DCMS will take reasonable steps to let you know. Any changes to this privacy policy will apply to you and your data immediately.
New powers for the Gambling Commission
This includes lotteries, betting on sports and horse races, bingo, as well as gaming machines at pubs and land-based casinos. We do not see this as being an issue for operators or manufacturers as it is already widely available on Category B gaming machines within all land-based gambling premises. While it is acknowledged that the risk of gambling harm may increase somewhat following a transition to 50/50, the stipulation outlined in Option 2 would ensure that operators offer a balance of higher and lower stake gaming machines.
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.
The increased complexity of operators’ business structures has made it increasingly difficult for the Commission to manage requests for changes of corporate controls and identify and assess the ultimate beneficiaries of applicants for licences. While the Commission is able to respond with its existing powers to many issues that arise, it has advised that certain issues have emerged due to operators becoming larger, more organisationally complex and internationally-based. The Commission has a wide range of powers that allow it to regulate the industry effectively and respond to any emerging risks, particularly through the LCCP which all licensees must adhere to. This should involve more timely data to enable quicker assessment of the risks to consumers and to enable regulatory action to be taken more swiftly where necessary. The government and the Commission are clear that an enhanced approach to compliance enforcement is required to effectively monitor the industry and ensure that operators are abiding by the rules. We welcome these additional steps which businesses have taken to ensure their operations are safe and sustainable, and welcome the continual drive to raise standards which can then be underpinned by licence conditions to ensure compliance across the industry.
For instance, evidence provided by Bacta shows that the average stake placed on a Category B3 game is between £1.20 – £1.30, compared to 40p – 60p for a Category C machine. In response to these challenges, the white paper committed to changing the 80/20 rule to 50/50 to better meet the needs of industry and demands of customers. The Gambling Commission will also consult on appropriate player protections that should be required on these machines. The main theme that emerged from industry was that the current rule does not allow operators to meet consumer demand.
We propose to permit casinos to offer sports betting alongside other activities and will take steps to free up unused 2005 Act casino licences where there is no prospect of development for reallocation to other local authorities. The 2005 Act sets out a range of restrictions based on the assumption that restrictions on supply (for example, casino numbers and gaming machine availability) were an important protection. The Gambling Commission provided advice highlighting the low test purchasing pass rates for gambling machines in alcohol licensed premises. Responses to our call for evidence from the on-course betting industry emphasised that since 2019 it has taken a number of steps to raise standards, including improved training and staff processes, increased test numbers at venues, and focusing on events where children were more likely to attend. While we acknowledge the views of people with personal experience of gambling harm, banning all Category D machines would disproportionately affect small businesses reliant on this trade in some of the UK’s most deprived communities. Conversely, on a wider population basis there was limited evidence to suggest that Category D slot style machines were serving as a primer for future problematic engagement with gambling.
Casino licence holders making changes to their gaming machine provision are expected to reflect these changes in their MLTF risk assessment and consider whether their policies, procedures and controls need updating. The legislative changes also introduced changes to gaming machine entitlements for converted casino premises. The Commission expects casino licence holders who introduce betting activity to update their MLTF risk assessments, considering all relevant risks and taking into account the betting sector risks published in the Commission’s risk assessment. Licence holders should consider whether, as a result of the changes and gambling facilities offered, an operating licence (OL) variation is required with regard to fee category and/or the licensed activities being offered (such as betting). Arianne has a wealth of experience in the gambling sector with a focus on online gaming and betting and she regularly advises clients domestically and internationally.
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.
While there is a level of integration between NHS and non-NHS treatment services, for example, through referrals to the NHS by GambleAware commissioned services, we recognise that there are improvements to be made to the treatment pathway. The precise funding mechanism for raising sufficient resources to develop and sustain the capacity to analyse data will be considered in a detailed review of the Gambling Commission’s fees in 2024. However, anonymised data originating from its regulatory activity should be a rich source for research. Collecting detailed operator data on a regular basis will form an important part of this work and is supported by existing powers in the Act for the Commission to make data requests for its regulatory activities. As outlined above, the Gambling Commission will pursue a robust data-led strategy to bring about a step change in compliance and enforcement.
So in common with the previous legislation, there has been a recognition that consent will not always be the appropriate basis for data processing. Consent is one way to comply with GDPR, but the new law provides five other ways of processing data that may be more appropriate than consent. The rules around consent only apply if a business is relying on consent as its basis to process personal data. One example of this is the myth that “data can only be processed if an organisation has explicit consent to do so”.
The United Kingdom Gambling Commission also has rules that dictate how operators can advertise their platforms. The latest stipulation regarding the handling of player funds is just one of many licensing conditions the UKGC has put in place to ensure the safety of all players. The arrangements falling in the medium category include Quistclose accounts and insurance arrangements. Therefore, when you choose one of our recommended UK casino sites, you can ante-up safe in the knowledge that every game is fair and all your funds will be protected and insured by the UK government.
For more on how protections like these work in practice, see our responsible gambling UK guide. This aligns UK gambling AML standards with broader financial services requirements. Enhanced AML checks — anti-money-laundering procedures are more rigorous under the these tested platforms, with enhanced source-of-funds verification required for high-value customers.
Box 16: Westminster City Council’s proposed new gambling policy statement
Let’s dive into the key changes on the horizon and what they mean for aspiring casino entrepreneurs. We must stay informed about these developments to seize opportunities and mitigate risks. The gambling sector is no stranger to change, with technological advancements and societal attitudes constantly reshaping its framework. Although operators now have to jump through a few more hoops than they used to, the end result is a safer environment and, therefore, a more prosperous experience for everyone. It’s comforting to see that the commission hasn’t placed undue burdens on honest players, even as their mandate require them to stamp out money laundering.
These fees are used on a cost recovery basis to enable licensing authorities to undertake their gambling enforcement and administrative duties. To ensure this, we outlined in the white paper our intention to increase the cap on the maximum chargeable premises fees which can be charged by licensing authorities. The government will make inviting, causing, or permitting under-18s to play ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines a criminal offence through a draft affirmative statutory instrument. Bacta currently operates a voluntary age restriction on these machines for all of its members. We believe it is appropriate to make inviting, causing, or permitting under-18s to play ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines a criminal offence. Eighty-two per cent of respondents agreed that it should be a criminal offence for a person to invite, cause or permit children or young persons to play on ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines.
There was some concern that this would create a safety risk for customers using gaming machines in pubs as it would increase the potential for their PIN to be observed by other customers. In regards to the second objective, under Option 3, the evidence provided suggests that over time it is likely that many operators would reduce their offer of Category C and D cabinet gaming machines substantially and offer predominantly Category B cabinet gaming machines. As highlighted in Chapter 2 of the land-based gambling consultation, we are aware that Category B gaming machines on average result in greater customer losses per session than Category C and D gaming machines. “… for the purpose of calculating the Category B machine entitlement in gambling premises, gaming machines should only be counted if they can be played simultaneously by different players without physical hindrance.” (Gambling Commission, 2019 Of those who didn’t answer ‘I don’t know’, 80% of respondents favoured operating and premises licence fees being the same for Small 2005 Act casinos and 1968 Act casinos that elect to increase their gaming machine entitlement.
Casino operators will be required to notify licensing authorities and the Gambling Commission if they decide to take-up their entitlement to additional gaming machines under the new regime. There must be some notification that casinos are making a change to the number of machines and tables they are offering, even if this will not always trigger the need for a premises licence variation. Under the new regime, it is quite possible that a casino would make material changes to its layout in order to site additional gaming machines, tables and potential positions for betting.
- 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.
- It said that side bets on a main stage bingo game could allow customers to increase their opportunities for a return (for example, on the colour of the final ball, the number of the final ball to be drawn or which segment of the room the winner of the house will be sat).
- 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.
Since 2018, the Gambling Commission has worked with stakeholders including training providers and the Home Office to emphasise legal requirements in training materials and guidance for the sector. The government expects the sector to prioritise and rapidly strengthen age verification procedures to ensure that children are properly safeguarded from illegal gambling through on-course bookmakers. For example in 2019, a test purchase operation at Royal Ascot found that 7 out of 17 bookmakers accepted bets from underage customers.
There are currently 137 active casino licences which originated under the 1968 Act, three casinos with a Small casino licence and four with a Large casino licence under the 2005 Act. As well as bringing commercial benefits for operators and improving the customer experience, these measures are expected to bring player protection benefits; in particular, a greater willingness amongst customers to take appropriate breaks in play without fearing that they would lose their place at the machine. The Gambling Commission will consider what changes will be required to mandatory premises licence conditions (for example, on common standards of supervision and monitoring) and licence fees for operators. We will also address the inconsistency in Small premises size requirements that requires them to have a minimum table gaming area of the same size as the minimum gambling area, and enact the commitment made in the last gambling review to be clear that only live tables with a dealer will count towards the ratio.
The rise of digital gambling has triggered sweeping reforms—but until now, land-based casinos operated under softer guidelines, particularly when it came to machines. For converted casinos, however, there is an additional restriction on the number of betting not on gamstop machines relative to the size of the floor area of gambling area in that casino. Regulation 3 of these Regulations amends section 172(5)(b)(i) of the Gambling Act 2005 (c. 19) (“the Act”) to change how to calculate the number of gaming machines that may be made available for use in small casinos licensed under the Act. “extended converted casino premises” means premises in which gaming machines are made available for use in accordance with the extended gaming machine entitlement;
This includes many casinos monitoring customer expenditure across all gaming products, enhanced due diligence measures with trigger values for spend and loss applied to customers and algorithmic systems that use predictive models to identify customers at risk. While online operators are able to track play precisely and apply more tailored player protections, land-based casinos have adopted a range of measures in recent years that have enhanced player protections and tracking. As outlined in the white paper, it is our intention to bring greater coherence to the licence system by allowing 1968 Act casinos of a certain size to have the same gaming machine allowance as Small 2005 Act casinos. Unlike most commercial gambling, Category D gaming machines, which include coin pushers and crane grabs, are not restricted by age. In order to future proof the gaming machine industry and adapt to modern payment technologies, we are seeking views on a range of player protections that will ensure players can use modern payment methods whilst mitigating the risk of harm. Measures that we are seeking views on are intended to address inconsistencies between the different types of casino licence, as well as levelling the playing field to an extent between land-based and online operators.
We will also look at the legislative options and conditions under which licensed bingo premises might be permitted to offer side bets. Therefore, we will work with the Gambling Commission to develop specific consultation options for cashless payments, including the player protections that would be required before we remove the prohibition. However, in the light of the availability of remote gambling, the characteristics of a product and quality of monitoring have now assumed greater importance. This is due to a combination of common life stage factors including continuing brain development impacting impulsivity control, changing support networks, and common financial circumstances such as managing money for the first time. Self-reported gambling participation by 11 to 16-year-olds has fallen substantially over the last decade and most forms of gambling are already illegal for under 18s, but we will continue to strengthen protections.
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.
“larger converted casino premises” means premises in respect of which a converted casino premises licence has effect, and which— (3) In Part 5 of Schedule 1 (mandatory conditions attaching to converted casino premises licences)— (2) In paragraph 2(1) of Part 4 of Schedule 1 (mandatory conditions attaching to small casino premises licences), for “500m²” substitute “250m²”.
Some industry stakeholders questioned the necessity of the sliding scale given the numbers of SSBTs where they are currently permitted are low, and this could be seen as adding to an already complex regulatory framework. This would mean any table gaming area would only count towards the minimum table gaming area if it constitutes 12.5% or more of the total table gaming area in the venue. Exempt venues will be prevented from increasing their gambling area further, from 16 May 2024. Those opposed to the reduction preferred a larger minimum table gaming area requirement in place such as 350sqm. With regard to venues currently operating with a gambling area of 1500sqm or more, the strongest preference from consultation respondents was for these venues to be made to reduce their gambling area below 1500sqm.
These limits apply exclusively to online slots. Online slot stake limits are one of the most significant player-facing changes in recent UK gambling history. Always check bonus terms, as some operators have adjusted minimum deposits, maximum bet sizes during wagering, or game contribution weightings to compensate. This reform has fundamentally changed the value proposition of casino bonuses.
The equalising of these machine types may come at significant costs for some businesses. Bacta have argued, however, that the benefits to operators would not be as substantial as those outlined in Option 1. A 50/50 ratio based on device types would therefore be likely to have a positive impact, allowing them to remove a number of energy intensive Category C cabinets. Data provided by the Bingo Association, based on 60 percent of bingo halls, indicates that the number of Category B to Category C and D cabinets would remain largely unchanged from the current 80/20 regime. Data provided by industry indicates that this option would achieve to a limited extent the objective of ensuring commercial flexibility.
We are also open to any other proposals for how table gaming areas should be calculated for 1968 Act casinos which trigger their enhanced gaming machine entitlements. We propose that the table gaming area for casinos that have less than 500sqm of gambling space must be equal to or greater than half the size of the gambling area. We will also amend the current inconsistency in the regulations which requires Small 2005 Act casinos to have a table gaming area of at least 500sqm (identical to their minimum overall gambling area) by reducing this requirement to 250sqm. Option (1) would provide fairness and consistency across all casinos that are able to site 80 machines. This would ensure that regardless of the size of venue, most casinos will be able to site the same proportion of machines to tables. This would mean the introduction of a machine-to-table ratio for 1968 Act casinos that seek to increase their Category B gaming machine entitlement above 20, and a change to the machine-to-table ratio currently in place for Small 2005 Act casinos.