What we do
Following evaluation later this year, the intention is to expand the system to consider customers who are showing other indicators of harm with one operator which might necessitate coordinated action with other operators. The live trial which started this month is based on operators sharing information on individuals who have had their accounts closed because of disclosures about suffering serious harm. An industry-led trial with GAMSTOP as the delivery partner is now proceeding, having been supported by the ICO’s sandbox process, and focusing on high risk customers. We are pleased progress has been made on these after the Information Commissioner’s Office confirmed that, subject to certain controls, operators can share customer data for harm prevention purposes in compliance with existing data protection requirements. Their concern is that not only are those being harmed by gambling unlikely to be helped by such a measure, but also that many of those who were not being harmed would nonetheless be driven away from licensed operators. The precise impact of these changes will depend on the details which the Gambling Commission will consult on shortly, including how operators are required to conduct the checks and how they respond to certain findings on customers’ financial circumstances.
This was higher than the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2018 estimate but could be due to a number of factors, including the pilot having somewhat higher rates of past year gamblers than the HSE. This new way of collecting data was successful in attracting participants and generated a good response rate across the whole of Great Britain. In June 2020, following a consultation, the Commission started piloting a new set of survey questions designed to better understand the incidence, nature and severity of harm experienced by gamblers and non-gamblers. Collecting and disseminating information relating to the extent and impact of gambling in Britain forms an important basis for this advice. Under section 26 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Commission is responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the manner in which gambling is carried on as well as the incidence, effects and regulation of gambling in Great Britain. The work it is doing to improve collection of participation statistics and its future work to make more data available to researchers will also be important contributions and are outlined further below.
The Gambling Commission will also undertake a review of gaming machine technical standards, to include assessment of the role of session limits across Category B and C machines and the role of safer gambling tools. Casinos originally licensed under the 1968 Act are limited to a maximum of 20 gaming machines of Category B, C and D if at least one machine is Category B, or an unlimited number of Category C and D machines. The sectors which pay these fees are casinos, bingo halls and bingo-licensed arcades, adult gaming centres, family entertainment centres and betting shops. Licensing authorities (local authorities in England and Wales and licensing boards in Scotland) are responsible for licensing gambling premises, in parallel with the Gambling Commission licensing of operators. There have been substantial changes to how consumers make payments in society since the ban on direct debit card use on gaming machines.
The customer demand for 40 gaming tables does not exist, which can mean that a number of tables are sited but never used. This clarifies that wholly automated gaming tables are not gaming tables for the purposes of section 172(3) to (5) of the Act. The Gambling Act 2005 (Gaming Tables in Casinos) (Definitions) Regulations 2009 makes provision as to how references to “gaming tables” should be interpreted in this context. Please explain your answer, including any suggested changes to the regulatory framework where applicable. Casinos would not have the option of reverting back to their legacy rights under the existing regime, once they decide to increase their machine allowance in this way.
Gambling in Northern Ireland
Conversely, a number of think tanks and campaigners have proposed far more expansive SCV solutions, involving the pooling of every customer’s online and potentially offline play data for analysis by an independent public body which flags concerns and directs operator interventions. As part of the trial, codes of practice are being developed to ensure operators respond appropriately when they are notified of customers in this situation. While supportive in principle, industry initially had concerns regarding potential data protection and privacy implications. For example, a person showing signs or disclosing that their gambling is out of control could have their account closed by one operator doing the right thing to prevent harm, but within minutes they could have a new account with a different operator and a ‘blank slate’.
We will consider further the potential for allowing a wider range of games on electronic terminals at casinos, subject to appropriate restrictions. We have looked at the experience of the licences created under the 2005 Act and intend to extend some of their rules to the wider casino estate. However, in the light of developments in technology and the availability of online gambling, the characteristics of the product and quality of monitoring have now assumed greater importance.
No income or capital gains tax applies to prizes from casinos, sports betting, bingo, or online gambling, a rule in place since 2001 when taxation shifted to operators. This change aligns online slot limits with those of land-based casinos, with £5 matching B1 machines and £2 for younger adults, due to their higher vulnerability and lower income. Otherwise, payment processing per se is not licensable under British gambling law and the main restrictions are that land-based bingo and casinos may not offer credit for wagers and remote gambling operators may not accept credit card payments (including through money services providers). As well as an operating licence, an operator wishing to make gambling facilities available in a land-based environment (e.g., casino, betting shop, bingo hall or arcade centre) will also need to apply for a premises licence authorising that activity from the relevant local authority.
As outlined above, we think the player protection measures that these machines will be required to implement will be adequate to mitigate against the risk of gambling-related harm, considering the lower maximum stakes that they are subject to. While we understand the different environments and the higher stakes and prizes available to customers on B1 machines, data received from industry shows that these limits should not impact the majority of players. Non-industry responses predominantly indicated preferences for much lower limits than industry, with some stating it should be £1 and 1 minute, again, reflecting their position that cashless payments should not be introduced for gaming machines.
Our team of legal gambling analysts developed this page as a hub for legitimate and up-to-date information regarding the legal framework of gambling in the United Kingdom. Information on the advice provided by the Gambling Commission to help inform government policy on updates to the Gambling Act 2005 along with gambling legislation in Great Britain. We also license the individuals and businesses that offer gambling and provide them with advice and guidance. There have also been a number of major reports from think tanks and Parliamentary groups which have contributed to gambling discourse over recent years. Ministers and officials from other departments have also had a number of meetings with gambling stakeholders. The advice reflects the Commission’s own insights and its reflections on responses to the government’s call for evidence which were shared with Gambling Commission officials.
Licensing Requirements for UK Gambling Operators
However, overall almost half of respondents from the arcade and bingo sector acknowledged that Option 3 posed a risk of increasing gambling-related harm. The only responses which challenged the risk of gambling-related harm under Option 3 came from respondents within the arcade and bingo sector. There was a general consensus across respondents that Option 3 presented the greatest risk of increasing rates of gambling-related harm. In arcade premises, 2.3% of Category B gaming machine sessions result in losses of £200 or more, compared to 2% of combined Category C, Category D and mixed sessions. In bingo premises, 1.6% of Category B gaming machine sessions result in losses of £200 or more, compared to 0.7% of combined Category C, Category D and mixed sessions.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that for some individuals the option of attending physical bingo premises delivers substantial social benefits which would be lost if the sector is not supported. We will use the responses to this consultation as well as wider engagement with the sector to gather data to estimate the likely change in machine configuration in bingo and arcade venues. Another key benefit is the increased GGY from Category B machines in bingo and arcade venues. The proposed measure will allow venues to remove unused Category C and D machines and save on the costs of maintaining and powering them.
Trade bodies representing the land-based gambling sector have recently established a new voluntary safer game design code for gaming machines which aims to instil a minimum set of standards for land-based game design. We also received evidence on the current balance of Category B and Category C and D gaming machines in adult gaming centres and licensed bingo premises. The vast majority of gaming machines in casinos are Category B1 machines, which have a £5 maximum stake and £10,000 prize limit.
When asked about the impact on GGY from sports betting, all operators stated that this would have either a slight increase or no impact on their overall GGY. It was also highlighted that sportsbooks are a common expectation in casinos in other jurisdictions, and this move would bring Great Britain’s casino experience in line with other countries. The same 12.5% rule that applies in 2005 Act casinos is also proposed to apply for 1968 Act casinos that seek to move onto the new regime. Furthermore, this exemption is tightly drawn to reduce any advantages that these casinos may gain compared to their competitors.
Box 10: Approaches to presenting information on risk and return to player
- Apps could be helpful in bringing in safer gambling controls to cashless payments, but we acknowledge this is most likely to be one option for payment, rather than the only alternative to cash.
- Relatedly, studies have shown a relatively small proportion of players access activity statements (which summarise a customer’s recent gambling activity, including spend).
- Many operators were confident that their current and increasingly sophisticated harm detection algorithms would have prevented ‘historic cases’ where harm occurred without sufficient action.
This indicates that unless customers actively plan to bring cash to a pub for use on a gaming machine, they are unlikely to be able to use one. Anecdotal industry evidence suggests that payment methods are a factor in this decline in machine usage, as pub goers now pay for food and drink by card but might have previously played a machine using spare change. There has also been a decline in gaming machine usage in alcohol licensed premises. Land-based gambling has a significantly larger workforce than online gambling. Some licensed betting offices also use a cross-channel digital wallet that can be topped up at cash desks as well as on the operator’s website and used on casinos not on gamestop machines.
We recognise the importance of affiliates to operators and customers, and that the growth of affiliate marketing is by no means unique to the gambling sector. The industry body Responsible Affiliates in Gambling (RAiG) estimates that there are tens of thousands of gambling affiliates working in the GB market, the majority of which are individuals or very small businesses, and that they drive up to 40% of customer acquisition for remote operators. The evidence did not suggest that broadcast advertising which is compliant with the current, strict rules (especially following the recent updates to the CAP codes) is likely to pose an undue risk of harm, or that the benefits of any further restrictions would outweigh possible negative consequences. Alongside direct marketing and the targeting of individuals discussed above, the general gambling advertising landscape, both online and offline, attracted significant attention in submissions to the call for evidence.
According to evidence from the Betting and Gaming Council, casinos received more than 17 million customer visits in 2019, including a large number of visits from tourists and overseas customers. Around 45 current 1968 Act casinos meet the minimum overall size and non-gambling space requirements for a 2005 Act Small casino and would therefore be able to offer a maximum of 80 machines. Casinos originally licensed under 1968 Act provisions are limited to 20 Category B gaming machines regardless of size, and a Small 2005 Act casino would need 40 tables to be allowed 80 gaming machines whereas a large would only need 16. Its final recommendation in this area is that any move towards the use of debit cards on gaming machines should strike an appropriate balance between regulation applicable to modern payment methods, consumer benefits and protection of the licensing objectives. The first recommendation focuses on the importance of account-based play in protecting customers in land-based settings, asking the government to encourage operators to use such technology to identify and protect customers at risk of harm, subject to a proportionate approach.
Opposition tended to come from those who are opposed to any increase in supply of gambling opportunities in land-based premises, while the industry was expectedly supportive. An identical proportion of respondents thought sports betting should be permitted as shouldn’t be permitted in land-based casinos, with a small number selecting ‘I don’t know’. As referenced in our response to the ‘Gaming machine allowance for 1968 Act casinos’ section, we acknowledge concerns from stakeholders about the necessity of a table gaming area requirement given the sliding scale includes a specified number of tables. These products do not count as gaming machines, but neither do they provide any of the benefits of a multiplayer table in contributing to a balanced mix or affording opportunities for social interaction.
This includes both online and physical places you can gamble, like a betting shop or casino. Next up, online casinos can no longer allow people to play multiple games simultaneously. Some of the biggest changes to the way games are played at online casinos will involve the way the games are designed. If you live in the UK, when January rolls around, expect online casinos to ask you to opt-in to marketing from them. From this point onwards, any direct marketing needs to be opt-in, so players must choose to receive advertising from online casinos.
The majority of licensing authorities advocated for a 30% increase. The consultation asked the questions below on whether licensing authority fees should be increased, and if so, by how much. Making this a criminal offence will ensure a level playing field for all operators. However, there are a significant number of operators who are outside of Bacta’s membership and therefore may not operate any age restrictions. This measure has near universal agreement and received considerable support from industry.
This suggests that, had the operator assessed the customer’s financial circumstances earlier and more effectively, they could have acted to reduce the extent of financial harm suffered. In a similar compliance case study identified by the Commission, a customer lost approximately £33,000 in three months without the operator carrying out any financial risk assessment. As such, the rate and level of spending would have been unaffordable for the vast majority of UK households, and likely to indicate harm. In a case which recently led to compliance activity by the Gambling Commission, a customer lost £36,000 in four days without appropriate financial risk assessment being carried out.
Recent Comments