Casino Premises Changes to Legislation
Others cited research which has been undertaken on safer gambling messaging, including from the Behavioural Insights Team and the Personal Finance Research Centre (University of Bristol). Some respondents from outside of industry stated that safer gambling messages should be designed independently of industry and that some of the existing industry-led safer gambling messages are ineffective. Responses from industry stated that messaging similar to that which is already in place for cash transactions should be put in place, encouraging customers to take regular breaks, set and stick to budgets and to talk to staff and use player management tools. The overwhelming thrust of responses was that any messaging should be based on evidence.
In addition, we recognise that young adults may be particularly susceptible to gambling harm — see section 5.4. We will therefore introduce a stake limit for online slots games which will be fixed for all customers. However, this would rely on robust and reliable ways of identifying those who are and are not at risk of harm from accessing higher stakes. Additionally, a large number of people being flagged as exhibiting risk is not necessarily a bad thing, as it may demonstrate the operators’ proactivity in identifying and investigating signs of risk and potentially intervening. Since the call for evidence closed, we have also been told that 35% of customers stake more than £2 at least once a year.
The industry’s case for cashless gambling on machines is based on changes in how society uses cash, and the safety implications for land-based venues. It also highlights that any move towards debit card payments directly on gaming machines would need to strike an appropriate balance between regulation applicable to modern payment methods, consumer benefits and protection of the licensing objectives. Electronic terminals do not count as gaming machines and like live multi-player tables do not have stake and prize limits, other than operators’ own house limits.
Having an ombudsman in the gambling sector which can deal with social responsibility complaints and whose remit is signposted clearly would be an important first step towards a new approach to consumer redress. These bodies have been approved on the basis that they fulfil requirements under current legislation and the Gambling Commission’s improved standards, ensuring customers get the protections they are entitled to. There are eight providers of ADR for gambling, most of which also operate in other sectors with some performing functions outside of complaint handling too.
Conclusion: UK Gambling Laws Strengthen Player Protection Under Strict UK Gambling Regulation
There are currently only three Small 2005 Act casinos in operation from the eight licences available. No machine to table ratio currently exists for 1968 Act casinos. Casinos with multiple licences at the same physical location could site more than 80 machines under the new regime – it is not clear whether the current rules are clear enough to prevent this situation from arising in practice. Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Gambling Act 2005 (Mandatory and Default Conditions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 sets out a number of mandatory conditions that are attached to all casino premises licences.
The majority of responses were in favour of mandatory limits being a required feature on machines accepting direct debit card payments. We think that the requirements of account verification, transaction limit, and deposit limits, alongside a minimum transaction time will provide appropriate safeguards for these lower stake machines. The pub sector argued that it would be disproportionate, cost-prohibitive and unlikely to be achievable on sites not on gamstop these types of machines. We are also proposing that this minimum transaction time applies to all machines. Category D machines do not have a committed payment limit.
We do not currently have sufficient data to estimate the likely reduction of Category C and D machines under each option. This will include assessing the role of sessions limits across Category B and C machines alongside safer gambling tools. Player protections can be used to mitigate increases in the risk of gambling harm.
The Commission has a broad range of powers that enable it to regulate the industry effectively but there are some small changes that could be made around its ability to investigate operators, including improving the Commission’s responsiveness to changes of corporate control. The Gambling Commission will take a more ambitious approach to enforcement, using data from operators and more specialist staff so it can continue to improve regulation of the industry and keep pace with technological changes. A few submissions to our call for evidence highlighted the esports sector, which is growing fast and has significant appeal to children and young people, and increasingly to betting operators – with GGY from the esports betting sector growing from around £50,000 in March 2019 to over £1.5m in March 2020. Overall, indirect exposure to gambling marketing around sport is high, including among children, and can be particularly challenging for those already suffering gambling-related harms.
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. On extending default opening hours, licensed bingo premises can currently apply for a premises licence variation which allows the club to open for longer hours on a permanent basis. There is therefore a risk that sufficient measures to uphold the licensing objectives would not be achievable.
The Commission’s LCCP currently requires operators to make annual financial contributions to a list of research, prevention and treatment organisations. The changes will help consumers understand which operators protect their funds and which do not – information which will support them in making choices about who they gamble with. From 31 October 2025 operators whose customer funds are ‘not protected’ in the event of insolvency must actively remind consumers once every six months that their funds are not protected. Our work revealed recent changes by some operators on how deposit limits are offered, which could cause confusion for consumers. The Gambling Commission has today announced changes aimed at increasing consumer control over deposit limits and greater transparency of customer funds protection by operators.
We think that this will create greater equity between 1968 Act and Small 2005 Act casinos and should not have an effect on gambling-related harm as customers will still be offered a mixture of gambling and other non-gambling leisure activities. This restriction, alongside requirements for non-gambling area, will only apply to those 1968 Act casinos that decide to exercise the enhanced gaming machine entitlement. We are also consulting on whether the maximum size of a 1968 Act casino’s gambling area must – like that of a Small 2005 Act casino – be less than 1,500sqm, if it resolves to exercise its entitlement to more than 20 machines (including at least one Category B machine). Only casinos that have a gambling area of 280sqm or more will be eligible to access the enhanced gaming machine entitlement.
For example, if a casino has 400sqm of gambling space, it would be required to have at least 200sqm of table gaming space. For casinos that are 500sqm or larger, the table gaming area must be equal to or greater than 250sqm. For 1968 Act casinos that meet the same size thresholds as Small 2005 Act casinos, we have proposed introducing a 250sqm table gaming area requirement. However, those casinos that would be allowed to keep their current gambling space would have more flexibility in terms of the layout of their venue compared to Small 2005 Act casinos, which may be deemed unfair by casinos without this advantage. Option (2) would not require currently operating casinos to reduce their total gambling space.
- These changes, alongside the new agreement between the Commission and FCA, will help to strengthen the response to products which blur boundaries between gambling and other products in future.
- £5 online slot stake limit — the maximum bet on any single spin of an online slot is now capped at £5 for all players.
- GambleAware historically asked operators to give 0.1% of their Gross Gambling Yield to provide an income of c.£9-10 million.
A statutory levy will help problem gamblers access the right care at the right time, complementing our commitment to provide NHS gambling addiction treatment clinics in every region across the country. Today’s white paper is a huge step towards protecting people from the damaging impacts of gambling. As the detailed implementation of the review now begins, we will also be reiterating to all operators that the Commission will strongly maintain its focus on consumer protection and compliance.
Improvements from online platforms
The site holds a current UKGC licence, runs GAMSTOP integration, and the responsible-gambling controls are genuinely in front of you (not buried in a settings sub-menu). It’s one of the few UKGC operators that genuinely integrates a serious sportsbook with a proper casino — most operators do one well and the other as an afterthought. UKGC licence is current, the site runs full affordability monitoring, and the responsible-gambling toolkit includes the usual deposit limits, time-outs and GAMSTOP linking. E-wallet withdrawals consistently landed in under two hours in our testing window — well ahead of industry average for UKGC operators. Below are our full hands-on reviews for each of the 15 casinos above. It’s not the end of regulated online gambling activity in the UK, but it is the end of pretending the digital era can be regulated like it’s still 2005.
The current maximum amount of cash that can be inserted into a machine at one time is £50 as this is the highest denomination of bank note. Regulation 7 ensures that there is a maximum value that players can deposit onto a machine in a single action. Regulation 9 also sets committed payment limits, money which cannot be refunded to the player once it is paid or transferred onto the machine’s credit or play meter. Regulation 7 of the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) Regulations 2007 sets the financial (payment) limit on the amount a person can deposit on a machine in a single action. Completely removing the prohibition could also pose a risk to anti-money laundering compliance.
In your view, is there any specific safer gambling messaging that should be considered within cashless gambling? This has been voluntarily adopted by BGC members and its objective is to improve consistency when displaying Safer Gambling information across the land-based sector. As previously discussed, an optimal strategy to combat disassociation when gambling combines breaks in play with safer gambling messaging.
Specific to gambling, the Behavioural Insights Team audit of 10 popular online operators identified a range of design features that may put consumers at risk of harm, including some of those discussed above. This is in contrast to the land-based sector, where electronic gaming machines (offering games which are otherwise similar to some online gaming products) are subject to stake and prize limits set out in legislation. In their view, significant new controls are needed to curb the risk of harm presented by certain features of online gambling including industry practices. We also support allowing trials of linked gaming machines, where prizes could accrue across a community of machines, in venues other than casinos (where they are already permitted).
Some operators were keen to highlight the increasing cost burden for land-based casinos in other areas, but acknowledged the logic of applying consistency across regimes. Currently, 1968 Act casinos are not required to have a table gaming area so the premises plan will need to be updated accordingly. In order to include SSBTs as part of a sportsbook offering, casinos would be required to apply for a remote general betting standard real events licence. It was also suggested that customers who do not normally engage in sports betting online may be encouraged to do so via availability in a casino. Those opposed to sports betting in casinos suggested that a broader range of products makes it easier for gamblers to move from activity to activity, upscaling losses and potential harms.
Permitting land-based casinos to offer credit to high net worth international visitors
We will work with the relevant trade bodies and operators to understand the feasibility of this proposal and the frequency of any reporting to DCMS. We also propose that industry fund, conduct, and, crucially, report on the outcomes of voluntary test purchasing to DCMS. In addition, operating costs have risen significantly over this period, especially as a result of rising energy costs, which have increased by over 225% for some operators. This is in addition to improvements in monitoring and staff supervision of customers. The characteristics of land-based products have substantially improved since the introduction of the Gambling Act 2005.
Firstly, it would split family groups, requiring adults who wish to play these machines to leave the group playing on non-gambling products. For example, Bacta commented that ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines are substantially different from harder gambling slot machines, and are better described as fruit machines or amusement with prizes machines. These responses highlighted the low-risk nature of these machines. Concerns were also expressed that the exposure of these machines to children may normalise gambling behaviour. However, we will not mandate that these machines be moved into age-restricted areas as we do not believe that it is proportionate, considering the lower risk posed by these types of machines.