The Casinos Gaming Machines and Mandatory Conditions Regulations 2025
Sports gambling has a long history in the United Kingdom, having been controlled for many decades, and more recently relaxed. In 2007, then Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that the Government would not be proceeding with the super casino in Manchester. On 29 March 2007, the House of Lords urged the Government to review plans for the super casino in Manchester. On 30 January 2007 Manchester was announced as the winning bid to be the location of the first super casino. On 8 December 2020, Nigel Huddleston MP announced a call for evidence to begin the Gambling Act Review.
Restrictions on supply were originally viewed as an important protection in the 2005 Act, but in the light of the availability of remote gambling the characteristics of products and quality of monitoring have assumed greater importance. The Gambling Act Review white paper published in April 2023 set out the government’s plans for modernising the regulation of gambling in Great Britain. The Gambling Commission will take a closer look at how bonuses are constructed and targeted to prevent them being used in harmful ways and its work will inform new rules to stop dangerous practices. Bonus offers, such as free bets or spins, can drive harmful behaviour and trigger people to spend more than they intended. New powers will be given to the Gambling Commission to tackle and block unlicensed black market gambling firms from operating in the United Kingdom. Only about three percent of the highest spending accounts will have more detailed checks, similar to those carried out when people buy products through online credit agencies or sign up to some mobile phone contracts.
This includes fixed-odds betting, pool betting and acting as a betting intermediary. There are tons of different options for betting safely and legally in the UK. In the UK, you need to be at least 18 to gamble legally, whether that is online or live. This Regulations introduce several updates to the UK’s gambling framework.
Furthermore, The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (building on PHE’s report) has estimated the direct cost to government of gambling harm to be £413 million per year. However, even if we made pessimistic assumptions about leakage, displacement is likely to materially reduce the negative economic and fiscal impact from the drop in online gambling tax revenue. Some money not spent on gambling (for instance due to restrictions to prevent unaffordable losses) will go into other economic sectors which pay tax and produce more jobs per million pounds spent than online gambling. There is already evidence of a steady real terms decline since 2014, with machine GGY being outpaced by inflation by about 40%.
Compared with other regulated sectors, such as the financial, legal services and utilities sectors, gambling has a larger number of approved ADR bodies. Responses also highlighted that in order to prevent harm, new redress arrangements should be seen as upholding regulatory standards and supporting people presenting with legitimate complaints. Evidence from one treatment provider set out how clinical staff have noted that the manner and timing of a settlement can have an impact on therapy, and the need for appropriate support and protections to avoid even a modest lump sum increasing the risk of relapse. Responses from treatment and recovery support stakeholders also highlighted the need to consider the potential impact of different forms of financial redress on a person with gambling disorder. These included the complexity of determining at what point a consumer’s gambling can be deemed so excessive or unaffordable that it becomes an operator’s responsibility to intervene.
Ofcom is given its powers to set fees by primary legislation which requires it to publish the principles behind its approach to setting licence fees and charges, called the ‘Statement of Charging Principles’. The Commission, under new leadership, has also set out an ambitious vision for how it should regulate the industry, which was not factored into the last fees review. This white paper also proposes an ambitious step change in gambling regulation and the regulator must have the funds it needs to match this level of ambition.
PHE’s evidence review highlights higher levels of problem gambling amongst young adults when compared to older ages. Children and young people aside, concerns have been raised about people who are old enough to take part legally in the full range of commercial gambling activities but may still be particularly susceptible to harm for a variety of reasons. According to the 2022 data, the problem gambling rate of 11 to 16-year-olds (using the DSM-IV-MR-J screen which is specially adapted for children) was 0.9%, equal to about 35,000 children aged 11 to 16 in mainstream secondary schools. Once this new methodology is formally in place, it will provide more insight into harms experienced by young adults who are gambling legally, but who may additionally be vulnerable to gambling harm due to their age (see section 3.5. In particular, the 2022 Young People and Gambling Survey of 11 to 16-year-olds set out a range of questions on harms experienced as a result of gambling (both the participants’ own gambling and someone else’s gambling).
The Gambling Commission will review and consult on updating design rules for online products, building on its recent work on online slots to consider features like speed of play which can exacerbate intensity and risk. In general, this government agrees with the principle that people should be free to spend their money how they see fit, so we propose a targeted system of financial risk checks that is proportionate to the risk of harm occurring. Gambling can also contribute to tourism, for instance to seaside towns across the country, or high-end casinos attracting wealthy overseas visitors who spend across a number of other sectors while in this country. The gambling sector also contributes significantly to other industries, including sport, advertising and racing. There are also benefits to gambling which should be weighed in decision making, although they do not negate the need to prevent gambling-related harm.
We would also like machines that use the BGC’s Anonymous Player Awareness System (APAS) to implement these limits and for APAS not to act as a substitute for these thresholds. Furthermore, the average stake size on B1 machines is similar to the stake size on B3 machines and therefore we do not think that the mandatory limits should be different between the different categories. In line with their responses to other questions, the pub sector did not want these limits to apply to Category D crane grab machines.
The evidence we have seen suggests that bonuses (as defined by the CMA), general promotional offers, and direct marketing communications are the forms of advertising most likely to impact an individual’s gambling behaviour. The proposals set out in the following sections target practices identified as likely to increase the risk of harm. While we agree that it would be harmful for any form of advertising or marketing to ‘normalise’ harmful practices (for example underage or unaffordable gambling), we do not consider participation in gambling in and of itself a form of harm. One argument that was frequently raised in responses calling for greater restrictions on advertising was that the ‘normalisation’ of gambling is a form of harm caused by advertising. The authors suggest that limiting children and vulnerable people’s exposure to gambling advertising could mitigate the potential harm that advertising poses to these groups.
Providing facilities without a licence is a criminal offence under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005, and advertising unlawful gambling to Great Britain consumers is also a criminal offence. After the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, an operator generally needs a UKGC licence if its remote gambling facilities are used in Great Britain and the operator knows or should know that British consumers are likely to use them, even if the operator is located overseas. The UK gambling industry is in the middle of its largest tax and policy recalibration in over a decade. You are responsible for verifying your local laws before participating in online gambling. For players, it may help support the financial viability of land-based bingo venues, although it does not affect gambling rules or consumer protections.
The information that an ombudsman collates through complaints will assist the Gambling Commission in planning its enforcement activity and help industry to improve processes and support vulnerable consumers. This means customers seeking personal redress in these areas currently have no choice but to pursue potentially costly and uncertain court action. This aims to build capacity and start filling the key evidence gaps identified by PHE’s evidence review. Government will also co-host workshops with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the umbrella body for the UK research councils, Innovate UK and Research England, to stimulate interest and investment in gambling research.
Where machines live
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. However, we encourage land-based operators to consider any use they make of targeted monetary or free bet bonuses and their purpose and we will continue to monitor whether there is a case for any further restrictions. Loyalty schemes in land-based venues are also a way of encouraging account-based play, meaning that a ban on them could have the unintended consequence of reducing the amount of available data on player behaviour. They emphasise that land-based play allows for close oversight of customers to ensure that bonuses are issued responsibly. In the majority of casinos, targeted offers are often through loyalty programmes that are open to everyone, with higher tier memberships offering higher value rewards. The schemes are intrinsic to high-end casinos’ business models, and the benefits tend to emphasise building a luxury experience rather than monetary rewards and free bets designed to be staked.
- Seven operators replied to this section of the consultation, some of which account for multiple venues and a significant proportion of the land-based casino sector.
- This would also apply for in-fill and tablet gaming machines.
- 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.
- In contrast with some jurisdictions, only casinos form part of the “regulated sector” for AML purposes, though all operators are required to conduct detailed risk assessments and implement AML policies, procedures and controls.
- The GGY impact of this measure will depend on the take up of cashless gaming machines by operators, but also on the player protections.
- Given that the Category D machines are the highest stake and prize machines on which under 18s can legally play, they are likely to appeal disproportionately to that age group.
Certain clubs are also able to offer gaming machines if they hold a club gaming permit or a club machine permit. It is jointly regulated by the Gambling Commission, which licenses operators, and Licensing Authorities (local authorities in England and Wales and licensing boards in Scotland), which license gambling premises. The Gambling Commission will conduct a review of gaming machine technical standards to assess the role of session limits across Category B and C machines and the role of safer gambling tools.
The 2005 Act also created a partnership between the Gambling Commission and 368 licensing authorities (Local Authorities) in England, Wales and Scotland for the regulation of land-based gambling. The Act has been described as enabling legislation as it empowered the new regulator to respond to emerging challenges by setting new licence conditions, whether for individual operators, sub-sectors or across the industry. The Act created the Gambling Commission (replacing the Gaming Board) as the sector’s principal regulator, giving it responsibility for licensing, monitoring and, where necessary, taking enforcement action against gambling operators. The Gambling Act came fully into force in 2007 and covers all types of in-person and remote commercial gambling, including gambling online. This white paper sets out the government’s vision for the future of gambling regulation with a package of measures which meet the government’s objectives and reflect the latest evidence, including from our December 2020 to March 2021 call for evidence. Our expectation is that much of this will be foregone revenue from customers who were being harmed by their gambling, but this will be considered further through impact assessments alongside future consultations on policy.
£4 million of seed funding will be given over three years to the University of Bristol to build and diversify research capability in the gambling harms field. As the regulator, the Gambling Commission plays an important role in our understanding of gambling-related harms. The government and key partners, including UKRI and the third sector, will bring forward a range of initiatives which will increase the amount of high-quality independent research into gambling. GambleAware is an independent charity and has had no industry trustees since October 2018 and the industry has no role in commissioning decisions. Work on the development of the strategy is now underway and will consider the link between suicide and issues such as harmful gambling. Wider work led by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) with regard to mental health and suicide prevention also takes gambling harm into account.
Other responses from outside of industry thought that the cooling-off period should be longer, with respondents stating either 60 or 120 seconds. There was consensus from industry that the length of the cooling-off period should be 30 seconds if these voluntary limits are hit. While Category D crane grabs may be a lower risk, they are more likely to be played by children and we think a cautious approach to debit card payments should be taken in general.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is the supervisory authority for data protection legislation, and maintains a full explanation of these rights on their website DCMS will ensure that we uphold your rights when processing your personal data. You have rights over your personal data under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Your data will not be transferred outside the UK. We will not use your data for any automated decision making. Your personal data will be kept for one year in line with DCMS retention policy. Information provided in response to this consultation (not including personal information) may be shared with other government departments and arm’s length bodies, such as the Department for Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission.
Social responsibility code 3.4.1 – Problem gambling
While a wide array of evidence submitted to the Commission and this Review has shaped our proposals, three key information points have been important in helping to make sure our proposals are proportionate and properly address the identified risks. The Commission’s requirements will specify that these checks should only be undertaken at the appropriate time and for legitimate purposes like harm prevention rather than to inform marketing tactics or disadvantage successful customers. The consultation will also consider how operators should respond to any findings from these checks in concert with their wider assessments of customer risk.
At the same time, it is also important that the ways licensing authorities approach local considerations across the country are consistent and follow the same framework principles. Although there is a workaround available to licensing authorities, and the Gambling Commission has published an advice note setting this out, the Commission also recommends that the legislation is amended to provide further clarity. The Gambling Commission also recommended that some clarifications and technical amendments are made to the Gambling Act 2005 to confirm that certain powers apply to licensing authorities and/or licensing officers in Scotland as they do in England and Wales.
Changing the Commission’s fee model will enable it to respond flexibly in the medium to long-term to emerging regulatory challenges and ensure that each sector is paying a fair fee for regulation of the industry. The Commission should be able to show how it intends to spend its income on different sectors within the industry, with (as under the current system) those sectors that require greater regulatory attention being required to pay more than others. Numerous pieces of legislation enable the FCA to charge fees to cover its costs and expenses in carrying out its functions, including the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It also produces several other consultations each year, including a specific one relating to its policy on how it raises fees and levies.
A further key component of the online advertising landscape is social media, which has been found to have a particular impact on children and young people, and accounts for an increasingly large proportion of their gambling ad exposure. This means it is likely that the minority experiencing serious harm from their gambling are not only seeing more gambling adverts than others, but are also more likely to spend money as a result of seeing them. Evidence submitted by a major charity found that even occasional gambling substantially increased online advertising exposure, with around 40% of those who gambled once a month reportedly being served 4 or more ads a day. Adverts such as TV, radio and online banner ads tend to influence a lower percentage of viewers to begin or increase gambling than those on social media. It is clear that the risks posed by gambling advertising are not uniform across the population, and that people respond to different types of adverts in different ways.
If they are perceived as permitting ‘risk-free’ gambling by providing a mechanism to subsequently recoup losses, this would risk reinforcing negative and harmful behaviours. Alternatively, we have heard that some operators make payments directly to fund the complainant’s treatment, education regarding the risks of gambling and the support available, or to cover outstanding debts rather than providing a lump sum. A memorandum of understanding between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), for example, requires that information on complaints data, including any trends and common problems, is shared with the FCA so that both organisations can serve customers effectively. Many stakeholders, including Parliamentary and campaign groups, as well as those with personal experience, said that an ombudsman must be demonstrably independent of the Commission and the gambling industry. We received submissions from a wide range of stakeholders including trade bodies, charities, researchers, treatment and support service providers, organisations in the dispute resolution landscape, and from across the gambling industry. This includes, for example, complaints that an operator allowed a self-excluded customer to gamble, or should have taken greater steps to identify a customer at risk of harm and stepped in earlier to prevent unaffordable gambling.
We will use the responses to this consultation as well as wider engagement with the sector to gather data to estimate the likely uptake of additional machines and removal of existing machines under each option. These machines can also offer customers Category C or D content on the same device. Industry trade bodies have provided evidence which suggests that the removal of the 80/20 rule would result in a large-scale reduction of tablets and in-fill machines, although the extent to which tablets will be removed will vary by operator. In addition, there would be limited opportunities for operators to meet customer demand for Category B machines and increase GGY. Consequently, under Option 2 industry as a whole would have the flexibility to reduce the number of Category C and D machines and/or increase the overall number of Category B machines across the sector, saving energy and/or increasing overall GGY. It is possible that operators could use inaccessible tablets and in-fill machines to increase the overall number of Category B3 machines in their venues, undermining the principle of a balanced offer of higher and lower stake machines giving genuine choice to the customer.
4 A new approach to safer gambling messaging
Given likely diminishing marginal returns when a casino already has at least 20 machines, we estimate that the extra machines could increase GGY by £25 million to £65 million (14% to 36% of casino Category B machine GGY). However, gambling space in the average casino is 784m2 (3.1 times larger than the 10 smallest casinos). We used the Gambling Commission data request to operators in April 2021 (validated against previous 2018 data from a report commissioned by GambleAware) to determine current staking patterns. Our approach to modelling the GGY reduction from an online stake limit (section 1.3), including data used and key assumptions, is set out below. We are confident overall that the majority of customers, especially the majority who spend at lower levels, are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the changes we propose to help prevent gambling-related harm.
Brexit therefore did not create passporting recognition of EU gambling licences into Great Britain, because UK licensing was never based on mutual recognition. An operator needs a UKGC operating licence to provide gambling facilities to players in Great Britain (including remote gambling online) and to advertise to Great Britain consumers. If operators receive clearer guidance from the regulator, it could help ensure more consistent compliance across licensed casinos and betting platforms. For casinos which exercise the extended entitlement and other larger converted casino premises, a new mandatory condition in paragraph 4 of Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the 2007 Regulations requires sites not on gamstop that the floor area of the gambling area is less than 1,500m². (2) In section 172 (gaming machines), in subsection (5)(b)(i), for “twice” substitute “5 times”.
Similar provisions of the Act relate to gaming and gaming machines in licensed premises in Scotland, but these apply to premises which have a premises licence granted under the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005. 1968 Act casinos are limited to 20 gaming machines only, regardless of size, unless they restrict themselves to lower stakes machines only. The land-based sector includes casinos, licensed betting offices, licensed bingo premises, family entertainment centres, adult gaming centres, and on-course betting at racecourses.