Gambling Law Updates Shake Up the UK Casino Scene in 2025
The evidence illustrated that while there have been recent instances of bad practice in casework, the risks posed to consumers are not fundamental to white label arrangements themselves. Importantly, while third parties typically undertake a range of peripheral tasks related to the gambling offer (e.g. marketing, data storage, age verification, due diligence checks, customer interaction), only the licensee may provide “facilities for gambling”. Respondents were also divided on the presence of ‘white label’ gambling brands in sports sponsorship as a means to target overseas customers. If the licensee falls short of the Commission’s expectation to conduct due diligence before entering into a white label arrangement, they may proceed unaware of regulatory risks which would have been identified by the Commission had the third-party partner applied for a licence itself. Some concerns have been raised that ‘white labels’ amount to ‘hiring out’ of a gambling licence to companies (potentially in other jurisdictions) that would unlikely be suitable to hold a British licence in their own right. This arrangement can enable an established licensee to partner with a third-party brand to attract new customers to their gambling offer.
Last month, the Gambling Commission fined William Hill over £19 million for failures including allowing a customer to spend £23,000 in just 20 minutes. If gambling stops being fun, use one of the free independent services below. Independent UK casino reviews and regulatory guides. NHS-funded assessment and treatment, including the National Problem Gambling Clinic. Independent charity providing safer-gambling information and tools.
This is one of the strongest consumer protections embedded in the UK casino regulations. If you are asked for affordability documentation at a UKGC-licensed casino, this is a legal requirement — not optional. Automated checks use open banking data and credit reference information. For most recreational players, the the operators above changes are largely invisible day-to-day.
(3) The maximum number of separate betting positions that may be made available for use at any time in relation to betting machines is determined in accordance with the table below. 5.—(1) This paragraph applies to all premises in respect of which a converted casino premises licence has effect. (b)the converted casino premises licence is not varied under section 187 of the 2005 Act(4) so as to relate to premises to which it did not relate on that date. (3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to premises in which the floor area of the gambling area of the casino was 1,500m² or greater on 12th May 2025 provided that, after that date— (5) No gambling is permitted in the table gaming area of the premises other than gambling by way of table gaming. “(1) This paragraph applies to all premises in respect of which a converted casino premises licence has effect.”;
Protection of Children and Young Persons
Starting 29 July 2026, a new licence condition will require land-based gambling operators to remove gaming machines deemed non-compliant by the Commission. The changes made enable the holder of a converted casino premises licence relating to premises in England and Wales to make up to 80 gaming machines (including Category B gaming machines) available for use, provided a number of specified conditions are satisfied (“the extended entitlement”). Bacta (the trade organisation for family entertainment centres, adult gaming centres, operators and manufacturers), proposed the live-testing of concepts for new machines so that industry, the Gambling Commission and government could gather evidence on the potential gambling harms and mitigations. Currently, gaming machines can only be linked in casinos — and only sub-category B1 machines on the same premises — with the maximum prize set at a double that for a non-linked sub-category B1 machine.
Overview of Recent Gambling Law Changes
With the current evidence base, we do not support the prohibition of all Category D machines such as crane grabbers and coin pushers for under 18s. There is currently no substantive research or evidence clearly identifying harms resulting from general Category D machine play. Based on evidence submitted to the call for evidence we estimate that those that pay out money (known as “cash-out Category D slot machines”) currently account for approximately two thirds of Category D slot style machines. The economic value of FECs, which rely heavily on Category D machines, was highlighted in responses to our call for evidence.
- However, we remain of the view that it is important to maintain a balanced offering of higher and lower stake products in licensed gambling premises.
- Check the operator name or licence number from the site footer against the UKGC public register.
- This change will not only strengthen the existing voluntary commitment from industry, by making it an offence to allow under-18s to play this type of gaming machine, it will also level the field between operators who are signed up to the voluntary code and those who are not.
- While some of the other proposals put forward to ensure no under-18s play these types of machines were sensible, we do not think it is proportionate to mandate any of these measures due to the lower risk nature of this product.
In addition to the written submissions sent to DCMS, we have considered a number of other sources of evidence. During the call for evidence period, we also noted a number of submissions from members of the public which came as part of coordinated campaigns on various specific issues. For example, 97.5% of respondents expressed their view that all gambling advertising should be non gamstop sites banned, while 83.2% of the respondents said they would like to see the age limits for gambling increased above 18. Overall, the submissions from members of 38 Degrees demonstrated a generally negative view of gambling. Additionally, we note that these individual responses are far shorter and typically do not provide as much detailed evidence as the submissions sent directly to DCMS.
It creates an onus on companies to understand the risks that they create for others, and to ensure they are mitigating those risks. It demands more of organisations in terms of accountability for their use of personal data, and adds to the existing rights of individuals. On 25 May 2018, there will be new data protection legislation in force, both in the UK and across the EU – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The future of casino regulation in the UK presents challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Online slots stake limit guidance
However, some betting shop operators were aligned with the non-industry responses and believed that the session time and net position should be displayed at all times. We propose that Category D machines are not required to display safer gambling messaging beyond the current requirements placed on these machines. The government proposes that the existing safer gambling messaging is used on machines that accept cashless payments. Some industry responses also argued that members of staff in casinos already monitor players and interact where appropriate.
These rates are lower than the majority of other gambling products, although remain above the at-risk and problem gambling rates for ‘any gambling activity’. We would like to understand whether these types of protections are already available on these machines, or whether it would require investment in new machines or software. Therefore, this option would need to be accompanied by a requirement that Category B3 machines in these venues would have certain player safety controls, such as staff alerts where a player meets spend or time limits. For example, as previously highlighted, 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.
Please provide any evidence you have on the potential harm of implementing Options 1, 2 and 3 on customers. If available, please provide evidence of the potential impact of Options 1, 2 and 3 on the GGY of operators and on the wider gambling sector. A healthier land-based gambling sector, able to compete on a more even basis with similar online gambling opportunities, is likely to support local employment opportunities, regeneration effects and contribute to business rates. We do not currently have sufficient data to estimate the likely uptake of additional Category B machines under each option, nor on how the average GGY per machine will change as a result. In the financial year to 2022, the average GGY per Category B machine (across all licenced land-based venues) was £30,360, compared to £2,030 per Category C machine and £1,350 per Category D machine. Category B machines are significantly more profitable for operators earning considerably higher GGY than Category C and D alternatives.
While we anticipate that many casinos of a suitable size will take up the option to increase their gaming machine allowances under these proposals, we are aware that some casinos will not want to site more than 20 gaming machines. Under the increased gaming machine allowances that we propose, if a venue held multiple premises licences, it could theoretically gain access to 80 gaming machines per licence. In these instances, the parent premises may be adjoined by an ‘electric casino’ that consists largely of gaming machines with a very limited table offer. As set out in the white paper, the availability of gaming machines in British casinos is also very low compared to international jurisdictions, and an increase will help to meet the expectations of overseas visitors.
Gone are the days when online casino players could spend hundreds of quid in a matter of minutes. The whole idea is to strictly limit how much cash can be lost on slot machines and to ensure people are not blowing through their bankroll very quickly. In this article, we’ll look at some of the new online gambling regulations for 2025.
The responses received from the third sector also raised concerns about the potential for increased gambling-related harm to occur alongside greater numbers of Category B machines being made available. One operator, under both options, stated that it would increase the number of Category B cabinets machines by 2 to 3 per venue, while removing the vast number of smaller in-fill gaming machines. Evidence provided for Option 1 suggests that increases in Category B cabinet gaming machines would be moderate in the short-term. The arcade sector similarly reported that Option 1 and Option 3 would result in the removal of underused Category C and D machines, whilst Option 2 would have no impact or result in increased numbers of Category C and D gaming machines. This relates primarily to underused Category C and D gaming machines.
Under such circumstances, and given the relatively higher stakes and losses set out in the rationale for change, there is the potential for gambling-related harm to increase. Without any requirement in law for a balanced offer, it is possible that this option would result in Category B machines becoming the only product on offer. For example, a customer could stake 50p on these machines which is also below the maximum stake permitted on Category C machines. Multi-staking category B cabinets provide customers with the choice of staking at different levels and therefore below the maximum stake permitted.
However, the intended objective is to allow customers to pay by the means they prefer and preserve the viability of the gaming machine sector which is at risk of being eroded by the move to a “cashless” society. This standard applies to feasible B3 gaming machines and provides players with a 30 second cooling-off period once voluntary limits are hit. In order to slow the speed of direct cashless transactions and provide a break in play, the government proposes that there should be a minimum transaction time for players making direct cashless payment transactions on gaming machines. What should the maximum transaction value be for direct cashless payments on gaming machines?
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.
Firstly, much of the available data on children being able to access age restricted forms of gambling comes from their own self-reporting which may be unreliable. However, evidence suggests that some children are still able to participate in gambling which they should be barred from. It should create a clear distinction between gambling products for adults and lower risk products for children which have non-cash prizes or (like a penny pusher) are entirely unlike an adult gambling product. Although we will consult further on the details of our proposal above, slot machines in FECs which are legally adult-only (Category C machines) are required to be in a segregated part of the venue to prevent children accessing those machines. Category D machines which do not pay out cash will not be subject to the increase in the minimum age to play. We welcome Bacta’s voluntary commitment, but to ensure all operators comply with it, we propose to move that requirement into legislation, making the legal minimum age to play cash-out Category D slot machine style games 18 years old.
The Gaming Act 1968 restricted casinos to “permitted areas” based on population density and seaside resorts. This spend information is not currently provided to operators, but customers can use a range of safer gambling interventions on the apps themselves. In general, there is an element of staff supervision and intervention in land-based venues which can help to identify and support people suffering gambling harms. This appears to be driven by a return to in person gambling activities, particularly lotteries, fruit and slot machines, horse racing and bingo. Licensing authorities have a wide range of powers under the 2005 Act to refuse or place conditions on applications for gambling premises licences where there is cause for concern, and we fully support use of these powers.
Some lotteries including large society lotteries and licensing authority lotteries are licensed by the Gambling Commission, while small society lotteries must register with a licensing authority. Some respondents pointed to the relatively high test purchasing scores for licensed gambling premises compared to those for the sale of other age-restricted products. There was limited evidence to suggest these measures would materially improve on the current rules, which allow operators to verify age and identity via background checks that are effective in the vast majority of cases and are minimally disruptive to the customer. Bacta argued that further restrictions on children’s access to Category D machines was unnecessary, drawing attention to its voluntarily imposed 18+ age limit for playing Category D cash payout slot machines and measures in its charter that limit access and appeal to children. Evidence came from a wide range of respondents including industry, charities, researchers, campaign groups, Parliamentarians and local authorities. One of the few longitudinal studies of gambling behaviours in the UK found that patterns of problem/moderate risk gambling can often be established by 20 years of age.
Since online casino, poker, and sports betting became a popular industry in the UK, the country’s lawmakers have relied on external licensing bodies to regulate sites serving British residents. Although the United Kingdom is home to the world’s best legal online casinos, poker rooms, and sports betting sites, the industry isn’t content to stand still. There are multiple categories for gaming machines based on the maximum prize available.
A further safeguard to ensure that credit will not be available more widely is the fact that it will be offered at the casino’s risk following extensive anti-money laundering (AML), Know Your Customer (KYC) and Enhanced Customer Due Diligence (ECDD) checks at the point at which credit is offered. Alongside the removal of the prohibition, the Gambling Commission will specify in licence conditions and codes of practice the conditions under which credit may be offered, including checks which must be made. The Gambling Commission has made clear that it expects casinos to bank customer cheques in accordance with their normal banking arrangements. Until recently, casinos in Great Britain have been able to accept a cheque from the customer, which is a permitted payment mechanism under the Act.
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.
With increased resources in due course, the Commission plans to invest in its data systems in order to better understand consumer behaviour and operator compliance. It is supported by existing powers in the Gambling Act for the Commission to make data requests as part of its regulatory activities. It has indicated, including in a speech by its Chief Executive to the GambleAware conference in 2021, that repeated failings are an aggravating factor and tougher action will be taken against repeat offenders.
The most recent year for which we have combined Health Survey data is 2016, in NatCen’s report Gambling Behaviour in Great Britain in 2016. These have also been updated a number of times since 2005, with guidance also tightened where needed to mitigate particular risks (e.g. banning content with strong appeal to children from October 2022). Gaming machine stake and prize limits are set out in secondary legislation and have been changed a number of times by the Secretary of State since the 2005 Act.