Licensing

Gambling Laws UK Gambling Legislations in 2026

The government is also clear that the ‘aim to permit’ requirement in Section 153 of the 2005 Act does not prevent the refusal of licences or the introduction of controls as necessary or desirable to minimise risk. We will look to take forward legislation when time allows to bring the regime for gambling licensing more in line with that of alcohol licensing. The government fully supports licensing authorities in their role as co-regulators of the 2005 Act and appreciates the local expertise that they have which guides their regulation of gambling in their communities. Applicants must consider the specific risks that pertain to the zone they would like to open a new premises in and how they will mitigate those risks.

Most spend small amounts which are similar to or less than spending on other leisure activities and do not report experiencing any harm from gambling. We also need to have the right controls in place on the products people can be offered, safeguards covering how those who gamble are treated by operators, and the right safety nets in place to stop harm where it occurs. We recognise that people should be free to spend their money as they choose, but when gambling poses the risk of becoming a clinical addiction the government needs to ensure there are proper protections. Adults who choose to spend their money on gambling are free to do so, and we should not inhibit the development of a sustainable and properly regulated industry which pays taxes and provides employment to service that demand. Millions of us enjoy gambling every year and most suffer no ill effects, so state intervention must be targeted to prevent addictive and harmful gambling. We are enormously grateful to all of those who have contributed to our Review, especially those with personal experience of gambling-related addiction and harms who have spoken out about their own struggles or those of people they love.

We have taken into account that these machines currently account for approximately two thirds of Category D slot style machines. While many welcomed this voluntary move, some respondents called for the restriction to become mandatory, while others like the Gambling Related Harm APPG wanted it to be extended to ticket-out slot style machines too. The distinction with ticket-out machines was drawn on the basis that while cash can be reinserted for further play (potentially facilitating behaviours like chasing losses), tickets cannot and have no value beyond what they can be redeemed for within the venue. Industry has recognised the concerns around slot style machines and in March 2021, Bacta members updated their Social Responsibility Charter and Code of Practice to voluntarily implement a ban on under 18s using cash out slot style machines. 18% of 11 to 16-year-olds had played on fruit style machines where you win tickets to ‘buy’ prizes and 10% on fruit style machines with small cash prizes. The tickets these machines pay out can be exchanged for a small physical prize such as stickers, sweets or a toy.

Licensing

We have reviewed and analysed the evidence received through both consultations to arrive at an evidence-based policy position which we believe meets our casinos not on gamestop objectives. Evidence was received in response to the land-based gambling consultation and through an additional supplementary consultation which focused on this reform specifically. Operators will also need to be able to demonstrate that their new gambling and non-gambling areas abide by the updated rules in the Mandatory and Default Conditions, which will include the sliding scale and other restrictions on the sizes of different areas of the casino.

Please provide any views or any other information on the adequacy of player protections for those using gaming machines in casinos. How do you expect the measures allowing more gaming machines in 1968 Act casinos to impact the provision of other product offerings within casinos e.g. table gaming? How do you expect the measures allowing more gaming machines in 1968 Act casinos that meet certain size requirements to affect the demand for gaming machines in casinos?

4 A new approach to safer gambling messaging

These organisations generally made targeted submissions which concentrated on single aspects of the call for evidence and gambling policy which overlap with their interests. The next biggest category of respondents was Parliamentary stakeholders, including both Parliamentary groups and individual members of both houses. Most of the substantive evidence, information and data provided to the Review was included in the 404 submissions which were prepared in response to the call for evidence and sent directly to DCMS. To the extent that some gambling harms are more prevalent within certain protected characteristics (e.g. young people and potentially certain ethnic groups) and also among socio-economically deprived groups, our proposals to reduce harm should have a positive equalities impact. Young men aged 16 to 24 and 25 to 34 are more likely to experience both problem and at-risk gambling behaviours than other cohorts. Male online gamblers spent on average 81% more than females, and according to the PHE evidence review, men are more likely to be problem gamblers (0.8%) than women (0.1%).

For operators, the service could help resolve compliance questions more quickly, potentially reducing delays or misunderstandings when dealing with licensing rules. The initiative follows industry feedback from operators who said they wanted a more consistent way to resolve regulatory questions. For operators, the appointment signals continued regulatory pressure on illegal gambling and compliance failures. (2) A notice must be displayed in a prominent place in each part of the premises used for providing facilities for betting, setting out the terms on which persons are invited to bet on the premises.

Therefore, venues such as pubs and members’ clubs will not be impacted by any increases to premises licence fees. The fees payable for gaming machine notifications and gaming machine permits are not in scope of this review. Licensing authorities have an important regulatory role alongside the Gambling Commission in licensing local premises. Should it be a criminal offence for a person to invite, cause or permit children or young persons to play on these machines?

One operator-led submission to our call for evidence suggested that 25% of people reduced their gambling expenditure after setting a deposit limit, compared to 6% who increased their gambling. As outlined in section 1.1 above, online gamblers already have access to a range of tools to help them control their time and money spent gambling and there are rules governing their use (for instance deposit limit increases must take at least 24 hours to come into effect). Morgan Stanley and NERA Economic Consulting have respectively estimated a £2 fixed limit on online slots would reduce online slot GGY by 22% and 23%, but some of this could be displaced to other online gaming products.

The 2014 Act changed the licensing requirements so that any company wishing to advertise gambling and take bets from consumers in England, Wales, or Scotland must hold a licence issued by the Gambling Commission. Whilst, those operators who wish to advertise their services in England, Wales, or Scotland, but are based outside the country, have to obtain a licence from the Gambling Commission following the passage of the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014. For remote gambling, the Commission issues licences to those operators whose remote gambling equipment is located in the territory of Great Britain.

• There have been substantial changes to how consumers make payments in society since the ban on direct debit card use on gaming machines.
• In the past year or so, the Gambling Commission has introduced a series of curbs on gambling, including raising the age limit for playing the National Lottery and banning the use of credit cards.
• We have seen evidence showing that customers who have claimed online bonus offers are more likely to engage in high-risk gambling behaviour, especially those already at a higher risk of harm who are also likely to be targeted with more offers.
• The same rule would apply to all other gaming machine device types.

1The Gambling Act 2005 sets out how gambling is regulated in Great Britain (gambling policy is almost entirely devolved to Northern Ireland). The white paper is structured around the six main themes in the call for evidence, followed by annexes on the estimated overall impact of our proposals and a summary of the submissions received to the call for evidence. The Review was set up to ensure our gambling laws are fit for the digital age and is the broadest examination of the regulatory framework for gambling since the 2005 Gambling Act. We have therefore commenced the review of the horserace betting levy which we are required to undertake by 2024 and will take account of the changes set out in this document to ensure the levy delivers an appropriate level of funding for the sector. The government recognises the significant contribution that horse racing makes to British sporting culture and its particular importance to the British rural economy, and is keen to ensure that measures such as financial risk checks do not adversely affect the sector.

Perhaps the largest day-to-day change centers on data transparency and affordability. The UK government’s shake-up of gambling rules, first promised in early 2023, is now done and dusted thanks to a phased roll-out in 2024 and 2025. Well, spotlight the sections still feeling the most pressure and show how guides, including the updated one on our site, are stepping in to keep punters informed in the new scene. Including information on how we carry out assessments, your responsibilities under the LCCP and our new sector guides with detailed guidance and policies by the sectors we licence. In July 2026, the Gambling Commission faced backlash for newly announced affordability and responsible gambling checks, which critics described as “rushed, flawed and hugely problematic”.

Account level protections

The UKGC is responsible for regulating arcades, betting, bingo, casinos, fruit machines, and lottery games as well as remote gambling, which including internet sites and telephone betting. A substantial number of responses drew upon the higher levels of customer spend which is evidenced on Category B gaming machines by comparison to Category C and D gaming machines, particularly as this relates to potential indicators of gambling-related harm. Equally, we want to ensure that customers receive a genuine offer of lower staking gaming machines as an important mitigation against gambling-related harm.

Unlike the arcade sector, bingo clubs would not remove substantial numbers of tablets as these machines are primarily used for playing the game of bingo itself. We also received a small number of responses from local authorities, charities and gaming machine manufacturers. The supplementary consultation was shared with all of the initial respondents to the land-based gambling consultation who left contact information, and received 16 responses. Do you have any additional insights or evidence relating to recent trends in GGY, profit and costs for bingo and AGC operators?

We do not want to restrict operators’ ability to use offers to attract new customers or retain existing ones, and acknowledge that ‘blunt’ measures in this area could unintentionally benefit the black market. The Gambling Commission will consult on setting higher standards for operators in obtaining all customers’ consent to direct marketing and promotional offers. A recent behavioural audit of 10 popular online operators also found that when a new account is created, half of the operators automatically sign the individual up to other brands or products owned by the operator’s parent company. There are already clear requirements that operators must seek informed and specific consent to send direct marketing to consumers, as well as requirements that direct marketing must not be sent to those who have self-excluded or are showing strong signs of harm. The combination of high re-wagering requirements and tight time limits to claim winnings poses clear risks in terms of creating a sense of urgency to gamble, incentivising high-intensity play and potentially gambling more than one had originally planned to.

This difficulty is further exacerbated by data availability and the difficulty of measuring changes in gambling harms as explored in the introduction to this white paper. We also recommend that licensing authorities make more use of their powers to attach conditions to premises licences, such as opening hours and security measures. This does not prevent the authority from granting a licence, or allow them to issue a blanket refusal to applications, but a CIA does encourage the gathering of more evidence for assessing applications and requires the operator to evidence how it will mitigate risk. CIAs will complement existing powers by supporting licensing authorities to capture and regularly review a wide range of evidence, such as density of premises in a particular area, health and crime statistics, and residents’ questionnaires.

The Gambling Commission has come under fire for not preventing the spread of Fixed odds betting terminals on the high street. The Commission issued a £600,000 penalty to LeoVegas in May 2018 for producing misleading adverts to customers as well as several self-exclusion failings. The Commission found that Camelot had poor fraud prevention controls in place and that it had breached the terms of its licence. In situations where additional investigation is required, the licence can be revoked.citation needed The range of actions that may need to be taken varies from issuing a warning to inflicting a fine on those who violate licence conditions.

As part of the arrangements for allocating existing 2005 Act licences, where more than one operator wanted to develop a casino, local authorities were able to take into account the financial contribution of operators towards regeneration and harm prevention. Increased machine allowances across the casino estate will bring commercial benefits to casino operators, and allow them to compete on a more equitable footing with online operators. We estimate around 50 casinos smaller than the 2005 Act Small casino would also be able to benefit from increased machine allowances, proportionate to their size and non-gambling space. 1968 Act casinos which do not meet these size requirements will also be able to benefit from extra machines on a pro rata basis commensurate with their size.

This has increased substantially since then and during the course of the Review the Betting and Gaming Council offered to further increase voluntary contributions across its wider membership representing 90% of the industry. When we last considered this issue in 2018, much of the debate centred around the quantity of funding provided by industry. This would impose a specific reporting requirement on gambling licensees to notify the Commission if they become aware of a customer’s suicide, even if there is not an obvious link to their gambling. DHSC will engage with key stakeholders, across both the gambling and health sector, during this process. DHSC recognises that many stakeholders will have contributed to the previous consultations, including one on mental health, and will set out opportunities to contribute further in due course. The Welsh Government has worked with key partners to undertake a gambling health needs assessment which it published in February this year and will inform the development of specialist treatment services in Wales.

The primary benefit of this measure is increased GGY for casinos that take up additional gaming machines. Gambling operators must ensure that their supervision and monitoring of gaming machines enables them to meet the requirements of the Act and conditions of their licence. Data from the National Gambling Treatment Service shows that a relatively small proportion of patients report participating in gaming machines in casinos. Taken together, the three measures will determine the maximum number of gaming machines that casinos will be entitled to. The sector views an increase to this ratio as essential in order to ensure these casinos’ long term viability by allowing them to site more gaming machines, and this conclusion was reflected in the white paper. It has also meant that none of these casinos are able in practice to satisfy the current conditions which would allow them to offer the maximum number of gaming machines due to the amount of space they take up.