Your licence

Guidance to licensing authorities

Subject to all of the above, in accordance with the licensing authority’s policy statement published under section 349 of the Act. In accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Commission under section 25 (this section requires the Commission to issue guidance on how licensing authorities should exercise their functions, and the principles they should apply in doing so); In England and Wales, the licensing authority is the local authority, whereas in Scotland it is the licensing board.

The government’s position is to proceed with the introduction of an age limit on ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines. The vast majority of respondents (96%) stated that the government should introduce an age limit on ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines of 18 and over. This chapter of the consultation received 46 responses, mainly from licensing authorities and industry. The consultation asked the following questions on ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines.

• 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.
• The simple proposition actually makes the responsible-gambling tools easier to find than at the bigger sites.
• The government is also concerned by the low pass rates in test purchasing for racecourses and gaming machines in alcohol licensed premises, which are both significantly lower than at other land-based venues.
• Currently, annual fees for 1968 Act casinos are between 65% and 90% of the annual fees that 2005 Act casinos in the equivalent fee category are required to pay.

Your licence

We have not quantified the impact of the resulting machine ratios on overall GGY due to limited evidence about how gamblers will change their behaviour in response. Following the relaxation of the ratio, we expect the number of Category C and D machines to fall as venues remove predominantly unused machines. Firstly, the relaxation of the 80/20 ratio which restricts the balance of Category B and Category C and D machines in bingo and arcade venues is expected to increase GGY and reduce energy costs. We note that there may also be a small reduction in sports betting online due to this measure causing spend to be displaced. 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. Sites operated by Bacta members already have a voluntary ban on under 18s using these machines, so have been excluded from the GGY drop calculation.

Anecdotal evidence shows that only three of the 2005 Act casinos offer betting, representing about 0.2% of the total GGY for each of those casino premises. As outlined in the table below, we propose that casinos with a gambling area of 280sqm or less are allowed 16 machines, increasing by two machines for every additional 20sqm of gambling space, up to 40 machines. We propose that the number of machines is limited, based on the overall gambling area of the casino.

This change was introduced because cross-product bonuses were identified as a vehicle for drawing players into forms of gambling they had not originally intended to participate in. Each product vertical (casino, sports, bingo, poker) must offer its own standalone bonuses. For example, a casino can no longer offer a “deposit £20 for a sportsbook bonus and get 50 free spins on slots” style promotion. Both features have been banned because they undermine the responsible gambling principles of informed, deliberate play. The rationale for focusing on slots is their high speed of play and their strong association with problem gambling patterns.

Regulatory codes

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 sites not on gamstop targeting of individuals discussed above, the general gambling advertising landscape, both online and offline, attracted significant attention in submissions to the call for evidence.

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.

Whether a UKGC licence is required, and which type, is the first practical question for any operator considering UK-facing online play. The Commission must pursue the licensing objectives and permit gambling insofar as reasonably consistent with those objectives. It is a criminal offence to provide gambling facilities without a relevant licence, permit, notice, or exemption. Most UK online gambling regulation discussion is Great Britain-centric, because the Gambling Act 2005 created the modern UKGC regime for Great Britain.

Ombudsmen are not only a crucial mechanism for consumer protection, providing a means for consumers to enforce their rights independently, but also a source of data to help improve industry standards. We also received evidence on the scale of the existing gap, set out below, and on complexities around redress in gambling cases. There was widespread agreement that support for customers seeking redress for operators’ social responsibility failures is a gap in current arrangements. Questions in our call for evidence asked how redress arrangements might be improved and what risks or consequences the government should consider in making any changes.

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.

Where the Commission agrees a payment in lieu of a fine (a regulatory settlement), this is typically used for socially responsible purposes connected with gambling, in line with the Commission’s Statement of Principles for Determining Financial Penalties and most usually to address gambling-related harm. For gambling specifically, the Commission must approve all providers and has set specific supplementary standards for ADR in its guidance, including a further definition of what counts as a dispute and heightened expectations regarding independence, transparency, customer service and reporting requirements. Non-payment of winnings, account closures and misleading promotions and adverts were the main areas of complaint shown across ADR, Resolver, the online dispute resolution platform, and the Commission’s Contact Centre data. Data from the Gambling Commission’s quarterly online survey (June 2021) showed that 8% of respondents said they had ever complained directly to a gambling operator. Subject to industry delivering a credible scheme, where the government and the Gambling Commission are satisfied with its scope and independence, we will explore how best to require that all licensees ensure their customers have effective access to the ombudsman for social responsibility complaints.

One study of legal youth gambling products identified a correlative association between adult disordered gambling and recollected use of Category D machines, including coin push, crane grab and fruit machines, in childhood. The PHE evidence review noted that the problem gambling rate (1.6%) for society lottery products (including scratchcards) was similar to that for National Lottery draw-based games (1.0%) and scratchcards (1.8%). We also considered whether Category D gaming machines which have no statutory lower age limit should have access limited for those under 18 years. While campaign groups welcomed the voluntary VIP scheme restrictions from operators, they also suggested protections should go up to 34 years, highlighting evidence that men aged 25 to 34 are also likely to suffer gambling harms. Gambling Commission data shows relatively low rates of illegal underage gambling with online operators, but when this does occur, it is generally through misuse of an adult’s account or details rather than a failure of the verification process. However, there was little evidence provided on Category D machines causing harm in childhood or later life.

While the government is sympathetic in principle to the idea of a bespoke machine for high-end casinos, there would be substantial practical difficulties with ensuring it was only available in casinos or areas of casinos where such a high-staking machine would not substantially increase the risk of harm. Operators of high-end casinos have proposed a new sub-category of gaming machine with a stake limit of £50 and a prize limit of £100,000. High-end casinos have told us that these machines are not relevant to their high net worth clientele, who can afford and are accustomed to gambling with much higher stakes. Conversely, we did not receive evidence that permitting betting in 2005 Act casinos resulted in increased harm. Industry submitted evidence that 88% of casino customers at a major casino chain also bet on sports online at least once a month, including on mobile devices while in the casino, and that international customers expect to see a sportsbook area as part of the casino offer. According to submissions to our call for evidence, 90% of revenue in a small group of high-end casinos comes from customers based overseas, and before COVID-19 60% of overall business was conducted through cheques.

Testing Slottio

Cash-only gambling was assumed to give players more control by providing natural interruptions in play to obtain more cash, helping players play within budget limits. Please outline any other proposals relating to machine allowances in arcades and bingo halls that you think that we should consider. We welcome further evidence on this in the consultation response.

There has been no evidence that permitting betting in 2005 Act casinos resulted in increased harm, and the Gambling Commission’s view is that permitting sports betting in 1968 Act casinos is unlikely to have any particular impact on the Act’s licensing objectives. For example, we do not think that it would be appropriate for a casino that has a gambling area of 280sqm and a table gaming and non-gambling area of 140sqm to be able to site 40 SSBTs alongside 25 gaming machines and at least five gaming tables. Evidence pointed to customer demand – 88% of casino customers at a major casino chain are currently betting on sports online at least once a month, including on mobile devices while in casinos.

Find out how you can stay safe when gambling. The Codes also require that advertisements for gambling products or services do not mislead. Such permission may come from a licence, permit, or registration granted in accordance with the Act or from an exemption given by the Act. The primary legislation governing gambling in Great Britain is the Gambling Act 2005 (opens in new tab). It won’t be able to eliminate all forms of problem gambling, the only way to do that is to completely ban gambling, and nobody wants that. This might be one of the biggest gambling shake-ups in a while.

Many of the legacy Category C and D machines that still remain in venues do not have these capabilities. To further improve player safety on machine games, the arcades and bingo industries have committed to ensuring B3 machines in all venues allow players to set their own time and spend limits, or default to a £150/20 minute limit. A wider rollout could include potential restrictions, for example on the number of machines or where they can be located. We do not wish to risk increasing harm by introducing untested, new concepts other than on a time-limited basis and with appropriate safeguards in place.

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.

Neither partially automated nor wholly automated gaming tables, including products such as pinball roulette, will count as ‘gaming tables’ for these purposes. If you are an operator with more than one premises licence at the same location, do you intend to take up these new entitlements for each licence? Shown if Yes is selected Do you intend to site the maximum number of machines available to you? If you selected ‘No’, please provide an alternative proposal for gaming machine entitlements if you have one. As at present, a 1968 Act casino with a gambling area of at least 200sqm would also need to provide a non-gambling area equivalent to at least 10% of its total gambling area.

This same flexibility will be a defining feature of our ongoing approach to gambling regulation with a regulator empowered to respond to new challenges. The remote gambling sector continues to be enormously innovative, and it is essential that our regulation can respond to issues both foreseen and unforeseen. Equally, things which might be in the customers’ interest should be made accessible, understandable and easy. The findings could inform future steps in this area, including making it as easy to close an account as it is to open one.

The UK casino regulations represent the most significant overhaul of British gambling law in over two decades. Membership of GAMSTOP is mandatory for all licensed online operators. Operators pay gambling duties instead, including the 40% Remote Gaming Duty introduced in April 2026. Every casino in our UK casino rankings is licence-checked as part of our review process, so the list is a safe starting point.