Anti-money laundering responsibilities for casino businesses
We propose to introduce a stake limit for online slots, consulting on a limit of between £2 and £15 per spin, to structurally limit the risks of harmful play. The Gambling Commission intends to consult on mandating participation in a cross-operator harm prevention system based on data sharing, following assessment of the currently live operator trials which have had input from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Commission. Individual operators can take steps to prevent harm on their own platform but people suffering gambling harms usually hold multiple accounts or can open new ones easily. Further information will only be requested from customers as a last resort where it is necessary to complete an assessment, and the use of any data gathered through such checks will be restricted to assessing financial risk and indicators of financial distress.
There is a large market in the United Kingdom for gambling on competitive sports at bookmakers (betting shops) or licensed websites, particularly for horse, greyhound racing and football. Gaming machines are divided into a number of categories, mainly depending upon the stakes and payouts involved, and whether there is an element of skill (these are known officially as AWPs or „Amusement with Prizes“ machines). Many towns and cities bid to host one of these so-called „super casinos“, which will be similar to those found in Las Vegas.
Overall impact on the gambling industry
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?
Cashless principles and player protections
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.
Working with the Gambling Commission and others, we will now make online gambling safer with an overhaul of game design rules to remove the features known to exacerbate risks, and put new obligations on operators to prevent unchecked and unaffordable spending. By the second quarter of 2025, five online casinos based in Britain shut their virtual doors, listing compliance headaches and higher bills as key reasons. A fresh batch of rules is reshaping the day-to-day running of online casinos in the United Kingdom, bringing big changes for operators and players alike. The proposals were opposed by the gambling industry, including the Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association.They also regulate crypto gambling websites and mitigate the risk of money laundering through such sites.
Currently, gambling treatment services and support in both countries are mainly provided through primary care and the voluntary sector, though those in need of more specialist treatment services may be referred to the National Problem Gambling Clinics in London and elsewhere in England. While the majority agreed that operator data regarding consumer behaviours at the individual account level would be fundamental to any repository, others also argued for datasets around treatment demand and access, complaints, and wider commercial data. There was widespread support for the creation of a data repository which would be available to researchers, though specific proposals as to the extent of the repository and the sort of data it would collect ranged widely. Three researchers account for nearly 40% of all British studies published on gambling in academic journals between 2019 and 2021.
This comprehensive legislation aimed to modernize and streamline the oversight of various forms of gambling activities, including casinos, betting, and gaming machines. This comprehensive legislation aimed to oversee and govern all aspects of gambling, including casinos, betting establishments, and gaming machines. While we have no direct evidence on the rate of gambling harm for those participating on gaming machines in bingo and arcade venues specifically, we can use net expenditure and session length data to consider the possible risks of gambling harm. For those customers who switch from other casino products to gaming machines as a result of this measure, the risk of increased gambling harm as a result of these measures may be limited. From data provided by industry, we understand that there are eight 1968 Act casinos that have a gambling area of 1500sqm or over, and a similar number that are close to 1500sqm and which could be expanded if they decide to site more gaming machines and tables.
However, according to the Gambling Commission’s data, none of these casinos currently offer customers the ability to bet in their venues. This change will enable the continued viability of the high-end sector of casinos, and allow these casinos, and others that transact with these overseas based customers via cheques, to continue to contribute to the tax and tourist economy. Some casinos outside of this small group, mainly based in central London, also conduct business with overseas customers via cheques, although it is a lower percentage of their total business. The vast majority of customers in high-end casinos are high net worth individuals based overseas, who typically gamble in several jurisdictions.
The Review has not seen data which robustly quantifies behavioural nudges or barriers in the online gambling sector, so it is difficult to estimate how much they may drive consumer spending/ revenue that would not have otherwise happened, or the impact of any changes. For instance, a recent audit of online operator platforms by the Behavioural Insights team found 8 of the top 10 GB operators stated a minimum account balance was required for customers to withdraw their funds. This approach assumes that those using self-exclusion facilities do so to manage harmful gambling, as opposed to things like marketing and / or data processing preferences. Several specific areas of concern were identified in responses, including how the design of online gambling platforms (the so called ‘choice architecture’) can make it difficult to access tools or information intended to support consumers to make informed and safer decisions about their gambling.
Fees payable vary depending on the type of activity involved and the scale of the operation, reflecting the different risks they pose. Its core functions are to ensure that only those suitable to hold such licences are granted them, to ensure that those with active licences comply with all the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), and to take enforcement measures where a licensee fails to meet these high standards. The Gambling Commission is the lead regulator for commercial gambling in Great Britain (as gambling is devolved in Northern Ireland).
In addition, as the maximum stake on these machines is 10p, these machines are less likely to be played in an area where there are Category C machines which have a maximum stake of £1 and can often be played at different staking levels up to this maximum. They do not have any age restricted areas as they have no adult-only machines. Bacta reports that this typically includes locating the machines close to a supervisor’s booth or other more visible locations, and they state that it works well in ensuring under-18s do not access the machines. As set out in the white paper, Bacta did not include Category D ‘ticket-out’ slot-style machines within this ban. However, as set out in the white paper, there are concerns that ‘cash-out’ slot-style machines share similarities with higher stake machines, restricted for adults.
Licensees should consider whether processing of such data is for a permissible purpose, such as it being necessary in the public interest and/or a regulatory requirement. Licensees should also consider to what extent data subject rights, such as the right to erasure and right not to be subject to automated decision-making, may not apply given the relevant lawful basis. Continue to obtain and retain information which is sufficient to satisfy them that underage gambling is not taking place2. Licensees gather and retain personal information on customers in order to enable them to enter into and perform contracts, whilst taking into account their regulatory obligations. Operators should take into account that we may need to obtain such data even after an account has closed in order to establish whether or not a licensee has complied with its regulatory obligations. Licensees should consider what retention period is necessary for any data obtained and processed for self-exclusion or anti-money laundering purposes (whether also obtained for other purposes).
Box 16: Westminster City Council’s proposed new gambling policy statement
Guides and information for helping you protect your money and understanding your rights when gambling. You can find more information about safer gambling at the following websites. We also work with other regulators, charities and organisations to understand gambling habits and trends, promote safer gambling practices, and ensure that gambling is safe. If you or someone you know is struggling with gambling-related problems, contact the National Gambling or NHS Wales Helplines (opens in new tab). Get help, advice and information on how to use tools that manage your gambling activity.
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.
The knock-on impact of the gambling White Paper on the horseracing industry will be minimal, but there will be a review into the current horserace betting levy to make certain racing continues to be appropriately funded for the future. The call for evidence showed that while millions of people enjoy an occasional bet every year without issue, particular groups such as those suffering addiction and harm, are at greater risk from certain aggressive advertising practices. Without the right support in place gambling can easily become harmful – especially for at-risk players – leading to devastating impacts on people’s savings, relationships and health. But for some people the availability of 24/7 online betting has compounded or created problem gambling, which can lead to life-changing financial loss and in the most tragic cases suicide. Technology has transformed the industry and people can bet 24 hours a day through ‘mobile virtual casinos’ in their pockets.
Where dispute resolution processes between a customer and operator in relation to a social responsibility complaint are not successful, the primary route for individual customers to seek independent adjudication and redress is through the courts. In these circumstances, customers sometimes report their complaint to the Gambling Commission as the sector’s regulator. Therefore, where a complaint relates to whether the operator complied with the Gambling Commission’s social responsibility requirements to prevent harm, it is out of scope of ADR provision. Licensees’ obligations around preventing harm, which are set out in the LCCP or Gambling Commission guidance, are not generally part of terms and conditions and so do not form part of the contract between a customer and licensee. The current ADR system is based on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Regulations of 2015, which originate from the EU Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive of 2013. Where cases have a value not exceeding £10,000 (the threshold for the small claims court), it is expected that ADR rulings will be binding on operators (if accepted by the customer).
- This does not apply to a casino which was 1,500m² or larger on 12th May 2025, provided the size of that casino’s gambling area is not subsequently increased and the casino remains in the same premises.
- This is an important measure to create a clear distinction between gambling products for adults and lower risk products accessible to children (such as crane grabbers or coin pushers) which have non-cash prizes or are entirely unlike adult gambling products.
- This instrument brought the British system into line with various of the European so-called “regulated markets”, where the requirement to obtain a licence for that market and account for gambling duty extends to remote providers of gambling outside the jurisdiction.
- All online play is account-based, and recent years have seen significant strides in the development of harm detection algorithms which monitor every aspect of a customer’s gambling to spot signs of risk and trigger interventions without human input.
However, some research has been undertaken in addition to the PwC report; for example, the European Commission in 2017 estimated that illegal sports betting accounted for 2.2% of the total online sports betting market in the UK. Secondly, until its recent fees uplift, the Gambling Commission’s resources for responding to the black market were concentrated on acting on complaints and intelligence with a risk-based approach. Responses from some campaign groups, Parliamentarians and academics strongly disagreed and said that the industry was exaggerating the size of the illegal market in order to deter the government from imposing tighter restrictions on the licensed gambling sector. Combined with the changes the Commission has made following its consultation on licensing and enforcement and the legislative changes we have proposed, it will be better enabled through its powers to penalise operators who have not abided by the law.
With a background in business analytics and certification in responsible gambling practices, he brings a data-driven, compliance-focused approach to every review. Illegal activities encompass unlicensed offshore sites targeting UK players, private betting operations, and any gambling services provided to under-18 individuals. Legal and illegal gambling activities in the UK are clearly defined by the law to regulate the industry and protect players.
With regard to casinos that currently operate with a gambling area of 1500sqm or more, these casinos will be permitted to remain open with their current gambling area. When asked about the reduction in minimum table gaming area in Small 2005 Act casinos from 500sqm to 250sqm, more respondents were in favour of this being applied than opposed. A fairly even number of respondents were for and against the 12.5% rule applying for 1968 Act casinos, whereby any table gaming area would only count towards the minimum table gaming area if it constitutes 12.5% or more of the total table gaming area in the venue. Any 1968 Act casinos that wish to remain on the existing regime will be able to do so and are not required to adjust their product offering (unless they decide to take up the opportunity to offer facilities for betting). Feedback from engagement with operators has indicated that the sliding scale as proposed would benefit the majority of casinos, with over 80% of casinos estimated to benefit depending on how floor space is reconfigured.
Venues would be required to comply with these requirements in order to increase their gaming machine allowance. Contrastingly, respondents from local government, campaign groups and academia were more cautious about any measures which could be seen as increasing the supply of gambling opportunities, due to links between rates of gambling participation and gambling-related harm. This fee enables licensing authorities to fund their enforcement and administrative gambling duties on a cost recovery basis. We will increase the maximum premises licence fees which can be charged by local authorities by 15%. To ensure that this is enforced we will make it a criminal offence to invite, cause or permit someone under the age of 18 to use these machines.
Customers in a casino wishing to buy chips via debit card previously had to leave the gaming floor to purchase chips at a cash desk/kiosk. Legislation requires ATMs to be sited so that customers must stop gambling if they want to get more cash. There are now seven active 2005 Act casinos from which to draw conclusions, with another one having opened and then closed again. When the 2005 Act was passed, the then government planned to review the changes in 2014, but only two of the new casino licences were active at that stage.
We will also permit a smaller increase in machines for venues that non gamstop do not meet the size requirements, proportionate to their overall size and non-gambling area. The land-based gambling sector, unlike the online gambling sector, has faced significant challenges in recent years as a result of business inactivity during periods of COVID-19 restrictions. However, we recognise that a minority of customers do experience gambling-related harm and that it is necessary to have safeguards in place to protect customers.
How much funding do you estimate is needed for administration and the enforcement of licences annually? If you are a local authority/ licensing board, do you currently charge the maximum fees as set out in the Gambling Act 2005? However, given the relatively low level of annual fees per premises at present, we consider this to be unlikely.
This does not apply to a casino which was 1,500m² or larger on 12th May 2025, provided the size of that casino’s gambling area is not subsequently increased and the casino remains in the same premises. New paragraph 3 of Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the 2007 Regulations attaches additional mandatory conditions to converted casino premises licences that apply only if the holder decides to exercise the extended entitlement. The mandatory conditions vary depending on whether the holder of the licence has decided to exercise the extended entitlement, and if not, whether the floor area of the gambling area in the casino is 200m² or more. Paragraph (3) of regulation 4 of these Regulations amends the mandatory conditions attaching to converted casino premises licences in Part 5 of Schedule 1 to the 2007 Regulations. By paragraph (2) of regulation 4, the minimum size of the table gaming area in small casinos licensed under the Act is reduced from 500m² to 250m².
Visitors of SuperCasinoSites should keep in mind gambling can be highly addictive and as such, should always be approached responsibly and with due measure. According to UKGC research, roughly 22% of online gamblers who use credit cards can be classified as problem gamblers. They cannot promise guaranteed winnings or suggest that gambling can solve financial or personal problems. For example, gambling ads may not target children or young people under 18. It is a self-regulatory body, meaning its operations are funded not by the government but by a voluntary industry levy.
Failing to meet the size requirement in any of these three areas will result in a lower machine entitlement. Therefore, we would welcome any responses which highlight concerns about this approach and how non-gambling areas could be calculated using a different method. Industry has raised some concerns about how areas like bars would be categorised if sports betting terminals were placed in them. If its gambling area is 500sqm or more, its non-gambling area must be equal to or greater than 250sqm. It could also mean that the same gambling facilities are compressed into a smaller gambling area, with potentially a worse customer experience and no player protection benefits.