Print Options

Is Online Gambling Legal in the UK? 2026 UKGC Rules

The UK gambling industry requires strict licenses to ensure a safe and secure gaming environment. Age verification standards now extend beyond remote gambling to land-based premises. Operators must obtain separate permissions for each product category (e.g., casino, sports betting, bingo) and communication channel (e.g., email, SMS, phone). Clients trust Wiggin to navigate a broad range of legal matters, including obtaining and maintaining licences, international expansion, business acquisitions and sales, intellectual property protection, data security, dispute resolution and regulatory compliance.

This section of the consultation received 46 responses, primarily from licensing authorities and gambling operators. In contrast, most industry responses were concerned that customers may use this information to incorrectly determine that a machine is due a pay-out and therefore could lead to people spending more on a machine. Most responses in favour of implementing these features on machines were in agreement with the rationale outlined in the consultation that it would help customers to make more informed decisions and keep track of their spending.

Print Options

However, even when accounting for device type (i.e. cabinet, in-fill or tablet), the responses suggest that Category C and D gaming machines generate less GGY than Category B machines. For example, one large arcade operator projected a 20% increase in the number of Category B gaming machines under Option 1, which corresponded to a projected medium increase in GGY. Industry responses suggested that the projected uplift in GGY under Options 1 and 3, and conversely, the decrease or no impact in GGY under Option 2, corresponds directly with the ability to site Category B gaming machines.

As outlined, the Gambling Commission has expressed concern regarding the adherence of operators to ‘available for use’ guidance. The increased flexibility will provide operators with more scope to make commercial decisions relating to energy consumption and customer demand. Under the scenario outlined in Option 1, it is expected that there will be a significant increase in commercial flexibility for operators across both bingo halls and AGCs. Similarly to bingo halls, this would likely result in both energy savings and increased GGY for operators. The removal of energy intensive legacy Category C cabinets will likely reduce the overall energy consumption of these operators.

This is outlined in Gambling Commission licence conditions, and the broader requirements under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) and UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) — both enforced by the ICO. To reduce the potential risks of bonus offers, the Gambling Commission will consult further on appropriate action, considering issues such as maximum caps on wagering requirements and minimum time limits before offers expire. However, re-wagering requirements are still often set at high thresholds — for example, a bonus of £10 with a 50x wagering requirement requires the customer to bet £500, and the funds, including any winnings, can often expire after a given time limit — often as brief as seven days. Operators told us such schemes in land-based venues are important because they improve the customer experience which is inherent to their business model. These are typically low value, using loyalty schemes with no personalised account management; for instance, ‘Best Odds Guaranteed’, ‘Acca Boost’ or ‘Fail to Finish’ promotions which allow customers to get money back if a horse fails to finish. In bingo and adult gaming centres, promotions generally consist of small scale incentives/ rewards such as introductory offers for new products, free teas and coffees, or free games.

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.

Industry responses stated that in addition to the ability to increase GGY, a central component of increased commercial flexibility for many operators is the ability to remove underused gaming machines. However, to mitigate against gambling-related harm, the reform of the rule also seeks to ensure that a genuine offer of lower staking Category C and D machines remain available for customers. A central objective behind the reform of the 80/20 rule is to enable operators to have greater commercial flexibility over their product offer of Category B, C and D gaming machines.

This participation rate includes forms of gambling which are legal for children (such as private bets or playing Category D gaming machines) and those which are not. Reviewing the data collected from operators on a regular basis will form an important part of this work, offering opportunities to identify areas of non-compliance and risk of harm at an earlier stage, in particular for online operators. A particular concern raised in some submissions to our call for evidence was the practice of encouraging existing customers to try new forms of gambling, known as ‘cross-selling’ (for example giving free online slots spins to sports bettors or heavily marketing casino products to bingo players). Promotional offers in the land-based sector have different features to online gambling, and the vast majority of them (outside the high-end casino and betting sectors) are generally non-monetary or of low value.

Figure 13: Premises Licence Fees in Scotland

Call for evidence respondents provided a number of proposals for how the uptake of these tools could be increased in Great Britain. This has been supported by research by the Australian government Behavioural Economics team which found proactive sharing of activity statements, presented in a user-friendly format, could help customers spend less. A study of Norwegian gamblers found 34% accessed an activity statement when notified it was available, while another study found as few as 10% of Australian gamblers had done so (although they are not consistently available on Australian gambling platforms). Similarly, when presented with a free text box sites not on gamstop which encouraged reflection, the average deposit limit set by customers fell by 46%. For example, financial limits are the most widely used tool but can be set at levels which are clearly far beyond the means of most gamblers and therefore unlikely to mitigate harm. We have conducted our own estimate, and project that a universal limit set at £8.50 (as the midpoint in our consultation) would reduce online slots GGY by between £135 million and £185 million.

Offences cover the unlicensed offer of gambling, the unlicensed use of premises for gambling, the promotion or facilitation of a lottery and so on. However, the way that British legislation addresses gambling is to set up a whole series of criminal offences and then provide that the possession of the appropriate licence is a defence. Multi-operator self-exclusion schemes are in place to allow consumers to self-exclude from multiple gambling premises in Great Britain. The outcome of that consultation is not yet known.An “economic crime levy” is payable by entities that are regulated for anti-money laundering purposes (currently only casinos in the UK) and which generate more than £10.2 million in UK revenue.

We will jointly organise a series of workshops later this year with researchers, third sector partners and the Gambling Commission to stimulate interest in the gambling research field. We will consult on how the levy will be constructed, including the rate at which it will be set and the total amount to be raised. We will review the Commission’s licence fees to ensure it has the resources to continue its transformation and deliver on the commitments across this white paper. The Commission has been taking steps to ensure it can effectively respond to novel products which blur the line between gambling and other areas and will continue work in this area.

• While we welcome industry efforts to improve the quality of its safer gambling advertising campaigns with the launch of ‘Take Time To Think’, sole industry ownership of such messaging is not sustainable in the long term.
• 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.
• We expect all operators to take steps to offer appropriate redress to customers where needed and if the ombudsman does not attract sufficient cooperation or deliver the protections as we expect, we will legislate to put its position beyond doubt.
• 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).
• We will use your data to enable us to carry out our functions as a government department.

Regulation 4 reduces the minimum size of the table gaming area in small casinos from 500. The Act establishes the Commission as the supervisory authority for casinos, granting them the power to provide guidance that assists operators in meeting regulatory requirements. In addition, there is a third category of casino that is permitted through transitional arrangements under Schedule 18 of the Act, which may be referred to as 1968 Act converted casinos.

Having an ombudsman in the gambling sector which can deal with social responsibility complaints and whose remit is signposted clearly would be an important first step towards a new approach to consumer redress. These bodies have been approved on the basis that they fulfil requirements under current legislation and the Gambling Commission’s improved standards, ensuring customers get the protections they are entitled to. There are eight providers of ADR for gambling, most of which also operate in other sectors with some performing functions outside of complaint handling too.

The financial regulation of gambling is set out mostly in the British Finance Acts and provides for various levels of duty upon different types of gambling. Not regarded as gambling where the element of chance is no more than de minimis. Free-to-enter draws and betting competitions may be exempt if they meet conditions for free draws or prize competitions.

For example, if a casino has 400sqm of gambling space, it would be required to have at least 200sqm of table gaming space. For casinos that are 500sqm or larger, the table gaming area must be equal to or greater than 250sqm. For 1968 Act casinos that meet the same size thresholds as Small 2005 Act casinos, we have proposed introducing a 250sqm table gaming area requirement. However, those casinos that would be allowed to keep their current gambling space would have more flexibility in terms of the layout of their venue compared to Small 2005 Act casinos, which may be deemed unfair by casinos without this advantage. Option (2) would not require currently operating casinos to reduce their total gambling space.

The legislation covering the gambling sector was written in 2005. It has made gambling easier, quicker and often more fun, but when things go wrong it can see people lose thousands of pounds in a few swipes of the screen. We live in an age where people have a virtual mobile casino in their pockets. These are the most comprehensive reforms to the gambling sector since the Gambling Act was introduced in 2005, and delivers on the 2019 manifesto commitment to review this act. Betting companies are already required to prevent harm, but there have been repeated instances where they have allowed losses which the majority of the population could never afford.

Progress here will help strengthen the evidence base around gambling and gambling-related harms, and buttress work to increase investment and capacity in the gambling research field. Separately, to support the development of effective treatment interventions, OHID has commissioned the University of Sheffield to calculate harmful gambling treatment needs and demand at local, national and regional levels. Through working collaboratively with NHS and other key delivery partners, including GambleAware, it wants to ensure those experiencing gambling-related harms receive high-quality treatment in a timely manner. It would not be appropriate for the Commission to be responsible for a repository of all data relating to gambling in Great Britain, including on areas such as treatment which fall outside of its remit. Collecting more data will provide rich datasets to assess compliance but will also allow for an increased understanding of consumer behaviour and operator practices which, suitably anonymised, could in turn inform research and understanding of gambling-related harms.

The number of gaming machines a casino may host depends on its classification. Under Section 20 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Commission replaced the Gaming Board for Great Britain and now has jurisdiction over arcades, betting, bingo, casinos, slot machines, and lotteries. It allowed larger casino establishments to operate with more gaming machines and granted patrons easier access. Benefits to business are increased gross gambling yield for casinos and unquantified benefits to gaming machine suppliers and manufacturers. The Commission has become aware that in some instances, operators who hold a combined non-remote casino licence and betting operating licence, have looked into converting part of their casino premises to betting premises. In Scotland the licensing boards are licensing authorities and continue to have responsibilities for granting permissions for casinos in the form of premises licences.

They also noted the cost of refloating machines, which has become more challenging for pubs where cash payments are not taken over the bar. Evidence submitted by the British Beer and Pub Association shows a post-COVID decline in both the percentage of pubs with machines and machine weekly income. While the existing framework has allowed for some innovation in cashless payments, gambling has largely remained cash-based. They are a significant part of land-based gambling, constituting 51% of non-remote Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) in 2022.

Some operators were keen to highlight the increasing cost burden for land-based casinos in other areas, but acknowledged the logic of applying consistency across regimes. Currently, 1968 Act casinos are not required to have a table gaming area so the premises plan will need to be updated accordingly. In order to include SSBTs as part of a sportsbook offering, casinos would be required to apply for a remote general betting standard real events licence. It was also suggested that customers who do not normally engage in sports betting online may be encouraged to do so via availability in a casino. Those opposed to sports betting in casinos suggested that a broader range of products makes it easier for gamblers to move from activity to activity, upscaling losses and potential harms.

Each should have its own casino premises licence and its own principal entrance from a street, and it must not be possible to enter one of them from other gambling premises. Currently, a number of 1968 Act casinos operate more than one premises licence at the same physical location. Allowing 1968 casinos to increase their machine offering above their current allowance of 20 could result in greater customer willingness to take breaks, which will likely increase reflection and reduce risk. The rules have also incentivised holders of multiple 1968 Act casino licences to operate them as separate entities in the same premises for the purpose of increasing machine numbers.

The gambling industry should work with financial service firms to enable the blocks to be extended to other payment methods like bank transfers. While GAMSTOP is the principal means of online self-exclusion, we welcome that banks and payment providers offer opt-in gambling transaction blocks. This will include options of a £2 limit per stake; a £4 limit per stake; or an approach based on individual risk.

By contrast, the largest estimated increase in annual GGY received from arcade operators was in the region of £10m. Cabinet device types are usually the most popular with customers. The majority of industry responses expressed a preference for either Option 1 or Option 3, and were strongly opposed to Option 2. Further details of proposed new operating licence fees will follow in due course.

A response from an advocacy organisation opposed the introduction of direct debit card payments on the basis that there is evidence that cashless payments result in increased and unplanned spending when compared to cash. One betting shop operator was concerned that allowing direct debit card payments would minimise the interactions a customer has with betting shop staff as their current customer journey requires a certain level of interaction with a staff member. They stated that it would be an unnecessary and disproportionate burden for a low stake and low prize machine.