United Kingdom – Gambling Laws and Regulations 2026

New £2 maximum stake for under 25s playing online slots

Where an authority retains an interest, we will look to learn more about its current position and the barriers to making progress within a reasonable time, with a view to evaluating whether an unused licence should be reallocated. Where an authority has no intention of progressing a licence, we will act promptly to offer up unused licences for reallocation so that other areas are able to benefit. We propose to write to local authorities with unused licences to ask them to confirm whether there is an intention to develop the licence. Local leaders of some areas without 2005 Act licences have expressed interest in a licence as a driver of regeneration. Under existing legislation, government could create more new 2005 Act licences or alternatively seek to offer up as yet undeveloped 2005 Act licences for reallocation. This sliding scale would still maintain a requirement for a balance between non-gambling space and overall size but would allow a proportionate increase.

United Kingdom – Gambling Laws and Regulations 2026

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.

Local risk assessments must take into account the licensing authority’s statement of licensing policy, and must be reviewed and updated to take account of significant changes in the local area. The Commission works in partnership with licensing authorities to regulate gambling and publishes guidance for them. Gambling Commission licence conditions require on-course bookmakers to have policies in place relating to open and fair gambling, problem gambling, protecting children and vulnerable people and anti-money laundering. On-course bookmakers are subject to regulation under the Gambling Act 2005 and must obtain a non-remote general betting (limited) operating licence from the Gambling Commission. However, other factors may influence this data, for example the closure of 8% (639) of betting offices in the same period.

The evidence provided by the bingo club sector was more varied, with some operators projecting a small increase in GGY (though substantially less than Option 1 would generate for some bingo club operators), whilst others projected a small decrease in GGY. Evidence provided by arcade operators and the industry trade body Bacta suggested that this option would likely have a small but negative impact on GGY for many operators. Under Option 1, the vast majority of industry respondents projected that there would be an increase in GGY for arcade and bingo operators.

Some responses argued that product ratings according to a risk index such as ASTERIG could be used to inform product-specific risk warnings. One regularly referenced study found that only 46% of online gamblers are able to correctly interpret ‘return to player’ — the most commonly used metric to convey the chances of winning in online slots. Our proposals in this area are only a small part of the government’s overall vision for stronger regulation of online advertising. These proposals are predominantly an expansion of work that operators are already taking forward to reduce children and vulnerable people’s exposure to advertising, and as such impact on operators should be limited. The Gambling Commission continues to keep this area under review and will not hesitate to take action if there is evidence of standards slipping. These have led the House of Lords Select Committee and others to argue that affiliates should require their own licences from the Gambling Commission to operate in this country.

We propose therefore that these machines are allowed to stay in unrestricted areas in licensed and unlicensed FECs, and other premises including but not limited to pubs and travelling fairs. 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. However, due to the lack of substantive research or evidence clearly identifying harms resulting from general Category D machines, we do not support a ban on children accessing other Category D machines, such as those that pay out in tickets, crane grabbers or coin pushers. As set out in the white paper, we believe that a more precautionary approach is justified for slot-style games which mirror the mechanics of adult-only gaming machines, particularly those which pay out cash. Whilst there are some forms of indirect cashless payment methods under the current framework, as well as ATMs near some gambling locations, the lack of future-proofing for payment methods does risk a real decline in gaming machine GGY.

The regulatory question is whether gambling facilities are used by Great Britain consumers, not whether the operator is licensed elsewhere. B2B suppliers exposed to UK-facing offshore clients should map this risk directly into commercial terms. The UKGC’s October 2025 report (updated March 2026) describes a concrete toolkit for disrupting illegal operators serving Great Britain. In the Sorare.com prosecution, the UKGC charged Sorare.com with providing unlicensed gambling facilities to consumers in Britain, with a listed hearing at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. For operators weighing UK market entry, the regulatory reality is not a compliance box-tick but a continuous programme with real financial exposure. The UKGC publishes major financial penalties on a near-quarterly basis, and a smaller body of court decisions sets the boundaries of what those penalties can look like and how operators can respond.

Overall impact on gambling-related harm

Ofcom is given its powers to set fees by primary legislation which requires it to publish the principles behind its approach to setting licence fees and charges, called the ‘Statement of Charging Principles’. The Commission, under new leadership, has also set out an ambitious vision for how it should regulate the industry, which was not factored into the last fees review. This white paper also proposes an ambitious step change in gambling regulation and the regulator must have the funds it needs to match this level of ambition.

This opposition was primarily from industry stakeholders, who argued that the other space requirements and the imposition of a machine to table ratio would ensure a balance between table gaming, machines and non-gambling space. For example, safer gambling functionality is now available and widely used on many gaming machines. This consultation relates to land-based gambling provided to customers in Great Britain, by operators who are consequently required to hold the appropriate licence from the Gambling Commission. The five types of licences included within this are casino premises licences, bingo premises licences, adult gaming centre premises licences, family entertainment centre premises licences, and betting premises licences. The GGY impact of this measure will depend on the take up of cashless gaming machines by operators, but also on the player protections.

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.

By balancing the interests of consumers, operators, and regulators, the UK has established itself as a global leader in casino regulation, setting the standard for responsible and transparent gambling practices. Licensed casinos became popular destinations for entertainment and socializing, offering a wide range of games and amenities to attract customers. The establishment of licensing requirements and regulatory oversight ensured that casinos operated within legal parameters, fostering trust among patrons and stakeholders. By examining the evolution of casino regulations in the UK, we gain insights into broader societal attitudes towards gambling and the role of government in regulating this industry.

UKGC licence is current, the responsible-gambling tools are properly integrated, and the affordability checks kick in at the regulated thresholds without making routine play feel surveilled. UKGC licence is current, GAMSTOP is integrated, and the responsible-gambling controls are properly placed. UKGC licence is current and the responsible-gambling tools are properly integrated.

The tables below outline current and proposed space requirements for 2005 Act casinos, and 1968 Act casinos which seek to increase their gaming machine entitlement above 20 (including at least one Category B machine). As gaming machine allowances and machine to table ratios for 1968 Act casinos and Small 2005 Act casinos converge, more consistent size requirements should apply across the two types of licence to ensure a degree of fairness and consistency. It was also noted from the call for evidence that where other jurisdictions apply a machine to table ratio, all currently permit a greater proportion of gaming machines in comparison to Great Britain. 1968 Act casinos that are smaller than the configurations of a 2005 Act Small casino but have a gambling area equal to or greater than 280sqm will be able to increase their gaming machine allocations on a pro rata basis commensurate with gambling area. 1968 Act casinos that have a gambling area of at least 500sqm will be eligible for the same number of machines as permitted in a Small 2005 Act casino.

The stated aims of the Commission are to keep crime out of gambling, Ensure it is conducted in a fair and open manner and to protect the vulnerable. The Gambling Commission and the Government continue to listen to concerns from campaigners, the wider public, and both the gambling and horse racing industries as part of the consultation process on these checks. This includes the introduction of a statutory levy for research, prevention and treatment, as well as financial risk checks designed to prevent catastrophic, life-changing losses. Although most people gamble without issue, the restrictions introduced today are just some of the proposals set out in the Government’s white paper to modernise the gambling sector and make it fit for the digital age. We welcome the Government’s announcement to introduce lower online stake limits for under 25s as an important mechanism to protect young people.

As outlined above, we think the player protection measures that these machines will be required to implement will be adequate to mitigate against the risk of gambling-related harm, considering the lower maximum stakes that they are subject to. While we understand the different environments and the higher stakes and prizes available to customers on B1 machines, data received from industry shows that these limits should not impact the majority of players. Non-industry responses predominantly indicated preferences for much lower limits than industry, with some stating it should be £1 and 1 minute, again, reflecting their position that cashless payments should not be introduced for gaming machines.

“stake” means to pay or risk an amount in connection with an online slots game. (3) Where this condition is attached to a remote casino operating licence which was issued before this regulation comes into force, the condition has effect from the date on which this regulation comes into force. As the response and the SI set out, the stake limits are for online slots only and do not apply to other casino games, such as roulette or blackjack. The SI has the effect of adding a new condition to all remote casino operating licences. We are responsible for issuing personal gambling licences for individuals and gambling operating licences for businesses operating in Great Britain.

• The minimum table gaming area for Small 2005 Act casinos, which is currently 500sqm, will be reduced to 250sqm to align the minimum space requirements for these different regimes.
• Both features have been banned because they undermine the responsible gambling principles of informed, deliberate play.
• 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.
• Operators are therefore already expected to consider customers’ financial circumstances to inform case by case risk assessments of whether an individual’s gambling may be harmful.

Operators are therefore already expected to consider customers’ financial circumstances to inform case by case risk assessments of whether an individual’s gambling may be harmful. A number of individuals submitted evidence including case studies which showed that signs of harm can be missed and that individuals are permitted (and occasionally encouraged) to continue gambling. Most industry submissions pointed to recent Gambling Commission data (which has since been updated) which suggests a decline in the population problem gambling rate, as evidence that the incremental changes are having the desired effect. Finally, there is also a range of other universal controls to make the online gambling experience safer, largely imposed through licence conditions on gambling operators. All licensed online operators must provide customers with a range of tools to help them gamble safely, such as gambling activity statements, ‘time out’ functionality, and facilities to set limits on spend. Some academics, treatment providers and groups with personal experience have also argued the environment of online gambling and certain structural characteristics of online products are inherently risky for all customers, and particularly for those who are otherwise vulnerable.

Many older Category C cabinet machines are reported to produce GGY at the lower end of that scale as they are outdated and less appealing to customers. Option 3, which would remove the ratio entirely, was the only option which generated projections of increased operator GGY from bingo club operators, arcade operators, trade bodies and gaming machine manufacturers. This was consistent across bingo club operators, arcade operators and gaming machine manufacturers. This will ensure that Category C and D machines made available by operators have genuine customer appeal and/or are genuinely available for use, as opposed to being used as a means to increase the number of Category B cabinets a venue can site. Additionally, the reform seeks to allow operators to reduce their energy costs through the removal of unused but energy intensive Category C and D machines and/or increase GGY through increased numbers of higher yielding Category B machines.

In addition, the current GGY derived from betting in casinos where it is permitted, is very small. However, at this stage we do not know precisely what these costs will be, as we do not have any evidence on how casinos will respond to this. All casinos to be permitted to offer sports betting. We would not permit betting in Scottish 1968 Act casinos until Scottish Ministers have had the opportunity to consider what (if any) restrictions or protections they would like to put in place by way of amendments to the Mandatory and Default Conditions Regulations. While permitting betting in 1968 Act casinos is not a reserved matter, as outlined above, we intend to impose a limit on the number of SSBTs that can be made available in a casino.

Some submissions highlighted that gambling blocks on debit cards could make it easier to prevent harmful gambling and track customer spend. However, evidence from these groups was typically directed towards other areas of the Review such as online player protection, children and young people, and advertising. We received evidence from a range of stakeholders in response to whether new types of casino created by the 2005 Act meet the Act’s objectives for the sector. We also received submissions from campaign groups and academic research highlighting the risks of cashless gambling and possible mitigations. Some submissions also made the case that the triennial review process (a formal feature of gambling regulation before the 2005 Act) allowed a regular review of the rules applied to machine games and therefore enabled a process for stake and prize limits to be amended to reflect inflation or wider changes.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is the supervisory authority for data protection legislation, and maintains a full explanation of these rights on their website DCMS will ensure that we uphold your rights when processing your personal data. You have rights over your personal data under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Your data will not be transferred outside the UK. non gamestop casinos We will not use your data for any automated decision making. Your personal data will be kept for one year in line with DCMS retention policy. Information provided in response to this consultation (not including personal information) may be shared with other government departments and arm’s length bodies, such as the Department for Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission.

Trade bodies representing the land-based gambling sector have recently established a new voluntary safer game design code for gaming machines which aims to instil a minimum set of standards for land-based game design. We also received evidence on the current balance of Category B and Category C and D gaming machines in adult gaming centres and licensed bingo premises. The vast majority of gaming machines in casinos are Category B1 machines, which have a £5 maximum stake and £10,000 prize limit.

This was higher than the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2018 estimate but could be due to a number of factors, including the pilot having somewhat higher rates of past year gamblers than the HSE. This new way of collecting data was successful in attracting participants and generated a good response rate across the whole of Great Britain. In June 2020, following a consultation, the Commission started piloting a new set of survey questions designed to better understand the incidence, nature and severity of harm experienced by gamblers and non-gamblers. Collecting and disseminating information relating to the extent and impact of gambling in Britain forms an important basis for this advice. Under section 26 of the Gambling Act 2005, the Commission is responsible for advising the Secretary of State on the manner in which gambling is carried on as well as the incidence, effects and regulation of gambling in Great Britain. The work it is doing to improve collection of participation statistics and its future work to make more data available to researchers will also be important contributions and are outlined further below.