Age Verification Requirements

UK Online Casino Regulations 2026 Guide

Certain clubs are also able to offer gaming machines if they hold a club gaming permit or a club machine permit. It is jointly regulated by the Gambling Commission, which licenses operators, and Licensing Authorities (local authorities in England and Wales and licensing boards in Scotland), which license gambling premises. The Gambling Commission will conduct a review of gaming machine technical standards to assess the role of session limits across Category B and C machines and the role of safer gambling tools.

Please upload any further supporting evidence that you wish to share. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will have due regard to the public sector equality duty, including considering the impact of these proposals on those who share protected characteristics, as provided by the Equality Act 2010. What do you think are the potential impacts of raising licence fees on the local area? Are there any functions that local authorities/ licensing boards do not exercise at present, but could if fees were increased (e.g. a more proactive enforcement policy)?

The regulator also makes use of the system of personal management licences to act against individuals and there have been licence suspensions in cases where the regulator considered the operator to be substantially non-compliant. The usual pattern of regulatory enforcement is for the regulator to instigate a review of the operating licence in question, with the consequences described above. The British regulator continues its series of enforcement actions against its licensees, as described above, including follow-ups from previous enforcement actions. Have fines, licence revocations or other sanctions been enforced in your jurisdiction? Anyone who is involved to any material extent in the provision of gambling, or gambling software, may be committing an offence in the UK if they are not correctly licensed or if they cannot take advantage of one of the limited range of exemptions in the legislation.

• Our intention is that the thresholds and checks based on these considerations will be standard across the online sector and allow for financial risks to be monitored alongside the existing obligations on all operators to prevent harm through considering a range of indicators.
• 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.
• Gambling advertising in the UK is subject to strict regulation to protect vulnerable audiences, including minors, and to keep marketing honest.
• Introducing an age-limit on certain types of Category D gaming machines – draft affirmative statutory instrument.
• (4) Any separate area that comprises less than 12.5 per cent of the minimum required table gaming area is not to be taken into account in determining the table gaming area.

Compared with other regulated sectors, such as the financial, legal services and utilities sectors, gambling has a larger number of approved ADR bodies. Responses also highlighted that in order to prevent harm, new redress arrangements should be seen as upholding regulatory standards and supporting people presenting with legitimate complaints. Evidence from one treatment provider set out how clinical staff have noted that the manner and timing of a settlement can have an impact on therapy, and the need for appropriate support and protections to avoid even a modest lump sum increasing the risk of relapse. Responses from treatment and recovery support stakeholders also highlighted the need to consider the potential impact of different forms of financial redress on a person with gambling disorder. These included the complexity of determining at what point a consumer’s gambling can be deemed so excessive or unaffordable that it becomes an operator’s responsibility to intervene.

Your data will be used to inform the development of policy measures relating to the land-based sector. DCMS is consulting on policy options for measures relating to the land-based gambling sector. We welcome evidence from all parties with an interest in the way that gambling is regulated in Great Britain. Please upload any further evidence or any other information that should be considered in this consultation relating to licensing authority fees. Please provide any additional views or evidence on the potential impacts of raising licence fees here. What do you think are the potential impacts of raising licence fees on gambling companies?

Bacta estimates that the removal of each Category C and D machine could save on average up to £21 per week, or £1,092 per annum, depending on trading hours. Industry responses argue that the current 80/20 ratio creates a disincentive to modernise older analogue Category C cabinets as they lack customer demand, yet operators are required to maintain them to meet the ratio. We have received estimates from the bingo club sector which show that the average weekly GGY produced per tablet machine is c.£3.80. In the bingo sector, for the equivalent machine we received estimated weekly GGY per machine to be c.£500. We did not receive GGY estimates for the arcade sector, however, industry responses indicated that they anticipated greater GGY returns under Option 3 than under Option 1.

A particular issue which has been highlighted is affiliates’ failure to comply with the requirements to cease direct marketing to self-excluded customers. This means that any breach of licence conditions by a third party contracted to promote an operator’s business will be treated as a breach by the operator. As the measures outlined elsewhere in this chapter are intended to tackle advertising practices which have been identified as particularly of concern, in our view a further tightening on broadcast gambling adverts is not proportionate at this time. Some responses called for restrictions on the volume of gambling adverts allowed to air, but there would be considerable difficulties in implementing such a policy. A common suggestion for further restrictions on broadcast advertising was for the 9pm voluntary watershed that currently applies to most gambling products to be extended to all gambling products and made statutory.

We will work together with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission, drawing on public health and social marketing expertise to develop a new, evidence-based model for independently developed safer gambling messages. We recognise the risk that online bonus offers can present, particularly for those who are experiencing harm. As part of exploring the potential for regulating these types of draws we will seek further data and evidence to enable us to assess the proportionality and impact, including on the society lottery sector of different regulatory approaches. This means that they are not subject to gambling regulatory oversight, can lack protections for players, and are not obliged to follow the rules on identifying and mitigating gambling-related harms which apply to licensed operators. A particular version of this arrangement we received evidence on is when overseas gambling brands reach an agreement with an existing Commission licensee which they use to advertise and grow their brand in the UK without acquiring a licence themselves. The third-party might benefit in various ways including a profit sharing arrangement, a brand licensing fee which is paid by the gambling operator, or through greater exposure for their business.

Evidence we received from one researcher suggests that just 6.6% of academic papers published containing empirical research on gambling behaviours and policies between 2019 and March 2021 were from British-based researchers. Gambling may cause or contribute to poor mental health and wellbeing for some people, but for others, poor mental health may cause or contribute to harmful gambling. The relationship between gambling and some harms, such as mental health issues, is not always straightforward and can be bi-directional.

For example, wagering requirements, sometimes called ‘re-wagering’ requirements, are a common feature of bonus offers in the gambling sector, whereby customers have to stake bonus funds a number of times (potentially adding some of their own money) before being permitted to withdraw any winnings. However, we encourage land-based operators to consider any use they make of targeted monetary or free bet bonuses and their purpose and we will continue to monitor whether there is a case for any further restrictions. Loyalty schemes in land-based venues are also a way of encouraging account-based play, meaning that a ban on them could have the unintended consequence of reducing the amount of available data on player behaviour. They emphasise that land-based play allows for close oversight of customers to ensure that bonuses are issued responsibly. In the majority of casinos, targeted offers are often through loyalty programmes that are open to everyone, with higher tier memberships offering higher value rewards. The schemes are intrinsic to high-end casinos’ business models, and the benefits tend to emphasise building a luxury experience rather than monetary rewards and free bets designed to be staked.

The Commission also highlighted that in spite of the increases since 2017, it has continued to find operators breaching their licence conditions, particularly the social responsibility codes. Since April 2016, the Commission has also revoked 14 operator licences and 66 personal licences, often due to operators failing to adhere to social responsibility and anti-money laundering rules. The Commission’s approach to enforcement changed significantly in 2017 when it unveiled a new strategy to tackle operators which breach their licence conditions and relevant codes of practice. Our call for evidence posed a series of questions relating to the Gambling Commission’s powers and resources and received responses from industry, campaign groups and members of the public. The Commission has taken action following the independent review of Football Index to implement those recommendations, including enhancing its licensing approach to novel products and agreeing a memorandum of understanding with the Financial Conduct Authority.

No income or capital gains tax applies to prizes from casinos, sports betting, bingo, or online gambling, a rule in place since 2001 when taxation shifted to operators. This change aligns online slot limits with those of land-based casinos, with £5 matching B1 machines and £2 for younger adults, due to their higher vulnerability and lower income. Άλλαwise, payment processing per se is not licensable under British gambling law and the main restrictions are that land-based bingo and casinos may not offer credit for wagers and remote gambling operators may not accept credit card payments (including through money services providers). As well as an operating licence, an operator wishing to make gambling facilities available in a land-based environment (e.g., casino, betting shop, bingo hall or arcade centre) will also need to apply for a premises licence authorising that activity from the relevant local authority.

The UKGC can issue fines, suspend licences, or revoke them entirely. Players betting £1–£2 per spin will not notice any practical change; the limit primarily affects high-stakes slot players. Players have the right to access this data before placing a single bet. Return to Player (RTP) requirements were updated under the UK casino regulations 2026. Bonus terms have been completely overhauled under the UK casino regulations 2026.

This should ensure that consumers, particularly those who are vulnerable, are better protected from illegal operators which are unlikely to offer the same safeguards that exist on legal sites. As outlined in the consultation which preceded the uplift, some of the increase in income has been devoted to more staff that are able to both identify the scale of the black market and take action to tackle illegal operators. The Commission will need to specify to the court the operator that it would like to disrupt, evidence that it is acting illegally and explain the requirements that it would like to be imposed on the ancillary service (for example, for a payment provider to remove their payment services). These are helpful and positive steps which should make it more difficult for people to access these types of harmful websites. Google has now removed paid-for Google Ads promoting ‘Not on GAMSTOP’ affiliate sites which pose a risk to vulnerable consumers. Similarly, operators licensed in Britain could face action by the Commission if they were found to have operated illegally in the jurisdiction of one of the Commission’s international partners.

Age Verification Requirements

We currently estimate that the key proposals we can quantify will lead to between a 3% and 8% reduction in Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) across the gambling sector, with the main decrease being in online gambling (where we estimate a reduction of between 8% and 14% of GGY). It is likely that the proposals will come with costs to the gambling industry, both in terms of upfront delivery cost but also in reduced revenue compared to current levels. Measures in this white paper are designed to increase existing protections against gambling-related harm in a proportionate and targeted way.

Acknowledging the limitations outlined concerning the consequences of non-compliance or poor performance, we propose that industry fund, conduct, and crucially, report on the outcomes of voluntary test purchasing to DCMS. While the majority of responses stated that this measure would be beneficial, a number of licensing authorities caveated their responses by stating that voluntary commitments are limited due to the lack of consequences conditioned upon poor performance. The benefits of this measure include the ability to assess the adherence of any given premises to these rules and identify points of failure, such as inadequate staff training. This means that many FEC operators do not currently have age-controlled areas and would have to invest in creating such an area for what is a low stake product. This view was most strongly argued by licensing authorities. We did not receive any evidence through consultation to suggest that we should not proceed with the measure as outlined in the government’s white paper.

We would also like machines that use the BGC’s Anonymous Player Awareness System (APAS) to implement these non gamstop sites limits and for APAS not to act as a substitute for these thresholds. Furthermore, the average stake size on B1 machines is similar to the stake size on B3 machines and therefore we do not think that the mandatory limits should be different between the different categories. In line with their responses to other questions, the pub sector did not want these limits to apply to Category D crane grab machines.

It can also be run as a prize game (meaning there is no need for a licence). No one under the age of 18 is allowed to place a bet with a licenced operator. These entities are not liable for bets placed, but do often take commission. A winning payout is determined by dividing the total pool by the number of winning tickets (there may also be a commission fee from the host).

£4 million of seed funding will be given over three years to the University of Bristol to build and diversify research capability in the gambling harms field. As the regulator, the Gambling Commission plays an important role in our understanding of gambling-related harms. The government and key partners, including UKRI and the third sector, will bring forward a range of initiatives which will increase the amount of high-quality independent research into gambling. GambleAware is an independent charity and has had no industry trustees since October 2018 and the industry has no role in commissioning decisions. Work on the development of the strategy is now underway and will consider the link between suicide and issues such as harmful gambling. Wider work led by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) with regard to mental health and suicide prevention also takes gambling harm into account.

The second priority is to ensure that customers receive a genuine offer of lower staking Category C and D gaming machines. As such, Option 2(a) has the added benefit of ensuring that all venues make a genuine offer of Category C and D gaming machines available to customers on device types which have genuine customer appeal. Responses stated that the commercial flexibility permitted by Option 2(b) would enable bingo operators to reduce the number of Category C and D gaming machines which they make available, while making slight increases in the number of Category B cabinet gaming machines. Both policy options are variations of Option 2, meaning that they focus on addressing the practice of operators siting increased numbers of Category B cabinet gaming machines by making lower staking Category C and D content available on in-fill and tablet gaming machines. The second objective is to ensure that customers are presented with a genuine offer of lower staking Category C and D gaming machines.

Gaming centre wins approval despite concerns

Given likely diminishing marginal returns when a casino already has at least 20 machines, we estimate that the extra machines could increase GGY by £25 million to £65 million (14% to 36% of casino Category B machine GGY). However, gambling space in the average casino is 784m2 (3.1 times larger than the 10 smallest casinos). We used the Gambling Commission data request to operators in April 2021 (validated against previous 2018 data from a report commissioned by GambleAware) to determine current staking patterns. Our approach to modelling the GGY reduction from an online stake limit (section 1.3), including data used and key assumptions, is set out below. We are confident overall that the majority of customers, especially the majority who spend at lower levels, are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the changes we propose to help prevent gambling-related harm.

Land-based gambling

“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 Gambling Act’s criminal penalties apply to operators providing facilities, not to individuals using them. A recurring consumer misconception is that if an offshore gambling site is accessible in Great Britain, it must be lawful. Advertising unlawful gambling to Great Britain consumers is also a criminal offence. A remote licence application typically takes up to 16 weeks depending on business complexity. The table below summarises the main licence types and what each one covers in practice. An overseas licence does not authorise Great Britain-facing operations.

The vast majority of submissions to the call for evidence from outside of industry supported a substantial increase in the Gambling Commission’s fees, and an increase in flexibility, to enhance its effective regulation of the gambling industry. Submissions from industry and campaign groups differed on whether there is currently a significant black market for gambling or a risk of one emerging. The government hopes that this approach will raise standards across the industry and therefore ensure that customers are protected adequately and that gambling is free from crime. In a market where the largest companies account for a large proportion of gambling, the Commission will also explore options for an enhanced account-based compliance approach that will include dedicated team members assigned to the largest operators on a permanent basis. This will include more active oversight of operators beyond the Commission’s current approach, which requires operators to report key information on a regular basis but targets compliance activity and checks on a risk-based and intelligence-led basis. We also note that compliance with voluntary codes may be relevant in deciding operators’ suitability to hold a gambling licence during Gambling Commission enforcement action.

A further key component of the online advertising landscape is social media, which has been found to have a particular impact on children and young people, and accounts for an increasingly large proportion of their gambling ad exposure. This means it is likely that the minority experiencing serious harm from their gambling are not only seeing more gambling adverts than others, but are also more likely to spend money as a result of seeing them. Evidence submitted by a major charity found that even occasional gambling substantially increased online advertising exposure, with around 40% of those who gambled once a month reportedly being served 4 or more ads a day. Adverts such as TV, radio and online banner ads tend to influence a lower percentage of viewers to begin or increase gambling than those on social media. It is clear that the risks posed by gambling advertising are not uniform across the population, and that people respond to different types of adverts in different ways.