New rules empowering consumers and boosting operator transparency
However, over the longer term, some industry representatives have suggested that operators would likely further reduce their number of Category C and D cabinets in favour of multi-staking Category B cabinets. Under the scenario outlined in Option 2, it is anticipated that a genuine balance and choice of higher and lower stake machines would be achieved across venues. Indeed, we reviewed data that showed some operators, particularly in the bingo sector where tablets are in widespread use for playing bingo games, have significantly greater numbers of Category B cabinets than Category C and D cabinets. It would also provide greater flexibility in determining the make-up of their machines and potentially lead to the removal of machines, such as tablets and in-fills, that are infrequently played. Consequently, it would deter operators from offering tablets and in-fill devices as a way to increase the number of Category B cabinets on their premises.
Figure 4: Current machine to table ratio for different types of casinos
Such measures balance sector growth with social responsibility, ensuring a sustainable industry future. He advocates modernizing operations by integrating sports betting and expanding electronic payments. Industry leaders and regulators have laid a roadmap for the UK casino sector’s future, emphasizing pivotal changes.
Additionally, some gambling products enable charities and other non-commercial organisations such as sports clubs to raise valuable funds. Horse racing in particular has a mutually beneficial relationship with betting, and the levy paid by bookmakers on their racing derived revenue contributes around £100 million a year to support the sport. While many gambling companies do operate overseas hubs, the jobs in this country are geographically dispersed, with hubs of high skill work in areas like Stoke-on-Trent and Leeds. For the majority of people in the Gambling Commission’s research, gambling was just another normal activity which they reported feeling completely in control of. For most people who participate, gambling is a leisure and entertainment activity, as explored in the Gambling Commission’s research into why people gamble and its research into customer journeys. In addition to the approximately 300,000 people categorised as ‘problem gamblers’, there are approximately 1.8 million people in Great Britain categorised as ‘at risk’.
- Licence holders should consider whether, as a result of the changes and gambling facilities offered, an operating licence (OL) variation is required with regard to fee category and/or the licensed activities being offered (such as betting).
- Despite indications from operators that there would not be appetite to site more than 80 machines in a single location, we want to ensure that this is not a possibility, removing the risk that these casinos could site more machines than a Small or even Large 2005 Act casino.
- Submissions from people with personal experience of gambling harms elaborated on the negative effects which can come from such direct marketing and inducements.
- Particular concern was raised in some submissions to the call for evidence that free bets or other promotional offers might encourage harmful engagement with gambling both in the present, and following a period of abstinence, and this was reflected in some of the most robust evidence available.
- While key details will be determined through a forthcoming Gambling Commission consultation, our proposal for financial risk checks (Section 1.2 above) is likely to have a significant impact on online GGY.
However, owing to a change of thinking and a desire to generate some tax revenue from online operators, the UK decided to take matters into its own hands. Through a combination of tight controls, high quality operators and technological innovation, UK iGaming has always been a leading light in the global industry. The UK’s iGaming industry has always been held up as an example of quality when compared to other gambling jurisdictions. This applies to all online and offline gambling services. Since April 2020, it has been illegal for UK-licensed gambling operators to accept credit card deposits. Ensure the licence is active and covers “remote casino” activities.
Premises licence
There was some concern that this would create a safety risk for customers using gaming machines in pubs as it would increase the potential for their PIN to be observed by other customers. In regards to the second objective, under Option 3, the evidence provided suggests that over time it is likely that many operators would reduce their offer of Category C and D cabinet gaming machines substantially and offer predominantly Category B cabinet gaming machines. As highlighted in Chapter 2 of the land-based gambling consultation, we are aware that Category B gaming machines on average result in greater customer losses per session than Category C and D gaming machines. “… for the purpose of calculating the Category B machine entitlement in gambling premises, gaming machines should only be counted if they can be played simultaneously by different players without physical hindrance.” (Gambling Commission, 2019 Of those who didn’t answer ‘I don’t know’, 80% of respondents favoured operating and premises licence fees being the same for Small 2005 Act casinos and 1968 Act casinos that elect to increase their gaming machine entitlement.
The classic offer — „bet £5 on non gamstop football, receive 20 casino free spins“ — is now a licence breach. The practice of bundling sports betting incentives with casino bonuses was banned outright. All UKGC-licensed casinos must now prompt every new customer to set a financial limit before their first deposit.
The vast majority (around 80%) of respondents with a Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score of 0 reported that seeing gambling advertising never prompted them to spend money gambling when they were not otherwise planning to. Equally, higher-risk gamblers are more likely to report spending money as a result of seeing any form of advertising. These reforms will also benefit everyone who chooses to gamble, by giving every customer increased clarity and control over the communications that they receive, and ensuring that bonuses from operators are offered in a socially responsible fashion. The objective to protect vulnerable people from harm is at the heart of this Review and these proposals.
Please explain your answer, providing any supporting evidence where available. However, it should be noted that respondents were most likely to have spent their own money on types of gambling activity that are legal or do not feature age restricted products, such as penny pusher or claw grab arcade games. Bacta’s members make up approximately 70-80% of the market for family entertainment centres and adult gaming centres. We propose to move the industry’s voluntary commitment into legislation, making it an offence for a person to invite, cause or permit a child or young person to use ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style games. Further details on machine types and permitted locations can be found at Figure 11.
We will also work with the relevant trade bodies and operators to understand the feasibility of implementing voluntary test purchasing to help understand whether operators are abiding by this new restriction. For example, the information could be displayed to customers at regular intervals (such as every 5 minutes for a 30 second period) or be readily available to customers, at their discretion, no further than one button press away. However, we believe that a variant of this feature would help customers to keep a track of their play. They also argued that it is an invasion of a customer’s privacy and that many people would not be comfortable with other players knowing how much they have spent and how long they have played on a machine for. The split was mainly between non-industry and industry respondents, with industry opposing this proposal.
Digital products have since made multi-staking easier to implement, allowing customers to stake at lower levels than the maximum. Data provided to the Bingo Association by one of its members (a bingo operator chain) indicated the current average customer dwell time on a B3 machine in a retail bingo hall was under 8 minutes, with an average loss of under £8. The case was made by some parts of the industry that the 80/20 rule is no longer fit for purpose, and does not allow industry to meet consumer demand or adapt to technological change. Similarly, this would be a two stage process where ministers could make secondary legislation permitting a wider rollout of linked machine games at their discretion, with any such proposals being subject to Parliamentary approval. This would be a two stage process of first removing legislative barriers to creating a pilot scheme, including creating a power to subdivide Category C, before putting in place further rules which set the parameters of any trials, which would need to be approved by the Gambling Commission. We support allowing some of the concepts proposed in the call for evidence to be tested carefully through planned pilots under certain conditions, with the close involvement of the Gambling Commission.
The remaining third are known as “ticket-out Category D slot machines” and are limited to a 30p stake and the equivalent of a prize worth up to £8. There are two types of Category D slot style machines, those that pay out winnings as money, and those that pay out tickets. A similar conclusion was reached by the House of Lords Select Committee, which noted that banning children from using Category D machines could have a “devastating impact on individuals, businesses and communities”. Category D machines include a diverse range of low stake and prize machines such as coin pushers, crane grabs and slot style machines (also known as fruit style machines).
In order to offer this, operators will be required to hold relevant operating licences from the Gambling Commission. The white paper set out the intention for all casinos to be able to include a sportsbook as part of their product offering. A further advantage would be allowing operators to create an experience which competes with international gaming jurisdictions, and elevates the reputation of Britain as a gaming destination for international gaming tourists. For example, it may lead to increased popularity/GGY of casinos which could have knock-on benefits to surrounding businesses or other sectors which are closely interlinked with it, for example the food and beverage or advertising sectors.
This will avoid duplicating the earlier work on online slot design, reduce unnecessary complexity in our regulatory framework and retain flexibility for future product innovations while also efficiently curtailing harmful game design innovations. For example, online roulette shares some structural similarities with online slots in being a random number generator casino game which allows for relatively rapid, intense and repetitive play. This disparity is unlikely to be commensurate with the risk which other products, particularly some casino games, pose to consumers. While we are confident that the data-driven system of account level protections has been improved and can be improved further, we also note that it is primarily reactive; interventions are largely only triggered when at least some signs of potentially concerning gambling behaviour have been detected. This would reduce the opportunity for those experiencing gambling problems to exacerbate harm by avoiding safer gambling controls and limit the scope for potential harm to affected others.
The Gambling Commission issues a code of practice on the provision of gaming machines in alcohol-licensed premises. There is no upper limit placed on the number of gaming machines allowed, but if a venue wants to install more than two machines, they must apply to the licensing authority to do so (as set out in section 283 of, and Schedule 13 to, the Gambling Act 2005) and pay the prescribed fee. In England and Wales, alcohol licensed premises currently have an automatic entitlement to up to two Category C or D gaming machines. Following a consultation on proposals for changes to Gaming Machines and Social Responsibility Measures, the maximum stake on B2 machines (Fixed Odds Betting Terminals) was reduced from £100 to £2 in April 2019, to reduce the risk of gambling-related harm. These include a variety of venues in practice, including ‘high-end’ casinos which cater for high-net worth (mainly international) clients and have a business model based primarily on live gaming tables. The 2005 Act casinos are also subject to minimum overall and non-gaming space requirements which were introduced alongside a ratio of machines to tables aimed at ensuring a balanced offer of different products.
The Commission also took action to suspend three operator licences and revoked one licence during this period. These included more flexible regulatory powers to allow it to quickly introduce new changes when necessary, more access to player data and greater powers to tackle the black market. In particular, some industry submissions said the Commission needed to improve its transparency, evaluation of its work and how it works with the industry. Many submissions to our call for evidence agreed that the Gambling Commission has wide-ranging and sufficient powers to effect change in operator behaviour. While the requirement to contribute is mandatory as set out in the LCCP, industry has discretion over the amount and the destination as long as recipients are on a list of bodies approved by the Gambling Commission. Most sites are based in overseas jurisdictions where prosecution would be impractical; while the Commission has partnerships with overseas regulators, its main method of dealing with illegal sites currently is to undertake disruption activity via internet service providers (ISPs), platforms and payment providers.
The Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014 shifted remote gambling to a point-of-consumption approach. It establishes the Gambling Commission as the central regulator for Great Britain, sets the three licensing objectives, and provides for compliance oversight and information gathering. The three licensing objectives are the lens through which the UKGC assesses every regulatory decision. The Gambling Act 2005 defines remote communication broadly, including internet, telephone, television, radio, and other electronic communication methods.
Licensees should also consider whether any other exemptions to data subject rights (such as those set out in Schedule 2 of the draft Bill) may apply. The processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party (except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data)5. Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contractiii. GDPR provides for a number of lawful circumstances which are designed to allow legitimate processing in circumstances where it may be not practical to acquire consent, and to ensure that public policy objectives (such as the reduction of problem gambling) are met.
It is possible that there will be wider costs if the increase in fees means that existing premises are unable to afford their total fees and close down as a result, or if new premises decide not to open due to the higher fees. We also require a better understanding of how licensing authorities will amend their fees in response to an increase in the maximum fee cap. We assume that licensing authorities will increase their current charged fees in proportion with the increase in the maximum fee cap. This would potentially generate an additional £2,340,000 in total annual funding for local authorities and increase average annual costs per premises by £251.
Find out more about how we regulate the gambling industry in Great Britain. In particular, we are grateful to the House of Lords ad-hoc Select Committee on the social and economic impact of gambling, and we have considered all of the evidence submitted directly to that committee and its recommendations in our deliberations. In the period between the opening of the call of evidence on the 8th December 2020 and publication, the ministers responsible for the Gambling Act Review had over 100 meetings with stakeholders on gambling issues. While all industry submissions recognised the need to update the regulatory framework and presented useful evidence to consider, some outlined far more developed proposals for reforms than others. The gambling industry made 57 submissions, coming from both trade bodies (for instance Betting and Gaming Council, Bacta, The Bingo Association, and the Lotteries Council), as well as individual companies. We are particularly grateful to those who shared the evidence of their own experience of harm to inform the Review’s deliberations as they provide an important personal perspective.
Over 70% of gaming sessions on a single product type that lasted over 3 hours were on slots, and slots had the highest proportion of players (5.5%) who ever played for longer than three hours. This work will be particularly informed by the Commission’s planned assessment of the changes made to online slots. The Gambling Commission will therefore build on its work on online slot design rules and consider the wider design codes for other online products. Following the Gambling Commission’s work on online slots, we think other products should also be considered with a view towards establishing a coherent system of safer product design standards.