Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
Back to full FOI list

Betfair and Special Measures

Request date
19 May 2025

Outcome
Partial exemption

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Request

Please can you provide the following details for Betfair:

  1. Amount of times they have been placed in special measures?
  2. Periods of time Betfair were in special measures?
  3. Dates of (if any) follow up checks or audits on Betfair?
  4. What agreements were made when taken out of special measures?
  5. Details of any fines, settlements or divestments?
  6. Date of latest compliance audit?
  7. Who carried out the compliance audits?
  8. Who is the third party responsible for any third party audits?
  9. How many complaints have been made to the Gambling commission about Betfair?
  10. How many gambling related suicides have been caused by Betfair?
  11. How much proceeds of crime has been deposited into Betfair?
  12. How many different customers have deposited proceeds of crime into Betfair?
  13. How many funds which have been lost on Betfair have been returned to the victims of crime?
  14. How many criminal sentences have been given to individuals relating to Betfair that you are aware of?
  15. How are fines calculated? You can use the £2m just given to Spreadex as an example.
  16. Please give total amounts and the date these numbers go up to?

Response

In your email you have requested the following details for Betfair:

  1. Amount of times they have been placed in special measures?
  2. Periods of time Betfair were in special measures?
  3. Dates of (if any) follow up checks or audits on Betfair?
  4. What agreements were made when taken out of special measures?

The Commission has previously confirmed that Betfair was placed in special measures from 15 January 2021. By May 2021 Betfair had provided sufficient information it was implementing effective policies and procedures aimed at keeping gambling fair, safe and crime free. As a result, the Commission confirmed to Betfair on 23 June 2021 it was lifting the special measures process.

The aim of this process is to raise standards immediately under strict supervision. Where licensees are being considered for regulatory action, we may consider special measures and notify an operator that it is an option. Special measures is an opportunity to achieve compliance before formal action. Failure to achieve compliance during the special measures process would lead to a regulatory investigation.

Special measures is only appropriate if:

  • there is an acceptance of failings
  • we have a high level of confidence that a licensee can become compliant quickly, and they have demonstrated this during the assessment
  • actions which mitigate the risks to the licensing objectives and consumer harm are put in place immediately
  • there isn’t a history of protracted non-compliance
  • there isn’t evidence of significant consumer harm
  • there is an offer to divest any profit made from non-compliance.

As such, as a result of the aforementioned period of special measures, there were no agreements made between the operator and the Gambling Commission resulting in the withdrawal from special measures. However, the operator divested £635,123 to charities.

However, we do not provide comment on any regulatory work with specific operators unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any further information within the scope of these elements of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.

Section 31(3) (“Law Enforcement”) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Arguments in favour of disclosure

  • The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
  • It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
  • Further to this, it is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers have an understanding of the regulatory activity that the Commission is taking with specific operators to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

  • There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding any contact that may take place between the Commission and operators, when discussing areas of a licensee’s compliance with the LCCP. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
  • The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing existing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator continuing to provide gambling services where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s compliance assessment processes.
  • Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commissions work and individuals from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.

Weighing the balance

Given the points considered, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest. Ultimately, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption, therefore, we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information relating to further application of special measures processes in relation to your request.

  1. Details of any fines, settlements or divestments?

As a result of the special measures process the operator divested £635,123 to charities furthering the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms.

Information relating to the destinations of regulatory settlements to be applied for socially responsible purposes can be viewed on the Gambling Commission website:

Destinations of regulatory settlements to be applied for socially responsible purposes.

We release details of our enforcement activity through public statements.

The public statements will detail the nature of the failings by the operator and the amount of the fine or settlement. Further to this, the Commission also publishes a list of recent regulatory sanctions we have imposed on licence holders.

  1. Date of latest compliance audit?

Gambling operators are required to hold a licence from the Commission in order to offer facilities for gambling to customers located in Great Britain. Once an operator or individual holds a licence, the Commission seeks to ensure, through its compliance work, that the licensee remains suitable to hold licences and that they conduct themselves in a way which is consistent with the licensing objectives, the requirements of the Act, and the conditions of their licences and related codes of practice, both in letter and spirit.

The Commission will undertake compliance activity in a variety of ways. The Commission will provide advice to licensees to help them comply with the requirements of the legislation and the licence conditions and codes of practice which apply to them.

In its assessment of licensees, the Commission follows the risk approach and the risk ratings set out in the Statement of Principles.

More detail on the manner in which the Commission carries out its compliance activities can be found within the Licensing, compliance and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005.

I can confirm that the Commission does hold further information falling within the scope of your request. However, the Commission do not provide comment on any contact with specific operators unless it is in the public interest to do so. We are of the view that the disclosure of this information would prejudice the regulatory functions of the commission. As such, this information is exempt under section 31 of the FOIA.

Section 31

Section 31(1) provides that Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice:

(g) the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).

The relevant purpose referred to subsection (2) is –

(d) the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on.

Public interest test

The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below and our view is that the public interest lies in favour of applying the exemption.

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

  • The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account. It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
  • Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing operators. Furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:

  • There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work carried out with individual operators, It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure. In order to promote transparency there is information that is publicly available, both on our website but also via our statement of principles for licensing and regulation which clearly sets out the required standards that operator licensees are expected to comply with. Therefore, it is our view that there is sufficient information publicly available about the assessment process and assessment framework to adequately address the public interest in transparency in respect of this matter. Knowledge of specific individual operators would not contribute to this understanding.
  • The Commission also publishes other information in relation to how it assesses licensees, including its Licensing, compliance and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005 document. Therefore, to the extent that there is a public interest in transparency around the assessment of licensees this is already met by the material the Commission proactively publishes.
  • the Gambling Commission’s statutory obligations as set out in section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005 are:

a) preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,

b) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and

c) protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

The Commission will not disclose this information, if it might jeopardise these important functions. It is the nature of the information being requested which would impact the statutory functions of the Commission. We work on the basis of risk and by releasing this data it would assist others to calculate where an operator may have had more frequent engagements and therefore may be deemed to be higher risk.

  • This could impact the licensees and create a potentially misleading narrative around that operator and levels of compliance. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of investigations and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
  • Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work of the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.

Weighing the balance

The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.

It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.

However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess operators and identify any licensees who are unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.

Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, the Commission considers that the relevant prejudice identified above would be caused to the Commission by disclosure and this weighs in the balance when considering the question of public interest. Public knowledge of the date of any assessments is very unlikely to contribute to a proper understanding of the regulatory activities of the Commission. There is sufficient information already published on our website about our compliance processes to satisfy the public interest in this matter.

  1. Who carried out the compliance audits?

Revealing the identities of staff who undertook these audits would constitute the disclosure of their personal data.

The Data Protection Act 2018 requires the processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. The Commission considers that it would be disproportionate for us to publicly disclose the personal data of individuals who carry out assessments, as there is no strong public interest in doing so. There is no legitimate expectation that the personal information of these individuals will be disclosed in the context in which it is held.

On balance, there is no legitimate public interest in disclosing this information and it would not be fair to do so. This information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 

  1. Who is the third party responsible for any third party audits?

These checks are undertaken by independent third party approved test houses, who undertake a test of the relevant product against the Remote gambling and software Technical Standards through the timings and procedures set out within the Testing Strategy. The Gambling Commission does not approve games or test results; we require operators to get the game tested (by an approved test house) and then submit the game (and test report) prior to release. These reports are then submitted to the Commission only after they have been deemed compliant by the approved test house.f

We consider that information identifying the third party specifically associated with Betfair to be of a commercially sensitive nature. This level of detail is not otherwise in the public domain, therefore, we are of the view that this information is exempt under section 43 of the FOIA.

Section 43(2) Commercial Interests

Section 43(2) of the FOIA provides that information is exempt information if: its disclosure under the FOIA would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

The Public Interest Test

Having acknowledged that the information within the scope of this part of your request is exempt from disclosure, section 43 FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Public interest arguments in favour of disclosure

  • there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities
  • Increased transparency regarding operators would promote consumer confidence and help them make informed choices.

Public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

  • Businesses which have interacted with those licenced by the Commission e.g. the licensee’s subcontractors, have a reasonable expectation that their information will not be published on an individual basis, particularly whilst they are trading.
  • Details of individual companies not directly associated with the gambling industry does not contribute to supporting consumers with their choice of operator.
  • The amount of information released regarding companies who have engaged with licensees is carefully considered, particularly where an operator has been the subject of action or scrutiny. This is in order to protect the integrity of the individual companies from being unfairly associated with negative inferences.

Weighing the Balance

Whilst the Commission aims to be open and transparent, there is a need to preserve the confidentiality of information submitted on that basis and to be mindful of the commercial sensitivities of information that is held.

Having weighed these issues, the Commission is of the view that the public interest is best served through maintaining this exemption. There is very little that providing this information would do in terms of the public interest whilst disclosure would be likely to impact on the commercial interests of individual companies .

  1. How many complaints have been made to the Gambling Commission about Betfair?

The Gambling Commission is an industry regulator and not an ombudsman. Our role is to consider if a gambling business has breached their licence conditions and we will take regulatory action where appropriate.

We do not become involved in or “act upon” individual complaints.

We use evidence from a range of places, including from gambling customers, to build cases against gambling businesses. Information provided to us helps inform our work to raise gambling industry standards and make gambling fairer and safer. Information drawn from complaints raised against operators may be used by the Commission to inform our regulatory approach and determine whether any action may be necessary.

If we have sufficient information about an issue with an operator that we feel needs to be pursued, we will commence a dialogue with the operator.

The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance and enforcement functions. Through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.

We release details of our enforcement activity through public statements. These public statements will detail the nature of the failings by the operator and the amount of the fine or settlement. Further to this, the Commission also publishes a list of recent regulatory sanctions we have imposed on licence holders.

The Gambling Commission does not provide comment on any information held regarding specific operators unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request.

Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.

Section 31

Section 31(3) provides that the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that compliance with section 1(1)(a) would or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Public interest test

Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request; section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Arguments in favour of disclosure

  • The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence that the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
  • It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
  • Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing licensees and, furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

  • Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t investigating a particular case and provide them with an opportunity to alter their behaviours or evade detection. This would result in making it more difficult for the Commission to achieve its regulatory aims.
  • Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.
  • The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of investigations and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
  • Finally, once or if a formal regulatory decision has been made or there is agreement of a regulatory settlement the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of any future investigation by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.

Weighing the balance

Given the points considered, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption, therefore we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to your request.

  1. How many gambling related suicides have been caused by Betfair?

The Gambling Commission is not empowered to investigate suicides to determine whether they are connected to gambling; it is for coroners to decide a cause of someone's death. However, where the Commission becomes aware of a death that could be connected to gambling it will consider whether that information identifies potential regulatory issues. More information about our compliance and enforcement approach can be found on our website.

The Gambling Commission can therefore confirm that we do not hold information on the number of confirmed deaths where gambling was identified as a cause.

  1. How much proceeds of crime has been deposited into Betfair?

No information falling within the scope of this element of your request is held by the Commission. We assess AML controls and it is not in the Gambling Commission’s remit to calculate or investigate proceeds of crime.

  1. How many different customers have deposited proceeds of crime into Betfair?

No information falling within the scope of this element of your request is held by the Commission. We assess AML controls and it is not in the Gambling Commission’s remit to calculate or investigate proceeds of crime.

  1. How many funds which have been lost on Betfair have been returned to the victims of crime?

No information falling within the scope of this element of your request is held by the Commission.

  1. How many criminal sentences have been given to individuals relating to Betfair that you are aware of?

No information falling within the scope of this element of your request is held by the Commission.

  1. How are fines calculated? You can use the £2m just given to Spreadex as an example

The fine was calculated in accordance with the Commission's Statement of principles for determining financial penalties.

  1. Please give total amounts and the date these numbers go up to?

Unfortunately, this part of your request is not sufficiently clear to enable us to locate or identify the recorded information you are requesting. For us to progress this request we require further clarification with regards to the information you require.

Please could you clarify the specific recorded information you are requesting.

Your clarified request will represent a new request for information and the 20 working day time limit for us to process your request will commence from the day after your clarified request is received.

Review of the decision

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email. 

Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.

If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. 

It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.

The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Information Management Team
Gambling Commission

Is this page useful?
Back to top