Consumer-facing presentation of Return to Player Games
Request
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I request recorded information concerning the Commission's assessment of the consumer-facing presentation of Return to Player (RTP) information on gaming machines.
In its FOI response dated 27 March 2026, the Commission confirmed that the requirement to display RTP derives from the Gaming Machine Technical Standardsand that the prescribed information is to be "clearly displayed to the player". The Commission also explained that research concerning RTP was undertaken more generally to assess "consumer awareness and understanding of RTP".
The research material supplied with that response states that the evidence base"consistently points to RTP being a misunderstood concept" and records evidencethat consumers may incorrectly interpret RTP as relating to their individualchances of winning during a particular playing session.
The same material explains that RTP is a long-term theoretical average and is not a reliable indicator of what an individual player may receive in a particular playing session.
Against that background, please provide:
1.Any recorded assessment, analysis, reasoning, policy document, internal advice or other recorded information showing how the Commission determined that the RTP presentation permitted or required under the Gaming Machine Technical Standards adequately informs consumers of the meaning and limitations of RTP when no explicit explanation of its long-term statistical nature is displayed at the point of play.
2.Any recorded assessment of the risk that wording such as "THIS MACHINE HAS ANAVERAGE PERCENTAGE PAYOUT OF AT LEAST (VALUE)%", or equivalent monetary wording such as "£1 stake has an average payout of at least 90%", may be interpreted by a consumer as relating to expected returns within their own playing session.
3.Any recorded information showing how the findings of consumer research identifying misunderstanding of RTP were taken into account when determining or reviewing the wording and contextual information required to be displayed to players.
4.Any recorded information identifying the regulatory framework, standard, policy or internal process under which the consumer understanding of mandatory RTP presentation is assessed. If the Commission considers that LCCP 5.1.6 does not apply because it relates to marketing, please provide any recorded information identifying the alternative regulatory mechanism or assessment process, if any,by which the Commission assesses whether mandatory RTP presentation to players may create a misleading or materially incomplete understanding of what RTP means.
5.The recorded internal sector specialist advice referred to in the Commission's correspondence of 24 April 2026, insofar as that advice concerned the presentation, consumer understanding, interpretation or regulatory treatment of RTP.
For clarity, I am not requesting a new opinion or explanation to be created for the purposes of this request. I am requesting recorded information already held by the Commission which evidences the assessment, reasoning or process described above.
If no recorded information falling within the scope of any individual numbered point is held, please state this separately in respect of each such point.
If any information is withheld, please identify the relevant exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Response
Thank you for your requests which have been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
From 12/08/2026 to 02/09/2026, you have submitted a total of 6 different requests relating to the topic of Return to Player (RTP) games. The date that each FOI request was submitted, along with the case reference number allocated to each request, is as follows:
1) FOI Received 12/08/2026 - Case Reference 202600112 2) FOI Received 17/08/2026 – Case Reference 202600119 3) FOI Received 21/08/2026 – Case Reference 202600127 4) FOI Received 25/08/2026 – Case Reference 202600131 5) FOI Received 25/08/2026 – Case Reference 202600132 6) FOI Received 02/09/2026 – Case Reference 202600141
The Gambling Commission refuse to proceed with the listed requests under section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA.
Our considerations for relying on the section 14(1) exemption for each of the requests are detailed below.
Section 14(1)
Firstly, Section 14(1) states:
“Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.”
This exemption is designed to protect public authorities, particularly in terms of resources, by allowing authorities to refuse any requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or stress.
In order to determine if a request is vexatious, the circumstances surrounding that request must be considered.
The word “vexatious” is not defined in FOIA. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance defines vexatious as “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.” This definition establishes that a public authority must consider the proportionality and justification of the FOIA request in question when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies.
The FOIA provides individuals with a greater right of access to official information in order to make public authorities more transparent and accountable. As such, it is an important constitutional right. However, the ICO also recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can cause a strain on resources, with the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services or answering legitimate requests. Vexatious requests can also be damaging to the reputation of the legislation itself, and therefore there is an emphasis on protecting public authorities’ resources from unreasonable requests.
The ICO advise that four broad themes should be considered when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies:
- the burden (on the public authority and its staff);
- the motive (of the requester);
- the value or serious purpose (of the request); and
- any harassment or distress (of and to staff).
As mentioned, all circumstances of the case need to be considered in reaching an ultimate judgement as to whether the request is vexatious.
There is no obligation for a public authority to explain why the request is vexatious. The code of practice issued by the Cabinet Office under section 45 states that when refusing a request under s14(1), a public authority is not required to explain why the request is vexatious, but comments that a public authority may wish to do so as part of its duty under section 16.
Therefore, although we are not legally obliged to provide advice and assistance where a request is vexatious, we have decided to explain our considerations for refusing the request as follows.
The Burden of Complying with the Requests
Under the section 12 exemption, you can refuse a request if it would cost more than a set limit to find and extract the requested information. Whilst the Commission has considered applying the section 12 exemption to your requests, we believe that the burden of complying with the requests is sufficient in itself to justify characterising the requests as vexatious under section 14(1).
A public authority can apply section 14(1) where the amount of time required to review and prepare the information for disclosure would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the organisation. This includes the cost and effort associated with considering exemptions or redacting exempt information.
There is a high threshold for refusing a request under this exemption. We believe that we have a viable case to refuse this request on the following grounds:
- you have asked for a substantial volume of information across each of your 6 FOI requests and
- you have continued to submit FOI requests before the Commission have responded to previous FOI requests.
The scope of each of your FOI requests covers a substantial volume of information. In order for us to process your requests, we would be required to conduct a manual review of all of our records to firstly confirm if we hold the requested information, and then to download, edit and redact any volume of information falling within scope of your requests. The collective burden of dealing with the previous requests, combined with the burden imposed by the latest request, would generate a significant workload for the Commission resulting in a diversion of resources.
As you are aware, public authorities have a duty to respond to FOIA requests within the statutory deadline of twenty working days. The diversion and strain on resources caused by answering your requests will therefore have the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services in the immediate term.
Duration and Pattern of Requests
The duration over which you have submitted your requests also needs to be considered. As a volume of 6 complex FOI requests have been submitted within a short time period, we have to consider that requests may continue to be made in the future. Therefore, even if the latest request appears entirely reasonable, when viewed in isolation, the Commission has to take into account the anticipated burden of those future requests when assessing the overall burden. We have taken into account that you have submitted 11 requests in total relating to RTP games in total since 24/06/2025. Again, this suggests that requests relating to this topic may continue to be made in the future.
We must also consider the pattern of your requests, as most recently, numerous requests have been made in quick succession. In particular, you have continued to submit complex FOI requests relating to RTP games since 12/08/2026, before we have had the opportunity to respond to previous requests.
The Value or Serious Purpose
Whilst the Commission is unsure of the motive for your request, we recognise that you may be seeking greater transparency into consumer misunderstanding of RTP.
The Commission recognises that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the transparency of the Commission and in making information available to the public. As such, and in order to be of assistance under section 16 of the FOIA legislation, please see the attachment titled “202600112 – Annex 1” containing information in relation to RTP.
We are committed to be an open and transparent organisation, and we aim to share as much information as possible. We therefore hope that the background detail and research provided within the annex is of some assistance to you.
Conclusion
After reviewing the implications of your request which have been discussed above, we conclude that the section 14(1) exemption applies.
The Commission determines that continuing to respond to your request would impose a grossly oppressive burden on the Commission and would cause a disproportionate level of disruption to its resources, diverting staff time away from carrying out its regulatory functions.
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 new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Files
Some files may not be accessible for users of assistive technology. If you require a copy of the file in an accessible format contact us (opens in new tab) with details of what you require. It would help us to know what technology you use and the required format.
PDF Files Some PDF files cannot be displayed in a browser, you will see a message saying "Please wait...". If you see this message, you will need to download the file and open it in Adobe Acrobat Reader (opens in a new tab).