This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 12 August 2026
This version was printed or saved on: 4 November 2026
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/consumer-facing-presentation-of-return-to-player-games
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.
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:
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:
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.
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
I am writing to request an internal review of the Commission’s decision dated 8 September 2026 to refuse my six Freedom of Information requests — cases 202600112, 202600119, 202600127, 202600131, 202600132 and 202600141 — under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I respectfully ask that the application of section 14(1) be reconsidered, including whether the individual scope, burden, serious purpose and value of each of the six distinct requests were given sufficient weight within the Commission's cumulative assessment.
I recognise that section 14(1) permits a public authority to consider the wider context and burden created by a series of requests. However, I do not consider that the refusal adequately demonstrates why the burden associated with these particular requests outweighs their serious purpose and public value, or why each of the six requests should properly be characterised as vexatious.
Although they concern the common subject of RTP, they do not simply repeat the same question or seek the same records. They were deliberately framed to establish different parts of the Commission’s recorded decision-making and regulatory history.
I am particularly concerned by the suggestion that responding would require a manual review of the Commission’s records generally.
Several of the requests identify specific records or tightly defined sources from which relevant information should arise.
For example, one request concerns a specific document already supplied by the Commission and asks for its creation date, authorship, metadata, version history and records concerning its circulation and subsequent treatment.
Another concerns Item 6, “Draft Strategic Assessment – Fair and Open”, considered by the Board on 6 February 2025, and asks for the assessment, evidence base and consumer-voice material expressly referred to in the published Board minutes.
Another seeks the recorded sector-specialist advice which the Commission itself stated had informed its correspondence of 24 April 2026.
I therefore ask the reviewer to consider separately whether locating these specifically identifiable records genuinely requires the extensive Commission-wide manual review described in the refusal.
I note that the refusal itself recognises that I am seeking greater transparency concerning consumer misunderstanding of RTP and acknowledges the legitimate public interest in transparency and in information being made available to the public.
The requests arose because the Commission itself has acknowledged that there is a body of research indicating that consumers can misinterpret RTP messages and that the evidence base suggests RTP can be a misunderstood concept.
The Commission has also explained that RTP is a long-term theoretical concept and is not a reliable indicator of what an individual player may experience in a single gaming session. The purpose of the requests is therefore not to require the Commission repeatedly to explain what RTP means, nor to obtain a new policy opinion.
The purpose is to establish from existing records what the Commission actually assessed, what decisions were made, what evidence was considered, what action followed, and what regulatory process or responsibility applied to the consumer understanding of the information being presented. That distinction is important.
It also seeks records concerning the work subsequently referred to publicly by Government in December 2020, when Government stated that the Gambling Commission had started work to improve requirements on operators in this area.
The request therefore seeks an identifiable regulatory history: evidence - consideration - decision - action or non-action.
It does not ask the Commission to create that history retrospectively. It asks for existing records showing what happened.
I respectfully submit that establishing how a public regulator responded to an identified consumer-understanding issue over a substantial period is a serious accountability purpose which should receive substantial weight when balancing purpose against burden.
The Annex supplied with the refusal states that there is a reasonable body of research suggesting that consumers can misinterpret RTP messages and that the evidence base suggests RTP can be a misunderstood concept.
It also states that RTP is calculated over the long term and does not serve as a reliable indicator of what an individual player might experience in a single gaming session.
The Annex further refers to research concerning alternative ways of communicating gambling information and to the Commission’s 2026 Evidence Assurance refresh, including research concerning the effect of typical RTP information on gamblers’ perceived chances of winning. The Commission nevertheless states that it will explore further whether the transparency of RTP information to players can be improved.
This information demonstrates why the requested regulatory and decision-making records have a serious purpose. It does not answer the central historical questions raised by the requests: how the evidence was assessed, what decisions followed from it, and why the existing approach was retained or changed at particular points in time.
For example, they allow for several possible outcomes: that an issue was considered and found material; considered and found immaterial; considered but no conclusion was reached; considered but no regulatory action was considered necessary; responsibility was considered to lie elsewhere; or no assessment was undertaken.
Similarly, the requests expressly state that I am seeking existing recorded information and am not asking the Commission to formulate new opinions, conduct new research, prescribe new RTP wording or answer hypothetical questions.
The purpose is therefore evidential rather than argumentative: to establish what the contemporaneous records show.
However, providing an explanation of what RTP means is materially different from providing recorded information showing how the Commission assessed the adequacy of its consumer-facing presentation and what regulatory decisions followed from evidence of misunderstanding. It is precisely because previous correspondence did not establish that recorded decision-making history that the present FOI requests were made.
I recognise the Commission’s concern that several requests were submitted within a relatively short period.
However, they were separated because they concern different records, periods, decisions and regulatory questions. Combining all of those matters into a single very large request would itself have created obvious difficulties concerning scope and the section 12 cost limit.
Nor do I consider that the possibility that I might make future requests should materially determine whether the six existing requests have a serious purpose. Any future request can be assessed on its own facts and in its own context if and when it is made.
If the Commission considers that particular elements of individual requests would impose a disproportionate burden, I would ask the reviewer to consider whether a more proportionate response is available rather than maintaining a blanket section 14(1) refusal across all six requests.
For example, the Commission could: deal first with specifically identified documents and records; provide readily retrievable substantive records without undertaking exhaustive searches for peripheral material; identify particular parts of individual requests responsible for disproportionate burden; provide relevant extracts rather than complete documents where appropriate; or invite reasonable refinement of a particular request where this would materially reduce the burden while preserving its central purpose.
I have already stated in the requests that duplicate documents are unnecessary and that relevant extracts with sufficient context are acceptable.
I respectfully request that the reviewer:
(a) reconsider the application of section 14(1) to the six requests, taking account both of the wider context and of the individual scope, burden, serious purpose and value of each request;
(b) identify, for each request, the nature of the search and review burden relied upon and explain why that burden is considered disproportionate when balanced against the request’s serious purpose and public-interest value;
(c) reconsider whether specifically identifiable records — including the particular RTP transparency document, the 6 February 2025 Board material and the sector-specialist advice referred to in the Commission’s own correspondence — can be located and disclosed without the broad manual review described in the refusal;
(d) consider whether any genuinely burdensome elements can be separated from those which can reasonably be answered; and
(e) if the Commission maintains that some part of the requests would impose an unreasonable burden, consider whether reasonable refinement would permit the substantive purpose of the requests to be preserved.
I am not asking the internal reviewer to determine whether the Commission’s regulatory approach to RTP is right or wrong.
I am asking for reconsideration of whether section 14(1) was appropriately applied to prevent disclosure under all six distinct requests, despite their identified serious purpose, the Commission’s own acknowledgement of the public interest in transparency, and the fact that several requests concern specifically identifiable records and decisions.
I would be grateful if the internal review could address these matters and provide the reasons for its conclusions.
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information requests received between 12/08/2026 and 02/09/2026 which we responded to on 08/09/2026 with a single response. You subsequently requested an internal review, which we received on 08/09/2026.
We have now concluded our review, and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.
During the above date range, you submitted six separate requests with a consistent theme of sourcing information relating to the topic of Return to Player (RTP) games.
Following a review of each of the requests submitted, the Gambling Commission refused to process these requests, engaging section 14(1) (vexatious requests) of the FOIA.
However, the Commission did recognise that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting transparency and in making information available to the public. As such, to be of assistance under section 16 of the FOIA legislation we provided a supplementary Annex containing information in relation to RTP.
Internal Review
Section 14(1) FOIA states:
“Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.”
As explained within our initial response, 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 definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is vexatious. The Commission adopted this guidance when considering your initial request and now your internal review.
As considered within our initial response, the ICO advise that four broad themes should be measured when determining if the section 14(1) exemption applies. Note, this list is not exhaustive.
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. Whilst there is no obligation for a public authority to explain why the request is vexatious, the Commission detailed the reasons for refusing your request within our initial response as part of our duty under section 16.
All circumstances of the case need to be considered in reaching an ultimate judgement as to whether the request is vexatious. Upon re-reviewing all circumstances of your case and our initial response to your request, I can confirm that I uphold our original decision to engage the section 14(1) exemption. My considerations for this decision are detailed below. The Burden of Complying with the Request
It must be noted that 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.
The section 14(1) exemption is therefore 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. This will usually involve weighing the evidence about the impact on the public authority and balancing this against the purpose and value of the request. As stated by the ICO, this should be judged as objectively as possible; in other words, whether or not a reasonable person would think that its purpose and value are enough to justify the impact on the public authority.
Within our initial response, we considered the burden of complying with your request and the strain that this would cause on our resources. As previously explained, a single FOIA request taken in isolation may be vexatious solely on the grounds of burden. That is, where complying with the request would place a grossly oppressive burden on a public authority’s resources which outweighs any value or serious purpose the request may have.
We recognised that there is a high threshold for refusing a request under this exemption. However, after reviewing our initial response, we still firmly believe that we have a viable case to refuse this request on the following grounds:
As explained, 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 these requests would generate a significant workload for the Commission resulting in a diversion of resources.
Further to this, I have considered the duration over which you have submitted your requests. 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. I have also 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. Public authorities, such as the Commission, have a duty to respond to FOIA requests within the statutory deadline of twenty working days. The diversion and strain on resources caused by complying with your request will have the potential to interfere with the delivery of other services in the immediate term.
Therefore, the Commission concludes 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.
Public Interest in the Subject
In accordance with legislation, there is no specific public interest test for section 14 FOIA. However, the general point remains that there is a public interest in promoting transparency and knowing how public authorities carry out their functions.
The Commission continues to recognise that the subject of your initial requests is a live matter of public interest We still consider that the public interest in transparency, accountability, public awareness and in making information available to the public.
I am of the opinion that this has been satisfied by the provision of the Annex document which was included in our initial response. This document has also been published on the Commission website as part of our disclosure log, further reinforcing our commitment to transparency Therefore, I remain of the opinion that continuing to respond to your requests 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.
This, in conjunction with balancing the public interest against the resource implications of your request which have been discussed above, we conclude that the section 14(1) exemption still applies.
If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. The ICO can be contacted at The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in new tab)
Some files may be 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).