This box is not visible in the printed version.
Request date: 19 July 2023
This version was printed or saved on: 9 May 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/enquiries-into-sorare
An update on the status of the Commission's enquiries into Sorare and a description of any action(s) taken by the Commission following the publishing of the Notice.
Any information associated with the Commission's enquiries into Sorare including any decision(s) made by the Commission as to whether Sorare requires an operating licence under the Gambling Act 2005 (the "Gambling Act").
Any information relating to the assessment of whether the services that Sorare provides do or do not constitute gambling for the purposes of the Gambling Act.
Any information, including that contained within copies of internal or Board documents, that explains how the Commission intends to (or currently does) regulate the Web 3 gaming sector.
Any Commission documents referring to UNAGI's products including the Ultimate Champions website.
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested:
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.
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.
When we publish these statements and sanctions, we take care to present as much information as possible to ensure that lessons can be learned by operators. However, we must also be careful not to reveal any information that could hinder our ability to conduct investigations or enable those we may investigate to avoid detection.
Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:
i. Subsection 31(2)(a) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law;
ii. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper;
iii. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise;
iv. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to 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.
Section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005 sets out that the Gambling Commission is responsible for regulating and promoting licencing objectives as set out in section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005.
The statutory duties laid out in section 1 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.
Through our regulatory activities we aim to protect consumers and the wider public by raising standards within the gambling industry.
As part of our regulatory activities, we will have dialogue with operators and third parties to establish facts to inform our decision-making process before reaching a final outcome.
Any information that we can publicly disclose in relation to particular regulatory activities is made available on our website at the appropriate time so as not to disclose any information that could impact on our ability to make enquiries and conduct investigations or enable those we investigate to avoid detection.
The Commission therefore concludes that the disclosure of this information relating to the outcome of the enquiries would prejudice the regulatory functions of the Commission.
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.
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.
Disclosure of the requested information could provide the public with the information that they need in order for them to make an informed decision with regards to whether they wish to participate in the activities of a particular operator.
In favour of maintaining the exemption
There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure of the information. Should the Commission be required to disclose sensitive and confidential information about the state and nature of its enquiries and inquiries in a particular investigation it may lead to prejudice to that particular investigation, thereby inhibiting our ability to protect consumers.
Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives (as noted above) which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
Operators are required to provide detailed information and there are statutory mechanisms in place to compel the provision of information, but this is not the most effective way to obtain information. The Commission relies on the voluntary provision of information to perform its functions and open and frank exchanges are integral to the decision-making process.
Disclosing information without sufficient rationale would also undermine this trust and make operators less likely to cooperate with requests in future. This would potentially result in the Commission having to use its more formal statutory powers in the future, leading to more guarded disclosures which would not be in 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 or operators 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’ compliance with the Gambling Act 2005. 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, at this time, and this weighs in the balance when considering the question of public interest. Public knowledge of the outcome of enquiries before any investigation is formally concluded is very unlikely to contribute to a proper understanding of the regulatory activities of the Commission.
We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding the information relating to the outcome of the enquiries ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information which in our view will not benefit the public as this matter has not yet concluded.
I can confirm that no recorded information is held falling within the scope of this part of you request.
The Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any information held regarding specific action 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(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
We acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission.
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
However, 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 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 decision has been made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future investigations by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
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 in relation to this part of your request.
Within your request you have also stated that you will use the information provided in response to this request to inform your decision with regards to Sorare.
The FOIA gives individuals the right to request only recorded information held by public authorities, such as the Gambling Commission. It does not provide an avenue for individuals to gain views or opinions of public authorities. We are therefore unable to comment on any personal decisions in relation to this organisation.
We would however point out all operators who are licensed, or in the process of being licensed, by the Commission can be found on our Licensee register, which is regularly updated. This can be found on our website: Full register of gambling businesses - Gambling Commission.
Any consumers who gamble with unlicensed operators are unlikely to receive the protections the Commission requires from its licensees.
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.
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
Victoria Square House
Victoria Square
Birmingham B2 4BP
We would like to please request an internal review of this decision.
I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 19 July 2023, which we responded to on 16 August 2023, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 31 August 2023.
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.
In your initial email you requested the following information:
The Commission responded to this request as follows:
Questions 1 – 3 we considered to be exempt under section 31(1)(g) of the FOIA, which exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).
The Commission considered the subsections below apply and therefore the information was exempt from disclosure:
i. Subsection 31(2)(a) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,
ii. Subsection 31(2)(b) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,
iii. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,
iv. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to 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.
Regarding question 4, the Commission confirmed that no information was held be the Commission falling with the Scope of this part of your request.
In relation to part 5 of your request, the Commission stated that we do not provide comment on any information held regarding specific action unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we were unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of this part your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA exemption was therefore engaged.
Internal review
In our initial response we advised that information falling within scope of question 1- 3 of your request was held by the Gambling Commission. However, due to the Commission’s responsibilities as the regulator of gambling in Great Britain, we advised that any information relating to individual licensees and the regulatory work of the Commission was exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)g of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released.
After reviewing your request and our response, I uphold our original decision to engage the section 31(1)g exemption. My considerations for this decision are detailed below.
In our response we advised that the Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions and through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.
The Commission takes steps to publish information, ensuring the transparency and accountability of its regulatory work. Specific details of correspondence between individual Licensees, does not contribute to the overall understanding of the gambling industry.
We release details of our enforcement activity through public statements, which can be found on our website here:
When we publish these statements, we take care to present as much information as possible to ensure that lessons can be learned, and standards raised in the industry. However, we must also be careful not to reveal any information that could hinder our ability to conduct investigations or enable those we may investigate to avoid detection.
As stated in our original response, the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any regulatory work we may or may not be undertaking, unless it is in the public interest to do so.
As the public body, which is required to regulate the gambling industry, we acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission. There is 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. 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 to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.
However, there is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly in conversations regarding individual operators. It is the impact on this, which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions, in ensuring that any individuals or organisations providing gambling facilities have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected. Nevertheless, the Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing potential and 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. The amount of specific information the Commission can release relating to our licensees may impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.
Finally, disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
After consideration of the above arguments, I consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information.
In terms of question 4, the FOIA gives individuals the right to request only recorded information held by public authorities, such as the Gambling Commission. It does not provide an avenue for individuals to gain views or opinions of public authorities or information not held at the time the request is made. I can confirm that no recorded information is held falling within the scope of this part of your request. As such, we are unable to provide any information in line with the FOIA.
Finally, as stated in our original response, the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any regulatory work we may or may not be undertaking, unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any specific information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA 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 was not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, we considered a public interest test to identify whether there was a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption, as is necessary when looking to apply the section 31 FOIA exemption.
We acknowledged that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission, and that 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 to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator.
However, we advised that confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals or events identifiable is likely to impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.
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 ongoing or future investigation by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
To disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission, its stakeholders and other regulatory bodies, which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from organisations who are unfit or incompetent in their activities. On balance, our view was that there was a greater public interest in favour of engaging the exemption when considering the impact.
When reviewing this request, the public interest test was further considered, and we can confirm that fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission which may further increase public awareness of the work carried out by the Commission. Further to this, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
However, as a regulatory body, the Commission relies on a variety of sources sharing information to enable the Commission to carry out its functions. Discussing within the public domain information which has been passed to us may deter these sources from sharing important material with us, as such prejudicing our regulatory functions.
Fulfilling this request may also prejudice the outcome of any future work by the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.
The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commission’s work and individuals or operators from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
Finally, once/if a formal regulatory decision has been made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full. This far better achieves the aims of protecting players and preventing widespread malpractice than releasing any information prematurely.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, there is more than a 50% chance that prejudice to the Commission would be caused by confirming or denying whether we hold any information falling within the scope of your request.
After reviewing your request and our response, in conclusion, I uphold our original decision to engage the S31 exemption.
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, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission