Merkur Special Measures

Request

Due to the amount of information being raised, and for the public information and safety can it be confirmed if land based operator Merkur is in special measures.

Response

Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In your email you have requested for it to be confirmed if land-based operator Merkur is in special measures.

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. A key aim of the Commission is to ensure that licensed businesses are compliant in the shortest possible time - this protects consumers fastest and reduces the chances of crime entering businesses.

Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements. Information collated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence.

The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing licensees. These procedures and processes are put in place to minimise the risk of an operator being allowed to continue to offer gambling facilities where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s licence assessment processes.

One of the tools we use to ensure operators who need to make key improvements are swiftly compliant is to place them into special measures.

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.

Section 31(3)

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).

Public Interest Test

The Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request; section 31 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.

Gambling operators are required to provide detailed information to the Commission. Statutory mechanisms exist to compel the provision of information, but this is not always the most effective way to obtain information. We rely on the voluntary supply of information in order to perform our licensing, compliance and policy functions. In operator specific engagement, we rely on open and frank exchanges in order to reach decisions. Disclosing whether we hold operational information without sufficient rationale would undermine this trust and make operators less likely to co-operate with requests in future.

In Favour of Disclosure

We acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission and gambling operators. 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.

In Favour of Maintaining the Exemption

However, to disclose to the public whether we hold this information could impact on the free and frank exchange of information between the Commission and gambling operators which could ultimately result in consumers not being protected from operators who are unfit or incompetent in their activities.

Further to this, 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 investigations 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. The nature of the information requested may prejudice the regulatory work by the Commission and therefore we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to your request.

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

Internal Review Request

I'm requesting an internal review of your refusal to confirm or deny whether Merkur is in special measures.

REDACTED

I am not asking for sensitive operational details. I am simply asking whether special measures a tool the Gambling Commission has publicly acknowledged have been applied to this operator.

To deny even that level of transparency, REDACTED, is both harmful and contradictory to your stated aim of maintaining public trust in regulation.

There is a clear public interest in answering this question. I strongly urge you to reconsider.

Internal Review Response

I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 13/06/2025 which we responded to on 19/06/2025, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 19/06/2025.

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 if the Gambling Commission could confirm if land-based operator Merkur is in special measures.

In our initial response, we advised that the Commission was not able to confirm or deny whether information is held within the scope of your request, and we considered a public interest test to identify whether there was a wider public interest in fulfilling this request opposed to maintaining the exemption. After weighing the balance, we confirmed that the section 31 FOIA exemption applied.

Internal Review

The Duty to Confirm or Deny

Section 1(1)(a) of FOIA provides that any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request. This is known as ‘the duty to confirm or deny’. However, in certain circumstances there are exemptions to this duty.

Under section 31(3), 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).

You have asked if the gambling operator Merkur has been placed in special measures. Given the type of information requested, we consider that section 31 of the FOIA would apply to the requested information, if held. The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance and enforcement functions. Through our open correspondence with a variety of stakeholders and third parties, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.

Section 31 – Law enforcement

Section 31 of the FOIA provides that information held by a public authority is exempt if its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the exercise of a public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection 2.

In those cases the relevant purposes referred to in subsection (1)(g) to (i) are—

(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law,

(b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is responsible for any conduct which is improper,

(c) the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,

The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. 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:

preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime, ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

To be an effective regulator, those who have an interest in the gambling industry must have confidence that the Commission can handle sensitive information accordingly. Therefore, confirming or denying whether the requested information is held could impact on the willingness of individuals to supply essential information, and on the confidence individuals have in the Commission’s ability to handle information appropriately.

If the Commission is unable to discuss the relevant information needed to make decisions this could harm its ability to effectively carry out its regulatory functions and objectives set out in the Gambling Act. Whilst it is recognised that the Commission has powers to formerly order information, the process is burdensome and would mean that the Commission would likely receive less information and deal with fewer cases, which in turn would affect its ability to function effectively and meet its duties under the Gambling Act.

As such, we uphold the decision that information relating to a specific gambling operator, being held for the purposes of specific regulatory functions, would be exempt by virtue of section 31(1)(g), and it follows that section 31(3) is engaged.

The Public Interest Test

Having acknowledged that the Commission was not able to confirm or deny whether information is held 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.

There is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission, and we acknowledge that fulfilling this request may demonstrate the type of information processed by the Commission, enhancing accountability and transparency in relation to high-profile matters.

However, there is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work. Whilst any potential investigations are ongoing, public authorities require a safe space in which to operate, and premature disclosures could create intense media pressure which could present problems for any judicial processes. Confirming or denying information which makes specific events identifiable is likely to impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies.

Once or if a formal regulatory decision has been made, 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 also 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.

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 may have been passed to us may deter these sources from sharing important material with us, as such prejudicing our regulatory functions.

On balance, our initial view was that there was a greater public interest in favour of engaging the exemption when considering the impact. We uphold this decision.

Risk of Prejudice

The amount of information we release 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.

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. 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.

After reviewing your request and our response, we uphold our original decision to engage the section 31 exemption in relation to your request and we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any specific information within the scope of your request.

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