Guidance
Guidance to licensing authorities
The Gambling Commission's guidance for licensing authorities.
Contents
- Changes to the Guidance for Licensing Authorities
- Part 1: General guidance on the role and responsibilities of licensing authorities in gambling regulation
-
- Introduction
- Partnership working between the Commission and licensing authorities – shared regulation
- Co-ordination and contact
- Primary legislation
- Statutory aim to permit gambling
- The licensing objectives
- Codes of practice
- Licensing authority discretion (s.153 of the Act)
- Local risk assessments
- Licensing authority policy statement
- Limits on licensing authority discretion
- Other powers
- Part 2: The licensing framework
- Part 3: The Gambling Commission
- Part 4: Licensing authorities
- Part 5: Principles to be applied by licensing authorities
- Part 6: Licensing authority policy statement
- Part 7: Premises licences
- Part 8: Responsible authorities and interested parties definitions
- Part 9: Premises licence conditions
- Part 10: Review of premises licence by licensing authority
- Part 11: Provisional statements
- Part 12: Rights of appeal and judicial review
- Part 13: Information exchange
- Part 14: Temporary use notices
- Part 15: Occasional use notices
- Part 16: Gaming machines
- Part 17: Casinos
-
- Casino premises
- Casino games
- Protection of children and young persons
- The process for issuing casino premises licences
- Resolutions not to issue casino licences
- Converted casinos (with preserved rights under Schedule 18 of the Act)
- Casino premises licence conditions
- Mandatory conditions – small casino premises licences
- Mandatory conditions – converted casino premises licences
- Default conditions attaching to all casino premises licences
- Self-exclusion
- Part 18: Bingo
- Part 19: Betting premises
- Part 20: Tracks
-
- Definition of a track
- Track premises licences – differences from other premises licences
- Betting on tracks
- Licences and other permissions for the provision of betting facilities
- Betting on event and non-event days
- Social responsibility considerations for tracks
- Gaming machines
- Self-service betting terminals (SSBTs)
- Applications
- Licence conditions and requirements
- Part 21: Adult gaming centres
- Part 22: Licensed family entertainment centres
- Part 23: Introduction to permits
- Part 24: Unlicensed family entertainment centres
- Part 25: Clubs
- Part 26: Premises licensed to sell alcohol
- Part 27: Prize gaming and prize gaming permits
- Part 28: Non-commercial and private gaming, betting and lotteries
- Part 29: Poker
- Part 30: Travelling fairs
- Part 31: Crown immunity and excluded premises
- Part 32: Territorial application of the Gambling Act 2005
- Part 33: Door supervision
- Part 34: Small society lotteries
-
- Small society lotteries
- The status of lotteries under the Act
- Licensing authority guidance
- Social responsibility
- External lottery managers’ licence status
- Lottery tickets
- Prizes
- Specific offences in relation to lotteries
- Application and registration process for small society lotteries
- Administration and returns
- Part 35: Chain gift schemes
- Part 36: Compliance and enforcement matters
- Appendix A: Summary of machine provisions by premises
- Appendix B: Summary of gaming machine categories and entitlements
- Appendix C: Summary of gaming entitlements for clubs and alcohol-licensed premises
- Appendix D: Summary of offences under the Gambling Act 2005
- Appendix E: Summary of statutory application forms and notices
- Appendix F: Inspection powers
- Appendix G: Licensing authority delegations
- Appendix H: Poker games and prizes
- Appendix I: Glossary of terms
Proposal 3: Autoplay
Proposals
We proposed extending the prohibition of autoplay that currently applies to slots to all online products.
Consultation question
To what extent do you agree with the proposal to prohibit autoplay for all online products? Please give your reasons for your answer.
Respondents’ view
The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal. Gambling operators raised some concerns about the impact on live casino games due to their limited window to place a bet, ‘auto dabbing’ for bingo and the auto-posting of blinds in peer-to-peer poker games.
Respondents commented as follows:
- autoplay could be further limited for live dealer games rather than being removed
- clarity sought on whether this includes purchasing tickets for scheduled bingo games
- autoplay can be used as a tool to control gambling or play a set amount. Conversely gambling without autoplay may lead to consumers gambling more than they wanted to as they lose count
- autoplay allows consumers to continue playing when they are not watching the product
- autoplay diminishes consumer responsibility, bets should require a conscious decision each time
- there is a need for increased friction to reduce the dissociative state that some people experience when gambling
- general comments around a lack of evidence that removing autoplay will help consumers
- removing autoplay is damaging to the customer experience
- some references to customer circumvention which would not have the controls that autoplay currently does
- several mentions of autoplay contributing to a dissociative state
- it appears overly strict to remove autoplay from products, “which the GC (Gambling Commission) itself recognises as lower-risk”
- autoplay can be helpful for people with disabilities and/or RSI.
Our position
Autoplay is widely regarded to be a source of increased risk for gambling consumers according to gambling research such as Parke, Parke and Blaszczynski (2016) that found the lack of (physical) interaction facilitated by autoplay, such as even pressing a button, reduces likelihood of mental engagement.
We prioritised new requirements for slots as they are considered a relatively high-risk product, responsible for the bulk of consumer losses (around 77 percent of remote casino Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) according to our industry statistics) and played faster and more repetitively than other game types. However, in doing so we did not delineate other casino products as ‘lower risk’ nor does available evidence suggest such products are. The Patterns of Play research estimated that non-slots casino products had the fastest loss rate of all products, despite the gameplay being generally slower (£1.12 per minute).
We are mindful that features which improve the quality of user experience and do not pose an obvious risk should not be restricted. This is why features such as ‘re-bet’ were not in scope of our proposals. Such a feature enables a customer to place the same bet as the previous game cycle without individually placing the same chips (bets) but still requires an active choice by a consumer on each game cycle. Such a feature enables games with shorter betting windows, such as live casino games, to function smoothly without the need for autoplay. As a result, we see no convincing reason to exclude live casino games from scope.
Auto-dabbing in bingo games was not caught by the proposal. The wording of the proposed provision requires that each game cycle is committed to individually which is not relevant to the marking of numbers drawn during a bingo game that a customer has already committed to by purchasing an entry. The proposal did not seek to restrict the purchase of individual bingo tickets for scheduled games.
The wording of the proposal also did not capture the auto-posting of blinds in peer-to-peer poker tournaments for a similar reason. However, we are mindful that it could be interpreted as excluding the functionality from cash table poker games which we received calls for clarity on. The posting of blinds does not occur every hand and so does not incur a cost to the consumer until play rotates to their position, unlike other games.. We have therefore provided implementation guidance within the Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS) to reiterate our intention that this is not caught.
As was the case for slots, removing auto-play actively inserts friction and provides less opportunity for simultaneous play across multiple products. This is of particular importance given the introduction of a 5 second minimum speed for casino products which could be circumvented by using auto-play across multiple games.
We are committed to giving consideration to potential equalities impacts, having regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. As part of the consultation, we acknowledged the response to our earlier consultation on removing autoplay from slots games, and the potential impact that removing the autoplay function may have on consumers with disabilities or specific health conditions, and invited further views and evidence linked to extending the ban to other online casino games. A small number of respondents raised this issue.
While we recognise that our proposals may present a challenge for those players, they would also be exposed to the risks associated with autoplay, and having carefully considered the evidence we have, we have proceeded with the change.
We have introduced the requirement to prohibit autoplay for all online gaming products. A line of guidance has been included in the RTS which makes clear that the auto-posting of blinds in peer-to-peer poker is not caught by this requirement.
Final wording
This requirement will come into force on 17 January 2025.
Applies to: Gaming (including bingo).
RTS aim 8A
To make clear that auto-play cannot be offered for online gaming.
RTS guidance 8A
This requirement does not prohibit offering functionality to automatically post blinds in peer-to-peer poker.
Last updated: 1 May 2024
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.