This box is not visible in the printed version.
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on the proposed changes to LCCP and Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards.
Published: 4 February 2025
Last updated: 4 February 2025
This version was printed or saved on: 30 April 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/consultation-response/autumn-2023-consultation-proposed-changes-to-lccp-and-rts-consultation
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on 3 topics – empowering customers to set financial limits on their gambling, improved transparency on how customer funds would be treated in the event of insolvency and removing the requirement to make annual financial contributions to Research, Prevention and Treatment which will become obsolete once a statutory levy is introduced. Following the consultation, changes are being made to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) and Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS).
In November 2023, we consulted on a number of changes to the LCCP and RTS requirements (opens in new tab) placed on gambling businesses.
The consultation covered 5 topics:
We published our response on Changes to the frequency of regulatory return submissions in March 2024. We aim to publish our response on Socially responsible incentives by the end of March. This response covers the remaining 3 topics listed. These topics are connected to the 2023 white paper High Stakes: gambling reform for a digital age (opens in new tab) following a review of the Gambling Act 2005. The detailed proposals were:
This consultation covered 3 issues. Issue 1 was account-level customer-led financial limits. We wanted to make sure that customers who wanted to actively make use of customer-led pre-commitment tools, such as financial limits, could do so easily, in ways that worked for them and with the minimum of friction. We set out a series of proposed changes to the RTS and consulted on 2 options for implementation - for tools to be presented as the default option for new customers with the ability to opt out, or for all new customers to set a limit on their account.
The proposed changes would be delivered through revisions to RTS 12 – Financial limits.
Issue 2 was cross-operator deposit limits. A number of other jurisdictions have announced, trialled or implemented customer-set financial limits (in the form of deposit limits) that apply across all accounts held by an individual customer. We sought stakeholders’ views on the issue, but did not consult on specific proposals for change.
Issue 3 was artificial barriers to consumer choice. In response to the call for evidence for the white paper (opens in new tab) some stakeholders submitted evidence of friction being applied at various points in the customer journey, which may dissuade customers from acting in their own interest. We sought views on stakeholders’ concerns and specific examples where consumer decision-making has been influenced or encouraged through the use of friction or barriers in this way. We did not consult on specific proposals for change.
To ensure it is clear to consumers throughout their relationship with a gambling licensee with a ‘not protected’ rating that their funds are not protected in the event of insolvency, we proposed that such gambling businesses should actively remind customers that their funds are not protected.
We proposed 2 options – option A made the requirement subject to the value of funds reaching a threshold amount, option B did not include a threshold. Both options required a reminder to be sent to the customer no more than once every 6 months.
Option A sought evidence on what a suitable threshold might be, providing a number of options for comment.
The government has now confirmed in its consultation response that it intends to move ahead with the introduction of the statutory levy. The government has brought forward the necessary legislation and expects the levy to come into force in April 2025. Once this is brought into force it will replace the current system for funding research into the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms, harm prevention approaches and treatment for those harmed by gambling (RET). We consulted on removing paragraph 2 of SR Code Provision 3.1.1 – Combating problem gambling which currently requires gambling licensees to make an annual financial contribution to one or more organisations providing RET on a list that we maintain (sometimes referred to as the LCCP RET list).
The consultation closed on 21 February 2024.
There were 116 respondents who provided 289 responses across the 5 topics in this consultation, from a range of stakeholders, including:
Annex 1 lists organisations that consented to the publication of their name when responding to the consultation.
We have reviewed the responses to each of the proposals to inform our final position. We have decided to further empower consumers with improvements to the way they can set financial limits on their gambling, and improved transparency on how their funds are treated in the event of insolvency. We have also removed requirements that will become obsolete with the introduction of the government’s statutory levy.
Following consultation, we have made the following decisions.
We have decided to make changes that affect both requirements and implementation guidance across various sections of RTS 12 – Financial limits, which strengthen our requirements and further empower consumers by making limit-setting more effective.
We have decided to implement the requirement that all customers must be prompted to set a financial limit as early as possible and be able to set limits at any point thereafter. Those financial limits must only be offered using free text.
We have decided to implement the requirement that financial limits must be applied at the account level.
Financial limit setting facilities must be provided via a link on the homepage and clearly visible and accessible. These facilities must also be provided on or via a link on deposit pages and/or screen and be clearly visible and accessible.
We have included additional new wording to support ‘clearly visible and accessible’ elements of the RTS requirement, regarding minimising the number of clicks and/or pages that must be navigated to reach these facilities.
We have decided to make it a requirement, rather than guidance, that all customer requests to decrease a financial limit must be actioned immediately.
We are introducing implementation guidance to confirm that licensees can also offer links to tools or resources to support limit-setting.
We have also decided to change the implementation guidance that licensees can also continue to offer financial limits at the product or channel level (this is a minor amendment to the current guidance as a result of limits at the account level becoming a requirement). Licensees should also clearly communicate to customers how product and channel limits work.
We have decided to introduce new implementation guidance that licensees should inform customers about how limits set across multiple timeframes work, if chosen by the customer.
There is new implementation guidance that communications to consumers that include links to limit-setting facilities should link directly to those facilities (other than where a security log-in is needed). Licensees should also inform consumers when limits will take effect, if not automated or if delayed due to technical issues.
We have decided to require an alert to customers to review their account activity – customers must receive a prompt to review their account and transaction information; this prompt must be provided at a minimum of 6-monthly intervals; and customers must be able to set more frequent reminders to review their account information. Licensees should also monitor engagement with these prompts to inform best practice. Following consultation, this was considered more secure than the originally proposed activity statements.
There will be new implementation guidance that licensees can mitigate against user error by specifying monetary increments for free text limits.
We have decided that customers should retain the ability to opt out of setting a limit, but limit-setting must be presented as the default option for customers. We will introduce additional implementation guidance on this aspect in response to feedback.
The changes we have decided to make are intended to improve the uptake and effectiveness of financial limits. As proposed in the consultation, we have decided to update the wording of the aim in this section of the RTS to reflect those changes.
These aspects will come into force on 31 October 2025.
We also proposed a requirement that all customers must be able set deposit limits, and that licensees could also continue to offer other types of financial limits such as spend limits or loss limits.
During the consultation it became clear that deposit limits were being interpreted by licensees in different ways. We will shortly publish a supplementary consultation to clarify the proposed requirement that it is ‘gross deposit limits’ that must be offered by all licensees, while other types of financial limit could also continue to be offered to customers.
We have decided to proceed with our proposal, and the requirement will follow option B (the no threshold approach). This change to the LCCP will apply to all licensees1 apart from society lotteries and/or External Lottery Managers that do not conduct high-frequency lotteries or offer instant win games.
We have decided that the reminder is to be sent once every 6 months. The new provision will also require licensees to obtain an acknowledgement from the customer before permitting them to gamble.
These requirements will come into force on 31 October 2025.
We have decided to proceed with our proposal and remove the requirement to make annual financial contributions to research, prevention and treatment as it will be obsolete once a statutory levy is introduced.
The removal of this requirement will be implemented close to the implementation of the statutory levy. That date is dependent on the Parliamentary process, but is scheduled by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to be 6 April 2025. We will notify licensees of the date of implementation once the Parliamentary process is complete.
We have developed a phased approach to these changes to the LCCP and RTS. The implementation dates for customer-led tools and improved transparency on customer funds in the event of insolvency allow time for gambling businesses to make the technical and process amendments needed, taking into account other forthcoming changes to legislation and the Commission’s regulatory framework.
1 Except for gaming machine technical, gambling software, host, ancillary remote bingo and ancillary remote casino licences.
The 2023 White Paper, High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age (opens in new tab)(white paper) set out the Gambling Commission’s commitment that we would review and consult on requiring operators to improve player-centric tools like financial limits and activity statements, such as by making deposit-setting mandatory or opted in by default.
In November 2023, we launched our consultation on proposals to improve player centric tools (opens in new tab). The proposed changes would be delivered through revisions to Remote gambling and software technical standard 12 – Financial limits (RTS 12), in the form of:
The consultation had the following policy intentions:
We have decided to proceed with the majority of the proposals set out in the consultation. However, we have considered the feedback and not all of the proposals will proceed to implementation as set out in the consultation
The following provisions will be implemented as set out in the consultation, subject to some minor amendments to the wording of the provisions following consultation feedback:
RTS requirements that:
RTS implementation guidance that:
The following are new or revised provisions as a result of stakeholder feedback during the consultation:
In addition, we consulted on 2 options regarding whether all new accounts must have financial limits applied or have limit-setting presented as the default option, with the ability for customers to opt-out. We are implementing option 1 – a new requirement and implementation guidance which allows new customers to opt out of setting a limit, but that limit-setting is to be presented as the default option for customers. We are also introducing additional new implementation guidance to support this requirement.
The following consultation proposals will not be implemented:
The outcomes of the proposals set out in this response will form part of a revised RTS 12 which will come into effect on 31 October 2025.
The consultation made proposals that customers must all have the opportunity to set deposit limits, and that operators could also continue to offer other types of financial limits such as spend limits or loss limits.
During the consultation it became clear that the way in which operators are interpreting 'deposit limits' has recently changed, and a number of operators had recently introduced ‘net deposit limits’. Our view is that net deposit limits do not meet the definition of ‘deposit limit’ in the current RTS implementation guidance or proposed as requirements in this consultation. We are also of the view that stakeholders may not have fully considered these different types of ‘deposit limit’ when submitting their original responses.
We will shortly publish a short supplementary consultation to reiterate and seek views on the definition proposed, that it is ‘gross deposit limits’ that must be offered by all operators, and implementation guidance that other types of financial limit – such as net deposit limits – could also be offered to customers. This would support consistency and transparency to consumers but still offer customer choice.
On 29 November 2023 we issued our consultation on Customer-led tools (opens in new tab). The consultation ran for 12 weeks until 21 February 2024.
We received 65 written responses the consultation from the following categories of respondents:
We proposed:
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that offering facilities to set limits should be a requirement rather than implementation guidance?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that for access media (such as interactive TV) limits must only be offered to consumers using free text?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that implementation guidance states that operators could provide links to tools or resources to support limit setting as part of the process?
Regarding the proposed changes to offering financial limits at registration or first deposit and making them available at any point thereafter, the majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. Of respondents who were not in favour, a small number were against financial limits in any form, and others thought the proposals should go further, such as maximum limits being pre-determined by the Gambling Commission.
In relation to using free text as the only format for financial limits to be offered, the majority of respondents agreed with this proposal, although some respondents suggested that operators should have flexibility in how they present limit-setting facilities, such as continuing to offer ‘sliders’ or drop-down lists in addition to or instead of free text. Disagreement with the proposal was largely around avoidance of user error and need for data validation.
In relation to the proposed implementation guidance that operators could also offer links to tools or resources to support limit-setting, the majority of respondents supported the proposal. Respondents cautioned against this information adding friction to the customer journey, which could potentially discourage customers from setting a limit. Others raised questions about whether information would be required to be embedded in operator websites or via external links and commented on the need for research on appropriate messaging and presentation.
We welcome the support for the proposed requirements, and we note that a number of operators already offer financial limits using free text.
Regarding the use of ‘free text’ only for customer-set financial limits, this is a topic which has had limited gambling-specific research conducted, although there have been a wide range of studies looking at the role of anchoring in nudging consumer decision-making, leading to decisions that can be detrimental to consumer benefit. While we acknowledge that this area would benefit from further gambling-specific research and evaluation to better understand the link between the presentation of financial limits and the resulting levels set, we have drawn on evidence from related fields to inform the position that free text is the current optimum method to ensure that consumers are not influenced by external factors when deciding on the appropriate limit for them.
We do not agree that operators should have the flexibility to offer limits using drop downs, sliders or similar, either instead of or alongside free text. While we acknowledge that this could offer more choice to consumers whether to choose for themselves or from options offered, we consider that:
We accept that a completely free choice box does carry a small risk that when setting limits customers may make errors or input non-whole numbers, which could be technically difficult to administer. We consider it reasonable for operators to be able to stipulate increments or multiples, for example multiples of £5, or programme the field to only receive integers or ‘whole amounts’, as a mitigation against this, as long as this in itself does not nudge customers or anchor their decisions in any material way. We therefore are introducing new implementation guidance that was not included in the consultation proposals but is a direct response to feedback during the consultation.
We also proposed to introduce implementation guidance that operators could provide links to tools or resources to inform budgeting and aid customers in setting appropriate limits, as part of the limit-setting process, so that consumers who want to access and make use of those tools to help them decide on their limits can do so easily. A number of operators already provide links to such tools or resources.
We agree with the need for this information to sit outside the customer journey and not present further friction, and that customers should not be distracted from the process of limit setting by accessing this type of information.
In finalising the wording for this requirement, we have also made minor amendments to update and clarify some of the language in the remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS).
We are proceeding with introduction of these proposals and additional implementation guidance.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
The gambling system must provide easily accessible facilities for customers to set their own financial limits at any time from the point of registration.
Customers must be prompted to set a limit as part of the registration process or at the point at which the customer makes the first deposit or payment. The limit must be implemented as soon as practicable after the customer’s request. The customer must be informed when the limit will come into force.
Customers must be presented with a ‘free text’ box to set a limit, or the equivalent in the case of telephone gambling.
Operators could provide links to tools or resources to inform budgeting and aid customers in determining appropriate limits for their personal circumstances.
In order to mitigate against user error, the gambling system could permit specific monetary increments for limits, such as whole pounds.
We consulted on the following proposals:
These proposals were developed with the intention of improving consistency across the industry in how limits are offered, with the intention of also increasing customer understanding of how limits work in practice.
As noted, we proposed that operators should inform customers about how limits set across multiple timeframes work, for example, when a customer sets both a daily and a monthly limit on their account. The issue of the actual duration or period for financial limits to apply will be considered as part of a supplementary consultation and this response is concerned only with the communication to customers about how limits will work.
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that limits must be applied at the account level?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that gambling licensees can also continue to offer financial limits at the product or channel level in addition to account level limits?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that gambling licensees should clearly communicate to customers how product/channel limits work?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that the gambling licensees should determine whether customers holding multiple accounts wish to apply limits across all accounts held?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that gambling licensees should inform customers about how limits set across simultaneous timeframes work, when a customer chooses to set multiple limits?
In relation to limits at the account level, the majority of respondents supported this proposal. Respondents commented that customers found it easier to understand their spending at the account level rather than spread across different activities or channels. Some suggested limits apply across multiple brands within a parent company, or all accounts held across multiple operators.
In relation to proposed implementation guidance that operators could continue to offer financial limits at the product or channel level, respondents’ comments were generally around the need for transparency, ensuring consumer understanding and risks around confusion and friction in the customer journey. The majority of respondents supported this proposal and the proposal for associated guidance that operators should clearly communicate how any product and channel limits work.
In relation to the proposal for implementation guidance that operators should determine whether customers holding multiple accounts wish to apply limits across all accounts held within a parent company, support for this proposal was mixed, with comments including:
In relation to implementation guidance that operators should inform customers about how limits set across multiple timeframes work, if chosen by the customer, some respondents provided examples of scenarios where it was possible to hit a limit then continue to play or deposit due to technicalities of how multiple limits could be applied. The majority of respondents supported this proposal.
We welcome the support from respondents who agreed with the proposed requirement that limits must be applied at the account level, regardless of whether operators also offer limits across individual products or channels.
We agree with respondents who noted the need for clear communication about how product and channel limits would work, and the need to minimise friction in the customer journey so customers are not inadvertently discouraged from setting limits.
To be clear, we did not propose that all licensees must offer limits at product or channel level, we proposed that licensees could retain the option of offering them. We note that most respondents supported this proposal and agreed with our intention to improve consistency while not restricting or removing customer choice where it currently exists.
This consultation did not attempt to address messaging or the quality and content of safer gambling information. We are aware of work being led by Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to develop public health-led messaging in relation to gambling, as well as ongoing research to determine appropriate messaging designed to address issues around information for players. We will continue to monitor this and will revisit this position should evidence emerge to inform further changes to regulatory requirements or implementation guidance.
We aimed to extend the transparency we expect around how different types of limits work across different products and channels to that of different time frames, to reduce the risk of confusion or misunderstanding by customers about how limits set across different time frames work.
This specific question related to the introduction of implementation guidance that operators should communicate how that works, rather than the requirement itself. For the avoidance of doubt, the Gambling Commission’s view is that when limits are set across simultaneous timeframes, staking or depositing (depending on the type of limit) must stop when the most restrictive limit is reached. For example, if a customer sets a £20 per day deposit limit, and a £100 per week deposit limit, the customer should be prevented from depositing once the £100 is hit, even though there may be ‘unspent days’ in the 7-day period.
While we acknowledge that there may be consumer benefits to licensees exploring the option of offering limits which apply across multiple brands within a parent company, we do not intend to progress this at the current time.
The aim of this proposal was to explore the potential of additional player protections by reducing friction associated with applying limits across other accounts held by a customer with other brands within the parent company.
We have carefully considered comments from all respondents against the policy intentions set out in the consultation, including bringing more consistency to the customer experience of pre-commitment tools, and reducing frictions and barriers to making use of these tools for those who wish to. We conclude that:
Our decision not to proceed with this proposal does not impact on or override requirements for licensees to be able to identify multiple accounts held by customers as currently required under Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) 3.9.1 – Identification of individual customers, or the requirement for licensees to use customer account and activity data such as spend and use of gambling management tools to monitor account activity for the purposes of identifying risk of harm under LCCP 3.4.3 - Customer interaction.
We are proceeding with the proposed changes to the status and wording of existing provisions, but not proceeding to introduce the proposed new implementation guidance on determining whether customers with more than one account with the ‘parent company’ would want to apply limits to each account.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
As a minimum, limits must be applied at the account level.
In addition to account-level limits, limits could be implemented across individual products or channels. Where gambling licensees offer the facility to set limits for individual products or channels it should be made clear to customers using the facility whether those limits apply at the account or product/channel level. For example, where a limit has been set for a specific game, a customer should not be misled into assuming that the limit automatically applies to other products.
Where a customer sets simultaneous time frames, gambling licensees should provide clear information on how the interaction between those limits works.
The current remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) allows operators to choose the type of financial limit(s) they offer customers. In order to improve consistency across the industry and to simplify the landscape for consumers, we proposed a requirement that customers must all have the opportunity to set deposit limits. To meet consumer choice, we proposed implementation guidance that operators could also continue to offer spend limits and/or loss limits.
For the avoidance of doubt, we also proposed to codify our expectation that the gambling system must prevent a customer from depositing, staking or spending (according to the type of limit set), or incurring further losses from the point at which the customer-set limit is reached, until the limit period ‘restarts’. Customers who wished to continue to deposit and/or gamble once their limit is reached would need to take proactive action to increase their limit, which would continue to be subject to the 24-hour cooling off period.
The Gambling Commission’s view was that offering a common type of financial limit across all operators would be beneficial for consumers in terms of improving understanding of how limits work, and would enable consumers to use the same type of limit across more than one account.
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that the gambling system must offer deposit limits as a minimum?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that the gambling licensees should continue to have the option to offer spend and/or loss limits, in order to maximise consumer choice?
To what extent do you agree with the proposed definition of spend limits as a tool “where the amount a customer spends on gambling (or specific gambling products) is restricted for the period/duration of the limit applied”, for the purpose of RTS 12 – Financial limits?
To what extent do you agree with the proposed definition of loss limits as a tool “where the amount lost is restricted, i.e. winnings subtracted from the amount spent for the period/duration of the limit applied”, for the purpose of RTS 12 – Financial limits?
The majority of respondents supported the proposals for a requirement for all operators to offer deposit limits and, in order to maximise consumer choice, retaining the implementation guidance that licensees could still offer spend and/or loss limits, in addition to deposit limits.
However, in their comments, a significant number of gambling industry respondents were strongly of the view that they should be able to retain the ability to offer ‘net deposit limits’ as a form of deposit limits for the purposes of compliance with the RTS.
Support for agreeing with the definitions of spend and loss limits was more mixed, and we received feedback related to how calculations of loss would be made in relation to settled bets, treatment of bonus funds in relation to financial limits, and links to definitions of net loss for the purposes of financial risk assessments.
Through analysis of the responses to this consultation, consumer feedback and engagement with industry, it has become clear that financial limits, in particular deposit limits, are being interpreted by operators in different ways.
Some operators are continuing to offer ‘gross’ or ‘regular’ deposit limits that prevent a customer from depositing further monies into their account for the remainder of the duration of the limit, once their limit is met. This represents how ‘deposit limit’ has been interpreted in common practice since RTS 12 – Financial limits was introduced.
Some operators are now offering what they term ‘net deposit limits’, where any funds withdrawn during the period are automatically offset against the customer-set deposit limit, allowing the customer to deposit in excess of the deposit limit, up to the total value of the limit plus the total value of withdrawals made in the period.
Some operators are offering net deposit limits in addition to gross deposit limits, and some operators have stopped offering ‘gross’ deposit limits in favour of net deposit limits.
We think this may be confusing for customers and we have received a number of complaints from consumers about this practice, in particular from customers who had previously chosen to place a gross deposit limit on their account, but this had been ‘switched’ to a net deposit limit by the operator.
Importantly, the ‘net deposit limits’ offered by some operators are not consistent with the definition of ‘deposit limits’ in the current RTS implementation guidance 12A, or that proposed as a requirement in the consultation.
We are of the view that stakeholders may not have fully considered these different types of ‘deposit limit’ when submitting their original responses. In particular, non-industry respondents may not have considered the distinctions between gross and net deposit limits, and the support for this proposal from industry respondents was largely conditional on ‘net deposit limits’ falling within the deposit limit definition.
It is important that deposit limits are offered to consumers in a transparent way with some consistency between operators. We will publish a supplementary consultation to further consider the different definitions of financial limits with a view to supporting transparency and consistency to consumers.
We consulted on the following proposals:
a requirement that financial limit setting facilities must be provided via a link on the homepage and clearly visible and accessible. This was a proposed elevation of current implementation guidance to a requirement
a requirement that financial limit setting facilities must be provided on or via a link on deposit pages and/or screens and clearly visible and accessible. This was a proposed elevation of current implementation guidance to a requirement.
to support ‘clearly visible and accessible’ we proposed additional new wording to the remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) requirement, regarding minimising the number of clicks and/or pages that must be navigated to reach these facilities
new implementation guidance that links to limit-setting facilities from communications should link directly to the facilities unless security settings require an intermediate log in.
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that financial limit facilities must be provided via link on the homepage and clearly visible and accessible?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that financial limit facilities must be provided on or via link on deposit pages/screens and clearly visible and accessible?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that links to limit setting facilities from communications should link directly to the facilities unless security settings require an intermediate log in?
In relation to the proposed requirement that financial limit setting facilities must be provided via a link on the homepage and on deposit pages or screens and clearly visible and accessible, the majority of respondents supported these proposals.
Respondents were supportive of reducing friction and the additional wording proposed, and some noted that financial limits should have equal prominence as placing bets and promotional content. Comments also included requesting the Gambling Commission tighten the requirement further, such as stipulating maximum steps or clicks, and noting that increasing the salience of limit-setting tools could reduce stigma associated with their use.
In relation to the proposed implementation guidance, the majority of respondents supported this proposal. Responses largely supported the intent to reduce friction, increase consumer empowerment and make limit-setting a more prominent part of the customer journey. However, a minority of respondents cited technical difficulties and expressed concerns that the proposal would breach information security and data privacy regulations and requirements and suggested linking to safer gambling information pages as an alternative.
We welcome the support for these proposals and the approach we have taken to reduce friction in the customer journey. It would be possible to define the number of steps, clicks or other design elements on how information is displayed. However, our view is that the final wording makes clear our expectations such as direct links to information and that further definition does not appear necessary at this time.
Where respondents have called for us to go further by not allowing new customers to be exposed to free bets and promotions while setting limits, this is addressed in the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) ordinary code provision 5.1.10 - Online marketing in proximity to information on responsible gambling.
Regarding the proposal for implementation guidance that links to limit-setting facilities from communications should link directly to those facilities, whilst the majority of respondents have responded positively to this proposal, concerns were raised about technical implementation and information security.
In terms of information security, the proposal included the point ‘unless required by account log in security settings’. We did not propose that links from communications provide a way to access accounts that would circumvent or bypass these security settings. Our intention is, where a hyperlink to limit setting facilities is embedded in an email or other communication, the recipient is able to reach those facilities using the shortest route possible, with the minimum of friction, and not be diverted via intermediate pages or layers of information that may distract the customer from their original intention.
We are proceeding with the introduction of the requirements and implementation guidance.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
Financial limit facilities must be provided via a direct link on the homepage and be clearly visible and accessible.
Financial limit facilities must be clearly visible and accessible on deposit pages/screens or via a direct link on these pages or screens.
The gambling system must minimise the number of clicks or pages customers make in order to access financial limit facilities.
Links to limit-setting facilities from communications such as emails or notifications should link directly to the facilities and not via a home page or other intermediate page(s), unless required by account log in security settings.
We consulted on the following proposals:
strengthening the wording of the current requirements around actioning customer requests to increase limits, by removing references of “all reasonable steps”
elevating current implementation guidance to a requirement that all customer requests to decrease a financial limit must be actioned immediately
an amendment to current implementation guidance that operators should inform customers when limits will take effect, if not automated or due to technical issues.
To what extent do you agree with amended wording in relation to controls around actioning customers’ requests to increase limits?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that customer-led reductions in limits must be implemented immediately?
To what extent do you agree with the revised wording of the implementation guidance, specifically to inform customers when the limit reduction will take effect, if not automated or due to technical issues?
Regarding these proposed amendments to the wording and elevating the status of the provisions from implementation guidance to requirements, a small number of respondents felt that there should be no allowance made for technical failures or issues, and some felt that the cooling off period should be longer than 24 hours. Some respondents commented that it was possible to circumvent the cooling off period for increasing limits by applying new limits of a different duration. The majority of respondents supported all 3 proposals.
Our view is that a minimum of 24 hours still presents sufficient delay to allow for reflection and preventing potentially impulsive decisions and is an example of friction being applied to the customer journey which is designed to be beneficial for consumers. A significantly longer mandated cooling-off period would reduce agility and responsiveness in the system which may lead to unintended consequences, such as customers avoiding setting limits or removing limits completely.
For the avoidance of doubt, customer-led actions such as applying a new limit of a different duration which would result in an immediate increase, or removing limits from the account, should be treated in the same manner as an increase to the limit and therefore subject to the same cooling-off period (during which the most restrictive limit would continue to apply) and confirmation by the customer that they wish to increase their limit.
We are proceeding with the introduction of the changes to the requirements and implementation guidance.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
Customer-led limits must only be increased at the customer’s request, only after a cooling-off period of at least 24 hours has elapsed and only once the customer has taken positive action at the end of the cooling off period to confirm their request.
Unless systems/technical failures prevent it, customer-led reductions to limits must be implemented immediately.
In the event of systems or technical failure not facilitating an automated and/or immediate reduction in limits, the customer should be informed when the limit reduction will take effect.
We consulted on a proposal for implementation guidance that operators should alert customers when they were approaching their limit. As part of the proposal, we sought views on how close the customer’s spend should get to their limit to prompt the alert, as well as evidence to support this.
In setting out the proposal, we acknowledged that there was limited evidence around the optimum time for customers to be alerted to the fact that they are approaching their limits, or whether this differed depending on the type of limit or duration for which the limit is set.
To what extent do you agree with the proposed implementation guidance that gambling licensees should alert customers when they are approaching their limits?
Do you have any evidence to offer regarding the optimum point when approaching a limit that a customer should receive an alert?
Support for this proposal was mixed and there was some commonality in the reasons why respondents either did or did not agree with the proposals, along the following themes:
alerts in advance were preferable to gambling being stopped without warning when a limit is reached, such as during play and/or in a ‘hot state’
advance alerts offer an opportunity to consider actions, slow down or review limits, as they draw awareness to potential risk of harm. This was noted as both a positive and negative issue, as alerts too far in advance could lead to customers increasing their limits ahead of hitting them and negating the benefits of the 24 hour cooling off period
some support and evidence on the benefits of pop-up messages and alerts, although concerns about the content and how alerts would be delivered to avoid creating a sense of urgency or panic about running out of funds
we received evidence that suggested that interruptions to game play – such as the proposed alert when approaching a limit – while in a hot state could have a more significant and potentially negative impact for consumers who are neurodiverse
a number of respondents suggested real time information about activity and public health-led messaging would be more effective than alerts when approaching limits
the design of some kinds of limits, such as loss limits or net deposit limits, mean that the amount left before hitting a limit can be dynamic, due to continued staking activity or placed but not settled bets. This presents challenges for calculating the point at which an alert should be sent, and could cause confusion for consumers
a number of respondents noted that more research was needed before being able to reach a position on this issue.
In response to our question seeking evidence on the optimum point at which an alert should be sent, a number did offer views, including a suggestion that earlier alerts would be more likely to lead to a slowing down of activity, while others noted that being alerted when very close to a limit would be more likely to induce ‘panic’ behaviours.
Our analysis of responses suggests that in some cases, alerts of approaching limits may be useful, but that in others this could have unintended consequences, such as prompting an increase to a limit ahead of hitting it. We received little additional evidence relating to this proposal, and it is likely that alerts when approaching a limit may be more or less effective depending on a number of factors such as the time frame or duration of the limit, type of limit, and type of gambling product.
We received evidence that suggested that interruptions to game play – such as the proposed alert when approaching a limit - while in a hot state could have a more significant and potentially negative impact for neurodiverse consumers.
While there is some evidence from other jurisdictions (or could be taken from industries such as banking) that alerts about approaching limits could prevent excessive spending in the future, we consider overall there are too many uncertainties and therefore not enough clear evidence to support implementation at this point.
However, we think this is an area in which there is potential for further work in the form of research, trials and evaluation, and we would welcome this.
We are not proceeding with the proposal for implementation guidance that operators should alert a customer when they were approaching their financial limit at this time.
The 2023 White Paper set out the Gambling Commission’s commitment that we would review and consult on requiring gambling licensees to improve player-centric tools such as activity statements.
The policy intent set out in the consultation was to increase the visibility and accessibility of transactional information and gambling history to inform consumers about their gambling activities. We did this through proposals for licensees to send personalised feedback to customers periodically using information currently available under remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) 1 – Customer account information, on a frequency that could be set by the customer, and for licensees to monitor engagement with activity statements to inform best practice. This would enable customers to reflect on their gambling and provide an opportunity to review existing limits or apply a new limit.
To what extent do you agree with the new requirement for operators to provide activity statements to customers, including information currently required to be made available under RTS 1 – Customer account information?
To what extent do you agree with the new requirement for this information to be provided every 6 months for accounts with activity within a rolling 12 month period?
To what extent do you agree with the new requirement for operators to provide facilities for customers to set the frequency of reminders?
To what extent do you agree with the new implementation guidance that operators should also provide activity statements to prompt a review of limits at additional appropriate points in the customer journey?
To what extent do you agree with the new implementation guidance that operators should consider ways to share activity statements with customers in order to maximise engagement?
To what extent do you agree with the new implementation guidance that operators should monitor engagement and interaction with activity statements to inform good design and best practice?
Support for these proposals was mixed, and analysis revealed that concerns were largely in relation to the generation of material in the form of transaction statements, rather than the principles of increasing and maintaining awareness of and encouraging or facilitating access by customers to information about gambling activity, which was widely supported.
A number of respondents highlighted considerations around the format, frequency, delivery method and content of activity statements, drawing on current practice here and in other jurisdictions. Some respondents who disagreed with the wording of the proposal, agreed with the principle around improving access to customer account activity. A small number of respondents were concerned that activity statements could act as a prompt to start gambling after a period of non-activity or could prompt loss-chasing behaviours.
In considering stakeholder feedback we have taken into account:
Our position is that in the form proposed in the consultation, there is insufficient evidence to outweigh the potential regulatory burden of generating, storing and securely transmitting full statements of account activity, at this point.
Given the broad support for the principle around making account activity information more visible, we have made an amendment to the proposed requirement, to instead require an alert to remind customers that the information is available in their account, rather than a full statement. This would deliver the aim of drawing attention to information about customer account activity to prompt a review of account activity, and review current limits or set a new financial limit.
In meeting this requirement, we encourage innovation in the industry to develop, trial and evaluate different forms and core content of these alerts, as well as different approaches or channels for sending alerts, with the aim of monitoring engagement with the information to identify optimum ways of reaching customers.
We therefore are not proceeding with the proposals as set out in the consultation, and instead have amended the wording of the RTS provisions proposed in the consultation to revise the requirement and replace activity statements with an alert to customers to review account activity.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
The gambling system must provide a prompt to customers to review their own account and transaction information, as is currently made available under RTS 1 – Customer account information. This must be provided at a minimum of six-month intervals for accounts with activity within a rolling 12-month period. Customers must be provided with facilities to set more frequent reminders to receive this statement and review their limits.
Operators should monitor engagement with and responses to alerts, in order to inform good design and best practice.
The 2023 White Paper set out a commitment that the Gambling Commission would review and consult on requiring gambling licensees to improve player-centric tools such as by making deposit-setting mandatory or opted in by default. This was in relation to new accounts.
In seeking views on this, we remained committed to striking a balance between increasing the take up of these tools, particularly by consumers who may most benefit from them, while also maintaining consumer choice. The aim of both options was primarily to improve the uptake of financial limits, at levels which are meaningful to customers.
At the time of consulting, the evidence available did not indicate a clear preferred option, and we consulted on both options. We asked respondents the extent to which they agreed with each individual option presented (and why), and to indicate which would be their preferred option (and why) and for any additional comments on the proposals. These proposals were offered in the consultation as new requirements and new implementation guidance:
Option 1 – present limit-setting as the default option
Option 2 – all new customers required to set a financial limit
Whether respondents have a clear preference for either option.
To what extent do you agree with the implementation option 1 – presentation of customer-led tools as the default option?
To what extent do you agree with the implementation option 2 – presentation of customer-led tools as required to participate?
If you have a clear preference for implementation option 1 or 2, please indicate below?
There was widespread agreement among stakeholders that the current position - where ‘no limit’ can be presented as the default or no action option - should be changed.
Regarding option 1, the majority of responses supported the proposals. Comments included that the requirement of an action to opt-out would present an opportunity to pause and reflect and struck an appropriate balance between autonomy and enabling informed choice, and that this would also reduce the risk of customers setting excessively high limits. Some respondents suggested minimum and maximum limits should be predetermined, to either avoid customers setting ‘too low’ limits by mistake, or ‘too high’. Some suggested all accounts should have low limits applied until the customer provided assurance of affordability.
Regarding option 2, respondents’ comments included some support for mandating the use of financial limits as an important way to prevent harm and to normalise the use of protective tools, and a small number called on the Commission to consider imposing maximum limits. However, support overall for this option was less positive, with the majority of respondents disagreeing with this proposal.
Comments against option 2 included contradiction of this approach with the principles of individual choice, that it would likely lead to customers setting excessively high limits, and that customers may be discouraged from opening new accounts, which would adversely affect new entrants to the market and restrict customer choice.
A small number of respondents made reference to our customer interaction guidance and the use of operator-imposed financial limits as an action to prevent harm, citing the imposition of financial limits as a ‘strong intervention’ in that context, and therefore disproportionate in relation to all new customers.
Across both options, respondents generally supported the proposals to prompt existing customers to review limits, and to provide links to budgeting tools and resources.
In response to our question about a clear preference, the majority of respondents preferred implementation option 1 – retaining the ability for new customers to take action to opt out of setting a limit.
Our view is that retaining the ability for customers to opt out of setting financial limits is the best way to enable consumer choice and avoid unintended consequences.
We acknowledge that by enabling opt-out, some customers may still choose to not set a limit at all or may set higher limits than they realistically intend to spend. However, this option should improve access to and increase meaningful participation in setting financial limits, without unnecessarily restricting consumer choice and ‘forcing’ customers to set a limit.
In Summer 2024 we commissioned research to explore consumer journeys using deposit limits to expand the evidence base on definitions of deposit limits and inform the supplementary consultation due for publication shortly after this response. We asked survey respondents about their views on financial limits, and up to a third of respondents reported that financial limits were an inconvenience or would have little impact on the money they spent gambling.
Customer-set limits are also not the only regulatory tool through which risk is mitigated – ongoing monitoring for indicators of harm and customer interaction processes (which may include operators imposing or requesting that customers set financial limits on their accounts) form part of the wider regulatory toolkit.
A small number of respondents requested clarity or further guidance on the practical application of how the default position could be presented, and what would constitute confirmation that the customer does not wish to set a limit. We have addressed this by introducing further new implementation guidance. This guidance was not included in the consultation but is designed to provide clarity and is a direct response to stakeholder feedback during the consultation.
We are therefore proceeding with option 1, to retain the ability for new customers to take action to opt out of setting a financial limit. As a direct response to stakeholder feedback, we are also introducing additional implementation guidance to support the requirements.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
Financial limit-setting facilities must present setting a limit as the default choice. The gambling system must require an action by the customer in order to decline setting a limit.
The gambling system must receive confirmation that the customer does not wish to set a limit before moving on to deposit/gamble.
The gambling system must prompt existing customers without limits set to review this position as a minimum on an annual basis.
Presentation of financial limits as the default option could take the form of pre-selected fields such as tick boxes, or through visual distinction.
Action to decline setting a limit and receiving confirmation could take the form of a tick box, dismissing a message or other action by the customer.
Customers who choose to opt out of setting a limit could be provided with information or links to tools and resources such as budgeting tools and information about safer gambling.
In order to acknowledge and reflect the proposed changes to the requirements and implementation guidance under remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) 12, we proposed revisions to the wording of the aim, to:
The proposed new wording for the aim was:
“To provide all customers with facilities to apply financial limits to their accounts to enable them to set and maintain a gambling budget that is suitable for their personal circumstances.”
To what extent do you agree with the proposed new wording of the RTS 12 aim, to reflect the detailed changes set out in this consultation?
The majority of respondents supported the proposal, although a significant minority disagreed. A number of respondents objected to the reference to a customer’s personal circumstances and felt this could be misinterpreted as placing an onus on operators to determine the personal circumstances of individual customers.
Having considered this feedback, we consider it is important to include ‘suitable for personal circumstances’ as this reinforces the principle and the policy intent that customers set their own limits which are suitable and meaningful for them. We do not consider that this goes beyond what is proportionate for customer-set financial limits – the obligation of RTS 12 is on licensees to provide the facilities to enable the customer to set a suitable budget, and not to determine what that budget is or the level of financial limit that would be appropriate.
We are proceeding with the proposed changes to the aim.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
To provide all customers with facilities to apply financial limits to their accounts to enable them to set and maintain a gambling budget that is suitable for their personal circumstances.
The applicable licence categories for remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) 12 – Financial limits – are “All gambling – except subscription lotteries”. The consultation did not propose any changes to the applicable licence categories, therefore we did not ask a specific question about this issue. However, respondents on behalf of the lotteries sector requested we provide clarity that while subscription lotteries remain exempt, high frequency lottery provision (which is structured and behaves in the same way as other online products such as slots) would continue to be captured, as it currently does under ‘All gambling’.
Accounts offering high frequency lotteries and instant wins operate a wallet-type account system to fund staking, which is more akin to the majority of online gambling than subscription-based lotteries.
However, we do not consider it necessary to amend the wording of the applicable licence categories, as there is no actual change, and as high frequency (and similar) lotteries and subscription lotteries are defined as part of the RTS definition of terms, and high frequency and instant win lotteries continue to be caught by ‘All gambling’ as they are currently.
At the time of consultation, our initial assessment was that:
'The proposals constitute universal interventions to improve the design, presentation and access to financial limits as a customer-led pre-commitment tool. They are intended to support all consumers who wish to make use of these tools to help them actively manage their gambling in ways that work for them. Implementation of these proposals would be made through updating the Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards and required changes to the functionality of the remote gambling system.'
We invited views, evidence or information which might assist the Gambling Commission in considering any equalities impacts in the context of the proposals.
We received a small number of responses to help inform our assessment of the equalities impacts of the proposals. These included concerns around neurodivergence and processing and understanding information as well as responses to alerts, and consideration of cognisance of information for non-English speakers. One respondent raised issues of potential vulnerabilities of different groups more generally, in relation to problem gambling and gambling harm.
We received stakeholder feedback that interruptions to game play – such as the proposed alert when approaching a limit - while in a hot state could have a more significant and potentially negative impact for consumers who are neurodiverse.
In considering this potential impact and adjustments to the proposals which could mitigate the risk, we took into account factors such as limits or alerts to approaching limits that would ‘kick in’ during play and create a potentially problematic sense of urgency would more likely be in the form of the less common spend or loss limits than deposit limits, in the form of a mid-play pop-up or other interruption.
In addition, in the context of the overall package of proposals, we are proceeding with the proposal that customers will still be able to opt out of setting limits, so that if the proposed alerts when approaching limits were to be implemented, customers would have the option to not receive those alerts, which would mitigate this risk.
We have decided not to proceed with the proposal for alerts when a customer’s spend approaches financial limits set.
The proposals also include expectations for operators to clearly communicate how limits applied across different products or channels work, as well as limits across multiple time frames.
Respondents gave feedback that non-native English speakers may not easily understand or comprehend sometimes complex information in terms of how different types of limits may operate and how they interact with each other.
The expectation that operators will communicate clearly with customers exists across the regulatory framework, and our expected standards are consistent with this. As a direct result of feedback, we have made revisions to the proposed wording of a number of requirements and implementation guidance, where relevant, to reinforce our expectation that information should be clear and easily understandable.
We will monitor a series of data sources, such as consumer contacts and compliance assessment findings in order to understand the ongoing risks of customers misunderstanding how financial limits work and will take action if the risk appears to increase.
In addition to stakeholder feedback, we have also considered that a number of our licensees are based overseas and we want to ensure that the wording of the provisions is as clear and unambiguous as possible. We have made revisions to the wording of a number of requirements and implementation guidance to provide clarity, including the addition of further implementation guidance where appropriate, as a direct response to feedback from stakeholders, and in particular to help clarify compliance expectations.
We consider that the adjustments made to the package of proposals will mitigate the risks identified. However, we will continue to monitor this position, as noted, and will revisit if the situation changes.
A minority of respondents answered our questions about the direct costs associated with the proposals and issues around implementation, and it is worth noting that some operators would have less distance to travel than others, in order to meet the proposed requirements.
We have considered the impacts on business of the individual proposals throughout the consultation, including consideration of direct impacts (immediate and unavoidable) of the proposed changes, but not necessarily indirect impacts.
A significant number of the consultation proposals constituted codification of existing widespread practice – such as elevations of current remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) implementation guidance to requirements – and should be considered as having minimal direct impacts. We have also considered the practical aspects of implementing the proposed changes, and the extent of associated developmental work, based on the Gambling Commission’s experience of the implementation of previous changes to the RTS.
Overall, our position is that the proposed new and amended RTS requirements made in this consultation response are proportionate to delivering the policy intent of the 2023 White Paper and our consultation.
The decision whether to use tools or to set financial limits remains that of the consumer, as is currently the case. The direct costs to business are related to implementation of methods to offer consumers tools and to be able to set limits – which is already well established and widespread among the industry. We consider any direct costs associated with these provisions to be proportionate in terms of the benefits to consumers and in the context of the stated policy intent to ensure that systems for setting financial limits work as well as they can for those consumers who wish to use them.
There are 3 areas in which our consideration of the impact on business has informed our decision to adapt or not progress with the original consultation proposals:
Our original consultation proposals around the definitions of financial limits and the requirement to offer deposit limits was raised by respondents as an area which may require significant costs and development time. We are due to publish a supplementary consultation on this issue, which will enable a more granular assessment of the costs associated with this specific set of proposals.
In considering the implementation timeframe for the changes set out in this response document, we have considered the length of time needed to make these specific technical changes, and the sequencing and scheduling of other legislative and regulatory changes being implemented by Government and the Commission. In doing so, we have taken into account feedback from industry stakeholders about the IT development required to make the necessary system changes.
With that in mind, we have set an implementation date of 31 October 2025 for the changes set out in this document to come into effect.
The overall aim of proposals which were put forward for consultation under issue 1 was to help all consumers to stay in control of their gambling, by creating and maintaining improved awareness of spend and encouraging the use of tools such as financial limits which promote this, and the proposals were designed to improve protections for all gamblers at the gambling account level.
Under issue 2, we also explored the role of the use of deposit limits across operators, as part of the wider context of pre-commitment tools for consumers, and we invited stakeholders’ views on the topic of cross-operator deposit limits, in particular evidence which could help us understand the effectiveness of this approach in preventing harm and the impact on consumers.
Do you have any evidence of the effectiveness of cross-operator deposit limits in reducing gambling harm?
How do you think cross-operator deposit limits could work in the future, within the context of our regulatory framework?
Do you have anything further you wish to add about cross-operator deposit limits?
Respondents suggested that they believed that there is currently no substantial evidence to support the effectiveness of cross-operator deposit limits in mitigating gambling related harm, with the majority of feedback opposing its implementation.
While there has been discussion around the introduction of cross-operator deposit limits in other jurisdictions, respondents felt these initiatives were still in their infancy, leaving their impact unproven. Alternative suggestions included exploring and monitoring the progress of solutions through financial institutions before considering the adoption of cross-operator deposit limits.
Responses to the question of how cross-operator deposit limits could function within the current framework revealed several challenges.
Respondents described the need for better consumer tools to track spending across operators, warning that without them, the system might favour operators over consumers. Suggestions were also made to involve an independent organisation with expertise in gambling harm to oversee account and deposit management, alongside a centralised deposit limit system that balances privacy through limited data sharing. On a related point privacy concerns particularly regarding data protection were highlighted as potential obstacles.
Some respondents cautioned that cross-operator deposit limits could potentially create competitive imbalances favouring larger operators and complicate the customer experience, possibly driving users to unlicensed platforms.
On the whole, respondents commented that successful implementation would require robust consumer education and strong regulatory enforcement to ensure fairness and efficiency.
The feedback received has not identified material new evidence regarding the effectiveness of cross-operator deposit limits in reducing gambling harm and we note the suggestions made about how cross-operator deposit limits could work in the future, within the context of our regulatory framework.
We are not planning immediate further action following this call for views. However, we will continue to monitor the role of gambling financial limits within the financial sector in the context of any potential future role cross-operator deposit limits could play in helping consumers to stay in control of their gambling.
Under issue 3 we asked for examples or evidence of situations where the product architecture and design of gambling facilities could create an imbalance in the gambling licensees’ favour and drive consumer behaviour which may not be in their best interests.
Do you have examples or evidence of situations where the architecture and design of gambling facilities creates an imbalance in the gambling licensees’ favour and drives consumer behaviour which may not be in their best interests?
The responses received noted similar concerns to those raised in response to the call for evidence to support the Gambling Act Review. Examples provided by respondents included:
Feedback from stakeholders to this question has confirmed our concerns regarding specific points in the customer journey and the design of facilities where friction is applied which could influence consumer behaviours or actions. In this consultation on customer-led tools we have addressed concerns around ‘anchoring’ when setting financial limits, and shifting or removing friction to make it easier for more customers to set and review limits and to access information about their own gambling activity.
Our corporate strategy 2024 to 2027 sets out our commitment to improve our understanding of issues which pose a risk to the fair and open licensing objective, including understanding consumer concerns, improving information to players and ensuring the fairness of gambling products. We will continue to take into account the feedback provided around fairness and transparency at various points in the customer journey as part of that work, communicate any further action on these issues in due course, and will continue to monitor developments relating to choice architecture and the design of gambling facilities.
During autumn 2023 we consulted on proposed changes to Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) and Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS) (opens in new tab). To ensure it is clear to consumers throughout their relationship with a gambling licensee with a ‘not protected’ rating that their funds are not protected in the event of insolvency, we proposed that such gambling businesses should actively remind customers that their funds are not protected.
We proposed 2 options for the consultation – option A would make this subject to the value of funds reaching a threshold amount (the ‘threshold approach’), and option B would not include a threshold (the ‘no threshold approach’). Both options would require a reminder to be sent to the customer once every 6 months (although option A would be subject to the threshold amount being reached), and for that reminder to be acknowledged by the customer before being permitted to use the funds for gambling.
The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal. More respondents favoured option B (where a reminder would be sent to all customers irrespective of the value of funds held). Responses were divided for the proposal for licensees to remind customers once every 6 months that their funds are not protected. The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal for an acknowledgement.
Following careful consideration of the responses received during the consultation we have decided to proceed with our proposal to improve the transparency requirements for customer funds. We decided that the requirement will follow option B (the no threshold approach). It provides a uniform approach which means that all customers should be made aware irrespective of the value of funds held. This, in turn, provides a greater degree of transparency than option A. It is a less complex and onerous process for licensees to issue notifications to all customers who hold customer funds, particularly for smaller licensees who may need to develop systems to comply with the requirement (and could, therefore, be considered to be a more proportionate approach). This change to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) will apply to all Gambling Act 2005 operating licences1, apart from society lotteries and/or External Lottery Managers (ELMs) that do not conduct high-frequency lotteries or offer instant win games.
With regard to the frequency of notifications, we decided that the reminder is to be sent once every 6 months. We consider this to be a proportionate, risk-based approach which strikes a balance between protecting against communication fatigue and/or annoyance versus ensuring a greater level of transparency to consumers. We decided that the new provision will also require licensees to obtain an acknowledgement from the customer before permitting them to gamble. It is an important part of the proposal, which ensures that customers provide confirmation that they are content with the arrangements in place. It is consistent with the overall proposal which is designed to aid a greater level of transparency to customers.
In general, society lottery respondents and/or ELMs did not agree with the proposal and requested an exemption. They considered that it would be an undue administrative burden, where non-remote society lotteries would need to use email or post. They also claimed it would increase costs, reducing funds to good causes, and have a significant impact on the sector. Overall, they considered the proposed requirement to be disproportionate. Having considered these representations, we decided that the requirement may have a disproportionate impact on the lottery sector, without bringing significant consumer benefits, and therefore granted an exemption for the sector. However, high-frequency lotteries2 and instant wins3 will not be exempt from the code provision as these are much more likely to involve funds being held on account.
One trade body, on behalf of its members, requested an exemption from the requirement for land-based casinos (or for the provision of a reasonable alternative), on the grounds of logistical impracticalities. However, given that licensees are holding funds for customers, and are required to establish and verify the identity of their customers for anti-money laundering purposes, licensees should already hold current residential addresses for those customers which could be used for the proposed communication if required. Further, we consider that it would be reasonable and proportionate for licensees to obtain customer email addresses in addition to postal addresses, where available, to assist with sending the proposed communication. Although we do not hold data on the range of funds held, it is reasonable to assume that, due to the nature of the casino sector, the amounts held per customer have the potential to be significant and more than those held per customer for society lotteries and/or ELMs. The sector, or individual licensees, could also choose to offer some protection of the funds that would avoid the need to provide notifications in a manner which they consider to be difficult to implement. We have therefore decided not to exempt land-based casinos from the requirement.
The new requirement, to be included within Licence Condition 4.2.1, will come into force on 31 October 2025.
1 Except gaming machine technical, gambling software, host, ancillary remote bingo and ancillary remote casino licences.
2 A high frequency lottery is defined as "A lottery in which any draw takes place less than one hour after a draw in a previous lottery promoted on behalf of the same non-commercial society or local authority or as part of the same multiple lottery scheme." (Remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS)).
3 An instant lottery is defined as "A lottery in which every draw takes place either before, or at the point of, purchase of tickets by participants in the lottery" (RTS).
On 29 November 2023 we issued our consultation on improved transparency on customer funds in the event of insolvency (opens in new tab). The consultation ran for 12 weeks until 21 February 2024.
We received 43 written responses to the consultation from the following categories of respondents:
We sought views on our proposal that gambling businesses should actively remind customers if their funds are not protected in the event of insolvency.
We proposed 2 options for the consultation – option A would make this subject to the value of funds reaching a threshold amount, and option B would not include a threshold. Both options would require a reminder to be sent to the customer once every 6 months (although option A would be subject to the threshold amount being reached), and for that reminder to be acknowledged by the customer before being permitted to use the funds for gambling.
To what extent do you agree with the Gambling Commission’s (the Commission's) proposal to add a specific requirement to the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), which requires gambling licensees with a ‘not protected’ rating to remind its customers that their funds are not protected in the event of insolvency?
If the proposal were to be adopted, which option do you prefer? Option A (reminder to customers when value of funds reaches a threshold amount) or Option B (reminder sent to all customers irrespective of the value of funds held)?
With regard to option A only, to what extent do you agree with the Commission’s proposal to make this subject to a threshold amount for the value of funds held which the customer must reach before the gambling licensee must send the reminder?
If a threshold amount were to be applied, please indicate which of the suggested values you consider to be appropriate: £100, £250, £500 or £1,000?
To what extent do you agree with the Commission’s proposal to ensure gambling licensees send a reminder to consumers no more than once every 6 months that their funds are not protected when the value reaches the threshold amount?
To what extent do you agree with the Commission’s proposal to require gambling licensees to ensure customers acknowledge a reminder before being permitted to gamble?
Do you have any comments about the application of this requirement to non-remote gambling licensees and/or the likely scale of impact?
Do you have any comments about implementation issues, timelines and practicalities?
Please provide an estimate of the direct costs associated with implementing these proposals.
Do you have any evidence or information which might assist the Commission in considering any equalities impacts, within the meaning of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (opens in new tab) in the context of any proposal considered in this section of the consultation?
The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal. For example, some respondents commented that the proposal supported higher industry standards and aided customer choice between gambling licensees.
However, society lotteries and/or External Lottery Managers (ELMs) requested an exemption from the requirement. One trade body, on behalf of its members, requested an exemption from the requirement for land-based casinos (or for the provision of a reasonable alternative). Another respondent, representing a charity/non-profit, suggested that the reminder could give rise to unintended consequences (that is, the reminder might inadvertently prompt the recipient to gamble).
More respondents favoured option B (where a reminder would be sent to all customers irrespective of the value of funds held), although some were in favour of option A (a reminder would only be sent out to customers when the value of the funds reached a threshold amount). Society lotteries and/or ELMs favoured option A (threshold approach), whereas land-based casinos favoured option B (no threshold).
If a threshold were to apply, more respondents were in favour of the lowest threshold of £100. The next most favoured threshold was £500 but many of these respondents were society lotteries and/or ELMs.
Responses were divided for the proposal for licensees to remind to customers once every six months that their funds are not protected. Many of those who disagreed with this proposal were society lotteries and/or ELMs.
The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal for an acknowledgement. The main issues against the proposal were that it would be disruptive to players and that it would be logistically difficult for non-remote licensees to implement (particularly society lotteries and/or ELMs). Some commented that it should be less frequent (for example, annual) or more frequent (for example, monthly), others thought it was about right.
In terms of how the proposal would impact non-remote operators, some respondents indicated that the overall proposal would be logistically difficult to implement and could have a substantial impact (particularly for society lotteries and/or ELMs).
We received 2 responses to the consultation question inviting respondents to provide evidence or information which may assist us in considering any equalities impacts in the context of this consultation proposal. One respondent raised issues of potential vulnerabilities of different groups more generally, in relation to problem gambling and gambling harm. The other respondent (a member of the public) considered that those with disabilities would benefit from the creation of a trust account into which winnings could be paid, however this was in relation to tax laws and not in relation to the consultation topic being considered.
We have considered all of the responses to the consultation and have decided to proceed with our proposal to improve the transparency requirements for customer funds. We have also decided to implement option B (the no threshold approach). This change to the LCCP will apply to all Gambling Act 2005 operating licences1, apart from society lotteries and/or ELMs (not including licensees providing high-frequency lotteries and instant win games). The change will only impact those licensees who have a ‘not protected’ rating. An alternative route to complying with the new requirement would be to offer a ‘medium’ or ‘high’ level of protection.
In general, society lottery respondents and/or ELMs did not agree with the proposal and requested an exemption. They raised the following points:
It would be an undue administrative burden, where non-remote society lotteries would need to use email or post - We agree with the sector representations. This is potentially the case for non-remote society lotteries and/or ELMs. It may not be proportionate for non-remote society lotteries to send reminders by post or email to customers. It is not possible to apply the requirement to only non-remote society lotteries as the same lottery may consist of remote and non-remote players. Some players may even enter the same lottery on a remote and non-remote basis.
Many players would not respond (that is, provide the required acknowledgement) - We agree with sector representations. It is foreseeable that many players may not respond or that this would be too slow to be workable (particularly via post).
Many players see their entry as a donation - On balance we agree with sector representations. A respondent cited Commission evidence which says 55 percent of charity lottery and/or other lottery players said they gambled to help good causes.
It would increase costs, therefore reducing funds to good causes, which would have a significant impact on the sector - Respondents have provided evidence to support their concerns. Although it is difficult for us to assess the full validity of costs presented, the costs do appear to be significant and could have an impact on the sector. For example:
The proposed requirement is disproportionate - On balance we agree with sector representations. The proposal as drafted could be disproportionate for the sector when considering the risk to consumers. The amounts held per customer will be small, and a significant proportion of the notifications would need to be sent by post. There is also research to suggest that many consumers no longer consider the money to belong to them
There are issues around definitions where the terminology does not fit the sector - Although some of these issues could be resolved, we broadly agree with sector representations.
Some consumers may find the reminder annoying and/or confusing, or they may become unnecessarily concerned about insolvency - We agree with sector representations that in this specific circumstance, including the mailing of reminders, the approach may not be welcomed by consumers. We realise this may also be an issue which applies to other sectors, but posting of reminders (as opposed to the use of pop ups, notifications or emails) could accentuate this for society lotteries and/or ELMs.
We have decided to grant an exemption for the following reasons.
We consider that the majority of society lotteries and ELMs do not hold customer funds due to their business models. Although we do not hold specific data in relation to this, our view is supported by our knowledge of the sector and responses received during the consultation.
Proportionality - we take our duties to consider impact and the Regulators’ Code seriously, and the requirement may have disproportionate impact on the lottery sector, without bringing significant consumer benefits.
Consumer reaction - we agree with the representations from respondents that the improved transparency if implemented may drive some consumer frustration and/or confusion amongst a significant proportion of customers who may receive the notifications (particularly via post).
However, high-frequency lotteries and instant win lotteries will not be exempt from the code provision as these are much more likely to involve funds being held on account. There is a precedent already set within LCCP and Remote Technical Standards to provide similar exemptions (for example, Social Responsibility Code 3.4.3 - Remote customer interaction). No consultation responses requested an exemption for high-frequency lotteries and the rationale for an exemption set out above for this type of lottery does not apply. Licensees of both high-frequency lotteries and instant win games would be required to improve the transparency to consumers where there is no protection. Where funds from high-frequency lotteries and instant wins are co-mingled with funds from non-high frequency lotteries, licensees could choose to develop systems to separate out these funds or they could choose to apply the proposed requirement to all lottery products that they offer to customers. Where licensees already have a single wallet for high frequency lotteries and/or instant wins, they could develop a dual wallet model. Alternatively, they could obtain a level of protection for their customers. Taking a risk-based approach, we consider the range of options open to these operators provides reasonable and proportionate routes to compliance.
One trade body, on behalf of its members, requested an exemption from the requirement for land-based casinos (or for the provision of a reasonable alternative), on the grounds of logistical impracticalities. For example, the respondent states that "many land-based casinos often have less direct contact methods with their customers than remote operators and would therefore find it difficult to notify customers remotely at the required frequency".
However, given that licensees are holding funds for customers, and are required to establish and verify the identity of their customers for anti-money laundering purposes, licensees should already hold current residential addresses for those customers which could be used for the proposed communication if required. Further, we consider that it would be reasonable and proportionate for licensees to obtain customer email addresses in addition to postal addresses, where available, to assist with sending the proposed communication.
An alternative would be for the sector, or individual licensees, to choose to offer some protection of the funds that would avoid the need to provide notifications in a manner which they consider to be difficult to implement.
We have decided not to exempt land-based casinos from the requirement. Although we do not hold data on the range of funds held, it appears reasonable to assume that, due to the nature of the casino sector, the amounts held per customer have the potential to be significant and more than those held per customer for society lotteries and/or ELMs (who are exempt from the proposed requirement). As a result, the potential risk to consumers of land-based casinos could be greater and therefore the regulatory change is more proportionate than for society lotteries and/or ELMs.
Although supportive of the overall proposal, one respondent representing a charity and/or non-profit suggested that the reminder could act, to the recipient, as an inadvertent prompt to gamble. They advised caution about the language and messages used in the reminder. Having considered this issue, we have decided that if we receive evidence of any issues arising from implementation of the new requirement (such as via consumer complaints), the Commission could consider issuing additional information to licensees or consider making the LCCP provision more prescriptive.
We do not foresee any issues around how the reminder may interact with self-exclusion or gambling management tools. If a customer has self-excluded, the licensee must close the customer’s account and therefore the customer will not receive the proposed reminder. If a customer has elected to have ‘time-out’ for six weeks, it would be possible that the customer could receive the reminder during that time, but in any event would not be permitted by the licensee to gamble until the end of the time-out period.
In relation to the construction of the requirement, we have considered:
Whether to introduce a threshold at which increased notification would be required
More respondents favoured option B, where a reminder would be sent to all customers irrespective of the value of funds held, though there were variations by type of respondent. Although society lotteries and ELMs favoured option A (the threshold approach), they are to be exempt from the proposal.
Option A (the threshold approach) could represent a more targeted and risk-based approach. As there would be fewer reminders (as they would only be sent to those who hit the threshold), this option would be less disruptive to the customer journey (if consumers were required to acknowledge receipt of the information before being permitted to gamble). However, there may be challenges to setting an appropriate threshold level, which can be personal to the customer. Amounts held may fluctuate significantly, meaning that the amount held could increase but the customer does not receive messaging to improve transparency of the level of protection rating. There could be long gaps between reminders, and a risk of error (for example, a gambling licensee could, in error, omit to send a reminder to some customers who should receive a reminder). It may also be more complex and onerous for licensees to implement, particularly for smaller licensees who may have to develop new systems to comply with a threshold approach (which may be expensive). Gambling licensees could still choose to issue reminders to all customers even if a threshold is set, unless we amend the provision wording to expressly prohibit this (which we consider to be unnecessary and disproportionate).
Option B (the no threshold approach) has the advantage of being a uniform approach would mean that all customers should be made aware irrespective of the value of funds held (avoiding what one respondent referred to as ‘economic discrimination’). It avoids the need to set a threshold at an appropriate level, which can be personal. It provides a greater level of transparency, enabling more informed decision making. It would also be a less complex and onerous process for licensees to issue notifications to all customers who hold customer funds. It could be a cheaper option for some licensees to implement (particularly smaller licensees, who may have to develop new systems to implement a threshold requirement). On the other hand, this option is a less targeted and less risk-based approach, which could be more disruptive to the customer journey (if customers are required to acknowledge information sent by the gambling licensee before being permitted to gamble). This could be a more expensive approach for some gambling licensees (for example, those that already have the technical systems needed to deliver a threshold approach so no and/or minimal development would be required) as they would have to send reminders to all customers. It could be considered to be seen as interfering with personal choice and/or unnecessary.
Having considered the advantages and disadvantages of each policy option, along with the consultation responses, we decided on option B (the no threshold approach). It provides a uniform approach which means that all customers should be made aware irrespective of the value of funds held. This, in turn, provides a greater degree of transparency than option A. It is a less complex and onerous process for licensees to issue notifications to all customers who hold customer funds, particularly for smaller licensees who may need to develop systems to comply with the requirement (and could, therefore, be considered to be a more proportionate approach).
The new requirement will only apply to customers where the licensee is holding funds for that customer.
In line with existing Licence Condition 4.2.1, the gambling licensee must ensure that the information is provided in writing. It would be up to the gambling licensee to determine the appropriate channel for this information (for example, through using a pop-up message on its website, sending an email etc). Information provided to customers should be clear and must include the value of customer funds held as at the date of the reminder.
Frequency of notifications
It is important that messages are effective and easily understood, and, if sent too frequently, the customer may 'tune out' of the message being delivered. This is why we proposed a six-monthly frequency for both options.
Consultation respondents did not provide any comments on any issues or practicalities on this aspect for option B. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with a six-monthly frequency. We consider it to be a proportionate, risk-based approach which strikes a balance between protecting against communication fatigue and/or annoyance versus ensuring a greater level of transparency to consumers.
Whether licensees must require an acknowledgement from the customer before permitting them to use the funds to gamble
More respondents agreed with the proposal to require gambling licensees to ensure customers acknowledge a reminder before being permitted to gamble, several noting that they considered this requirement to be consistent with the overall proposal. Many of those who disagreed were from the society lottery sector who are to be exempt from the requirement.
An advantage of requiring an acknowledgement is that it is more likely to ensure that customers review information about the 'not protected' rating, providing them with an opportunity to decide whether to withdraw funds and/or choose to use a licensee with a 'medium' or 'high' level of protection. Requiring an acknowledgement is also consistent with the existing framework in Licence Condition 4.2.1, as existing paragraph 2 requires licensees to provide certain information to customers in writing in a manner which requires the customer to acknowledge receipt of the information and does not permit the customer to use the funds for gambling until they have done so. Disadvantages of an acknowledgement include: it could be disruptive to the customer journey; it could cause communication fatigue or complaints; and customers may still not read the information properly or consider the implications, despite being required to provide an acknowledgement.
We decided that the new provision will require licensees to obtain an acknowledgement from the customer before permitting them to gamble. It is an important part of the proposal, which ensures that customers provide confirmation that they are content with the arrangements in place. It is consistent with the overall proposal which is designed to aid a greater level of transparency to customers.
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.
Having taken into account the consultation responses, our position remains the same, which is that our assessment is that the proposals do not present a negative impact on the protected characteristics stated within the Equality Act 2010, and they do not contribute towards unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation and/or other conduct prohibited by the Act.
Having regard to consultation responses, those impacted the most are likely be land-based casinos (where, for reasons already given, we expect the overall impact and cost to be relatively low and proportionate to the risk).
We have also considered any impact on land-based bingo. According to a consultation response from a trade body, customer funds are predominantly held on tablets (called electronic gaming terminals (EBTs)) used for playing bingo. "EBTs already have a requirement to display to customers the protected status of any funds. This occurs at the first point of log in for each new account, and the customer is asked to accept [the status] in order to progress [to play bingo]. A 6-month reminder can be triggered quite easily for tablets used in licensed bingo premises." In terms of direct costs associated with implementing the proposal, this "[D]epends on EBT functionality across all operators but the majority of EBTs in bingo clubs should already be enabled." Therefore, we expect the impact of the proposal to be largely mitigated by the use of EBTs and existing functionality.
Smaller licensees may also be impacted if they need to develop new systems to comply with the new requirement.
This requirement will come into force on 31 October 2025.
Applies to: All operating licences, except gaming machine technical, gambling software, host, ancillary* remote bingo and ancillary remote casino licences.
Paragraph 3 does not apply to any lottery licences except where the holder of which provides facilities for participation in instant win 1 or high frequency2 lotteries.
1 Except gaming machine technical, gambling software, host, ancillary remote bingo and ancillary remote casino licences.
In November 2023 we consulted on a proposed change to our Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP)(opens in new tab) to remove the existing requirement at paragraph 2 of Social Responsibility (SR) Code Provision 3.1.1 – Combating problem gambling. This requirement requires licensees to make an annual financial contribution to one or more organisation(s) on a list maintained by the Gambling Commission which delivers or supports research into the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms, harm prevention approaches and treatment for those harmed by gambling (sometimes referred to as the LCCP RET list).
The initial proposal to remove this requirement was as a direct result of the previous government’s commitment in the April 2023 White Paper High Stakes: gambling reform for the digital age (opens in new tab) to introduce a statutory levy as provided for in Section 123 of the Gambling Act 2005. This was followed by a consultation from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in October 2023 on the design and implementation of a statutory levy on gambling operators (opens in new tab).
The government has now confirmed in its consultation response Government response to the consultation on the structure, distribution and governance of the statutory levy on gambling operators (opens in new tab) that it intends to move ahead with the introduction of the statutory levy. The government has brought forward the necessary legislation and expects the levy to come into force in April 2025. Once the statutory levy is brought into force, the existing LCCP SR Code Provision will become obsolete as licensees will be required to make a statutory levy payment in line with government’s final design of the levy system, rather than an annual contribution under the current LCCP RET system, where the amounts are voluntary. Therefore, the existing requirement and associated LCCP RET list will no longer be relevant or needed when the statutory levy is implemented.
After considering the responses, we have decided to proceed to remove the existing requirement at paragraph 2 of Social Responsibility Code Provision 3.1.1.
The Commission typically gives 3 months’ notice before amending LCCP. However, in this case it is important that the removal of the existing requirement takes place close to the introduction of a levy to avoid any significant overlap or duplication between the 2 funding systems which would be confusing and potentially burdensome for licensees. Government has confirmed their intention to introduce the levy from April 2025 and therefore, subject to the necessary legislative processes, the Commission intends to remove the LCCP RET requirement at the end of this financial year. The Commission will notify licensees to confirm the date of removal of the LCCP RET requirement once the legislative processes are complete.
On 29 November 2023 we issued our consultation on removing obsolete Commission requirements due to the government's upcoming statutory levy (opens in new tab). The consultation ran for 12 weeks until 21 February 2024.
We received 40 written responses to the consultation from the following categories of respondents:
We consulted on removing the existing requirement at paragraph 2 of Social Responsibility (SR) Code Provision 3.1.1 – Combating problem gambling which requires licensees to make an annual financial contribution to one or more organisation which delivers or supports research into the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms, harm prevention approaches and treatment for those harmed by gambling on a list maintained by the Gambling Commission (sometimes referred to as the LCCP RET list).
We proposed that the removal of the SR Code Provision would come into effect either at the point at which the statutory levy comes into force, or at the beginning of the relevant financial year. The rationale for this was to ensure that voluntary funding for RET is maintained during any transition period, whilst also avoiding the potential for 2 funding systems to be running concurrently and creating any confusion or duplication.
To what extent do you agree with the proposed change to remove paragraph 2 of SR Code Provision 3.1.1?
Can you foresee any issues related to the proposed timing for removing this SR Code Provision?
Are there any additional issues related to the removal of this SR Code Provision, or other practical considerations that we should consider?
The consultation responses showed that the majority of respondents were supportive of the proposal and agreed that paragraph 2 of SR Code 3.1.1 would become obsolete under a statutory levy. There was also support for retaining the current wording around social responsibility requirements in paragraph 1 of SR Code 3.1.1.
The main concern from respondents, both those who were in support of the proposal and the small minority against, related to the timing of the removal, in particular the risk of overlap, confusion or potential double-funding across the current voluntary system and the statutory levy. However, this was not felt to be an insurmountable risk. Respondents were of the view that it could be managed and minimised through clear communications to gambling businesses and other stakeholders, particularly around the timing of the removal, as well as ongoing engagement with government and commissioning and delivery bodies in receipt of RET funds to facilitate a smooth transition and avoid any disruption in financial contributions or regulatory compliance.
Some respondents were also concerned that the removal of the LCCP RET list and the introduction of the statutory levy could have a negative impact on existing charities and third sector providers currently delivering projects and programmes within the voluntary RET system. A small number of respondents suggested that the LCCP RET list should be retained for any category of licensee to whom the statutory levy might not apply.
In terms of timing, there was support for the Commission to remove the existing SR code provision to align with the April to March financial year as this would allow for a full year for RET contributions to benefit external organisations under the existing voluntary system rather than switching off the voluntary system and implementing the statutory levy within the same financial year which could be confusing for both licensees and recipient bodies.
One respondent was of the view that treatment for and research into gambling as an addiction should be funded through general taxation as with other addictions and disorders such as drugs, alcohol and mental health services, rather than through a separate levy.
Representatives from the lotteries sector were particularly concerned that the introduction of a statutory levy would have the unintended consequence of reducing the level of funding available for good causes.
We have carefully considered all of the responses to the consultation and intend to proceed with our proposal to remove the existing requirement at paragraph 2 of Social Responsibility Code Provision 3.1.1 – Combating problem gambling which requires gambling business to make an annual financial contribution to one or more organisation on the LCCP RET list which delivers or supports research into the prevention and treatment of gambling-related harms, harm prevention approaches and treatment for those harmed by gambling. We will remove the existing requirement (and associated list) close to the introduction of the statutory levy which is intended to come into effect on 6 April 2025 in line with the new financial year.
As we did not propose any changes to paragraph 1 of the existing SR Code Provision this will remain in effect. Paragraph 1 requires licensees to have and put into effect policies and procedures intended to promote socially responsible gambling. This includes specific policies and procedures required by code of practice provision 3 of the LCCP which relate to the protection of children and other vulnerable people including policies in relation to preventing underage gambling, the provision of gambling management tools, customer interaction and self-exclusion.
We acknowledge the concerns of some respondents that the change from the current voluntary RET system to the statutory levy may have a negative impact on existing charities and third sector providers currently delivering projects and programmes, but the decision to introduce the statutory levy and its design is a matter for government and falls outside the scope of this consultation which relates only to updating the LCCP.
We have also considered the practicalities of retaining a version of the current LCCP RET list as proposed by a few respondents but on balance we believe that this would be confusing and potentially unhelpful. However, we wish to remind gambling businesses that they are free to donate funds to any organisations they choose to over and above their existing voluntary RET contributions, and any future statutory levy payments.
We have noted the comments around timing and communication and have factored this into our thinking with regard to the date the LCCP change will come into effect and will continue to communicate with gambling businesses and other key stakeholders on the timing of the removal of the code provision once legislative processes are complete.
The date this amended requirement will come into force is intended to align with the introduction of the statutory levy which is scheduled by DCMS for April 2025. The Commission will notify licensees of the final in-force date once legislative processes are complete.
Applies to: All licences
The Gambling Commission works to assess progress towards the key commitments set out in our Corporate Strategy. This includes increasing our capacity to evaluate new requirements and policies, with particular focus on the commitments we are responsible for in the Gambling Act Review White Paper (opens in new tab)(white paper) and supporting efforts by government and others to evaluate the impact of the white paper reforms. This has been borne out in our consultations, where we welcomed views about evaluation of the proposed changes to the regulatory framework.
15 responses concerning evaluation were received across all topics in the November 2023 consultation (opens in new tab). These highlighted 3 key themes:
Evaluation approaches should reflect the inherent complexity - in common with responses to the July 2023 consultations, respondents referred to the complexity involved in evaluating the proposals in the white paper. Comments included the risks of evaluating while the impact of other previously implemented policy changes were unclear. Others stressed the importance of understanding the interplay between the effects of different policies on customer experience and customer behaviour, stressing the importance of understanding cumulative effects on consumers.
Evaluation should capture unintended consequences - some potential examples were noted, for example, prompting riskier behaviour such as higher spend or depositing behaviour, or triggering individuals in financial distress. Potential unintended consequences were also flagged for particular groups, for example, those experiencing gambling related harms.
Evaluation methods and data need to be inclusive and robust - responses emphasised the importance of embedding lived experiences within the evaluation process, and noted the role of collaboration with industry and financial institutions in gathering meaningful data to evaluate impacts.
The Commission recognises these challenges, which are addressed in our evaluation of the Gambling Act Review. The Commission and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) have jointly commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) to deliver the evaluation. DCMS published an overview of the evaluation plan in December 2024 (opens in new tab) and the Commission published an accompanying blog post .
The evaluation plan was a deliverable of the Commission’s Business plan and budget for 2024 to 2025, and provides the underlying principles and approach to the evaluation of white paper reforms including evaluation aims and objectives, evaluation questions, the analytical framework, and research methods.
The evaluation approach addresses complexity by use of theory-based evaluation. This utilises a Theory of Change to articulate the goal of policies, their intended impacts and how measures might feasibly lead to those impacts. Importantly, this helps us to ask the right questions, and collect the right data; at the level of an individual policy, as well as being reflective of the interplay between policies.
Complexity is also factored into the evaluation through Contribution Analysis; an analytical strategy that provides a structured way to consider all the evidence generated and answer the evaluation questions we have posed, that the world in which policy changes are taking place is complex and ever evolving, and also helps to identify and factor in unintended consequences into the evaluation process.
Evaluation requires involvement and cooperation from a wide range of stakeholders. We will continue to engage through formal consultation and informally. The experience of consumers, operators and other stakeholders will be key, and we welcome participation in surveys, interviews and other planned research in the coming months. We will use our Industry Forum, and other informal routes, to both promote participation in the evaluation and help shape how we collect data efficiently. Notably, this includes working collaboratively to access operator data that might inform the evaluation and ensuring what we ask for is proportionate and robust. We anticipate much of this data collection will be done on a voluntary basis, appreciating that we have a shared interest in understanding the impact of these changes. A Lived Experience Panel has been established by NatCen as part of the evaluation. The Panel will provide guidance and input on the progress of the evaluation, and ensure that the voices of different groups with lived experience of gambling are considered. This includes individuals with experience of gambling with no adverse effects, as well as those experiencing harm, including those of affected others.
An Evaluation Advisory Group has also been set up by NatCen to provide independent expertise and advice on how to take the evaluation forward, as well as assurance for key evaluation products and outputs. This brings together researchers, academics and evaluators with expertise and experience in the field of gambling policy, research and regulation.
Annex 1 lists organisations that consented to the publication of their name when responding to one of these 3 consultation topics (Customer-led tools, Improved transparency on customer funds in the event of insolvency and Removing obsolete Gambling Commission requirements due to the government’s upcoming statutory levy (LCCP RET list)). All names of organisations have been presented as provided by the respondents that submitted the response.
Organisations and individuals representing organisations that consented to the publication of their name when responding to the consultation: