This box is not visible in the printed version.
This response sets out our position in relation to the consultation on the definition of deposit limits in the Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards.
Published: 7 October 2025
Last updated: 7 October 2025
This version was printed or saved on: 29 October 2025
Online version: https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/consultation-response/definition-of-deposit-limits-in-the-remote-gambling-and-software-technical
In line with the Gambling Commission’s commitments connected with the 2023 White Paper, High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age (opens in new tab), we made changes to our requirements to empower and enable customers gambling online to manage their gambling in ways that work for them, including making it easy to set and keep meaningful financial limits. These changes will come into effect on 31 October 2025 and are set out in our Autumn 2023 consultation – Proposed changes to LCCP and RTS: Consultation Response.
Via responses to the consultation for these changes (the initial consultation), engagement with industry and consumer contacts, we identified that some operators had changed the way in which they interpret deposit limits, meaning that different versions of deposit limits were being offered by different operators.
We had concerns that this could be confusing for customers. In addition, ‘net’ deposit limits as offered by some operators would not have met the proposed definition of ‘deposit limits’ set out in our initial consultation.
In March 2025 we launched a supplementary consultation which set out proposals for clarifying the definition of ‘deposit limits’ and other financial limits in our Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS). These changes were proposed to provide clarity of the wording in the RTS and to ensure the gambling system is optimised to enable and empower consumers to maintain awareness and control over their gambling consistent with the aims of our initial consultation to improve consistency and understanding of the types of limits offered.
This response sets out our position in relation to our supplementary consultation into the definition of deposit limits in the RTS.
In March 2025 we consulted on the definition of deposit limits in the Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (opens in new tab). We consulted on 3 proposals to:
We also asked for final comments or feedback on proposals in the Autumn 2023 consultation around the wording of the requirements relating to simultaneous time frames and preventing a customer from further depositing funds once a deposit limit is reached, which are directly related to the supplementary consultation proposals.
On 6 March 2025 we issued our supplementary consultation which set out proposals for clarifying the definition of ‘deposit limits’ and other financial limits in our RTS.
All stakeholders, including consumers, gambling licensees and members of the public were invited to share their views on these proposals.
The consultation ran until 30 April 2025.
Responses from stakeholders included:
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 make changes that affect both requirements and implementation guidance of RTS 12B – Financial limits, which strengthen our requirements and further empower consumers by making limit-setting more effective.
These changes are set out as follows:
The new elements of RTS 12B requirements and implementation guidance will come into effect on 30 June 2026. The full wording of the requirement can be found in annex 2.
On 6 March 2025 we issued our supplementary consultation which set out proposals for clarifying the definition of ‘deposit limits’ and other financial limits in our Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS).
The consultation closed on 30 April 2025.
41 stakeholders responded to the consultation including:
Annex 1 lists organisations that consented to the publication of their name when responding to the consultation.
We proposed to revise the Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS) relating to financial limits so that, as a minimum and default, ‘gross’ deposit limits must be offered to customers.
The intention behind this proposal was to improve consistency across the industry, to simplify the landscape for consumers. Our view was that offering a common type of financial limit across all gambling licensees would also be beneficial for consumers in terms of improving understanding of how limits work.
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that as a minimum, the gambling system must offer gross deposit limits?
Respondent views were mixed when asked the extent to which they agreed with the proposal that as a minimum and default, the gambling system must offer gross deposit limits. Those who were supportive of the proposal stated that:
Respondents who disagreed with the proposal were generally supportive of a limit being offered as a default option but did not think it appropriate for ‘gross’ deposit limits to be mandated over ‘net’ deposit limits.
Respondents also highlighted that offering ‘gross’ deposit limits as a ‘default’ limit could reduce consumer choice and potentially phase out ‘net’ deposit limits from the market. Some respondents stated that ‘gross’ deposit limits may no longer be fit for purpose as they are not agile with ‘real world’ budgeting.
Those who disagreed with the proposal also called for ‘net’ deposit limits to be set as the ‘default’ option, arguing that such limits are:
It was also argued that the faster withdrawal functionality offered by licensees means that more customers are withdrawing more often. Therefore, if ‘gross’ deposit limits were mandated, an unintended consequence would potentially be that it may discourage customers from withdrawing because they would not be able to redeposit any money if they had already reached their ‘gross’ deposit limit. Some respondents stated that this friction may potentially drive customers to the black market. Respondents stated that there was no evidence to suggest that ‘gross’ deposit limits were more effective than ‘net’ deposit limits in reducing gambling harms. Another respondent stated that the Gambling Commission hadn’t evidenced non-compliance with the RTS.
The intention behind this proposal was to improve consistency across the industry and simplify the landscape for consumers. We remain of the view that a common type of financial limit being available across all gambling licensees 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.
We therefore want to ensure that the definition of ‘deposit limits’ in the RTS provides clarity and drives consistency for consumers while maintaining customer choice for other forms of limits. As set out in our consultation, our policy intent was that ‘gross’ deposit limits must still be made available to customers as the default option to ensure ‘gross’ deposit limits were still an option for customers when setting a limit and were not phased out of the market or given reduced prominence, which would otherwise reduce consumer choice.
We have considered the responses to the consultation and in support of consumer choice we have decided to use ‘as a minimum, the gambling system must offer gross deposit limits’ and not ‘as a default’ as we do not feel there is adequate evidence to support the use of ‘as a default’ at this time. We also agree with the points made in the responses to the consultation that different types of financial limits may suit individual customers better.
Therefore, we amended the following wording in response to the feedback we received:
By amending ‘default’ to ‘as a minimum’ we want to ensure that gross limits are not ‘hidden’ or given less prominence than other types of limits that operators may prefer customers to take up.
To support our original policy intention to ensure that ‘gross’ deposit limits must be offered to customers the following wording has been included in the requirement:
This requirement will come into force on 30 June 2026.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
RTS requirement 12B
In the supplementary consultation we asked again for views regarding the proposed wording set out in the Autumn 2023 consultation regarding:
We asked again for views in the supplementary consultation because these items are linked to how a deposit limit works in the requirements.
Do you have any comments on the proposed wording regarding simultaneous time frames?
Through this consultation we sought comments from stakeholders on the proposed wording regarding simultaneous time frames. The majority of respondents to this question were either supportive of the proposed wording or did not provide any additional comments. Respondents who were supportive of the proposed wording stated that it was reasonable, clear, consistent with consumer protection goals and avoids inadvertent overspending due to overlapping caps. Those who were supportive also commented on the need for consistency and clarity to be provided by operators when explaining to customers how simultaneous time frames work. Some respondents asked for the Commission to go further with its proposed wording by:
Some respondents commented that many operators offer limits on the basis of a calendar time frame, as well as those who offer it on a rolling time frame and proposed wording to include rolling or calendar timeframes for example 'rolling 24 hours OR calendar day’ in the RTS.
We have considered the comments raised by stakeholders in the consultation responses. In response to the feedback provided to us following the supplementary consultation we will proceed with wording which states that the most restrictive limit must always apply.
We acknowledge the comments made about operator enforced limits and taking the proposed wording of the requirement further to ensure that customers should fully understand how limits set over simultaneous time frames work. The Commission expects all operators to clearly communicate the terms of financial limits to customers so that the impact of simultaneous timeframes on their chosen limit is clearly understood.
We also note the points made by respondents in respect of rolling and calendar timeframes particularly in relation to how time periods may apply when the operator is trying to align when a customer sets a limit with their systems particularly when a limit is set mid-week.
Often a limit that is set mid-week would apply to either the calendar week or a set 7day period. For example, if a customer was to place a ‘7 day’ deposit limit on a Wednesday at 3:30pm, the customer may need to remember how many deposits they had made since the prior Wednesday at 3:30pm. From a customer’s perspective, this could be potentially difficult to calculate and could cause confusion since a limit set midweek do not align to the calendar week. Whereas, if a customer were to set a ‘7 day’ deposit limit on a Wednesday at 3:30pm, then the deposit limit would refresh at the beginning of the next calendar week, on the following Monday, and include all the deposits already made during that calendar week.
The wording in the RTS already allows for this example and we would expect that the operator clearly sets out to the customer how a limit would work when being aligned to a calendar week.
For clarity we do not consider that the wording in the RTS would cover ‘rolling’ time frames in examples where a period or duration continuously moves forward with time, rather than being fixed to a specific date range. This example of a rolling time frame would not be suitable for use with financial limits as it is not a defined period of time and would not meet the proposed requirement that 'the gambling system must prevent a customer from further depositing funds once a deposit limit is reached, until the defined period of the limit restarts or the customer takes action to increase the limit’.
We have decided not to make reference to rolling or calendar timeframes in the RTS at this time. We are of the view that the customer should be made aware of the start and end points by the operator when they set a limit. Providing this transparency upfront makes it clear to the customer how their limits work and negates the need to reference rolling or calendar timeframes as the period or duration applied has been made explicit to the customer.
This requirement will come into force on 30 June 2026.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
RTS requirement 12B
Where a customer sets simultaneous time frames, for example a daily deposit limit and a weekly limit, the most restrictive must always apply. Therefore, if a daily deposit limit of £10 and a weekly limit of £100 are both set then the maximum the system must allow to be deposited is £10 per day and £70 per week.
Do you have any comments regarding the proposed wording that “The gambling system must prevent a customer from further depositing funds once a deposit limit is reached, until the defined period of the limit restarts or the customer takes action to increase the limit.”?
The majority of respondents were either positive about the proposed wording or had no further comments to raise. Additional comments provided by respondents were in relation to:
We acknowledge the point made in relation to introducing a 7-day delay before any request to increase a deposit limit can take effect. We consider that a 24 hour period as an adequate delay to request an increase in these circumstances and that increasing this time period may potentially result in discouraging customers from setting a limit on their account.
As discussed under the simultaneous time frames section, we note the points made by respondents in respect of rolling and calendar timeframes particularly in relation to how monthly time periods may apply. However, at this time, we don’t plan to make reference to rolling or calendar timeframes in the RTS and expect that the start and end points of a financial limit should be made explicitly clear to a customer by the operator.
We have considered the comments raised by stakeholders in the consultation responses and will proceed with the wording set out in the supplementary consultation.
This requirement will come into force on 30 June 2026.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
RTS requirement 12B
The gambling system must prevent a customer from further depositing funds once a deposit limit is reached, until the defined period of the limit restarts or the customer takes action to increase the limit (subject to standard 24 hour cooling off period).
To ensure that the term ‘deposit limit’ was used consistently by operators we proposed that only limits meeting the definition of gross deposit limits can be called ‘deposit limits’ and that gross deposit limits must be called deposit limits.
The intention behind this proposal was to improve clarity for the consumer and consistency across the industry.
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that only limits that meet the definition of gross deposit limits can be referred to as a deposit limit?
To what extent do you agree with the proposal that limits that meet the definition of gross deposit limits must be described to a customer as a deposit limit?
Respondents had mixed views when asked to what extent they agreed with the proposal that only limits that meet the definition of gross deposit limits can be referred to as a deposit limit.
Respondents who were in favour of the proposal stated that it would help provide increased consistency and transparency for consumers. Some respondents also raised comments that ‘gross limits’ were more aligned to the objective of setting a ‘maximum’ limit.
Respondents who disagreed with the proposal stated that preventing operators from being able to refer to ‘net’ limits as ‘net deposit limits’ is likely to result in confusion because they considered that customers already have a strong comprehension of what the term ‘net deposit limits’ means. Respondents expressed the view that any shift in language without adequate explanation may be perceived as a reduction in flexibility or may result in misinterpretation of how the limits function in practice.
Other comments included that ‘gross’ deposit limits should not be described to customers simply as ‘deposit limits’ as this could also be confusing to consumers as any reference to deposit limits must be accompanied by clear explanations of what is being limited, whether gross or net. Respondents also highlighted the importance of offering a range of limits to maintain consumer choice and urged the Gambling Commission to retain flexibility in how deposit limits are defined to ensure that consumer choice is maximised.
Some operators and a trade body suggested that in order to provide increased consistency and customer understanding, the Commission should consider renaming ‘net’ deposit limits to spend limits.
Respondents suggested that operators should be required to provide simple language and terminology. Suggestions included that the terms 'gross’ deposit limits and 'net’ deposit limits' or ‘spend limits’ should be used rather than tying one concept to the general term ‘deposit limits’, to remove any potential confusion for consumers and improve clarity for operators.
We have considered the comments and concerns raised by stakeholders in the consultation responses.
We will proceed with the proposal that only limits that meet the definition set out in RTS 12B can be referred to as a deposit limit, and limits meeting this definition must be described to a customer as a deposit limit.
We maintain the view that deposit limits have been consistently available in the remote gambling system for a considerable length of time, and for most of that period have typically been considered a limit on the amount of deposits into an account, without reference to anything else such as withdrawals. ‘Gross’ deposit limits have historically been most commonly offered by gambling licensees and more evidence of usage and participation in deposit limits is available, compared to other types of limits.
To address concerns about customer comprehension of deposit limits we are of the view that operators must ensure that they provide clear and easy to understand information to customers.
We agree with the points made regarding the importance of providing and maintaining consumer choice in this space and acknowledge that ‘net deposit limits’ have a place in the remote gambling system. Our position on this is set out in proposal 3.
This requirement will come into force on 30 June 2026.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
RTS requirement 12B
Only limits that meet this definition can be referred to as a deposit limit, and limits meeting this definition must be described to a customer as a deposit limit.
We proposed to introduce new implementation guidance to include ‘net’ deposit limits (termed as ‘net’ limits in the consultation) as another option for financial limits and make some minor amendments to the wording of definitions to help enhance customer understanding.
The intention behind this proposal was to provide increased consumer choice by amending the implementation guidance to allow for ‘net’ deposit limits in addition to other types of limits should operators choose to make them available.
To what extent do you agree with the proposed definition of spend or stake limits for implementation guidance? “Where the amount a customer spends or stakes on gambling (or specific gambling products) is restricted for the period or duration of the limit applied”
Respondents’ opinions differed on these proposals. Those that agreed found the definition clear, straightforward and fit for purpose.
Those that disagreed raised questions about the use of the term 'stake' and some were concerned that using the terms 'spend and stake' together could cause confusion. There were comments asking for more clarity if using the term spend. Respondents also called for clarity about how things like unsettled wagers, ante-post bets, and paused or abandoned game rounds would be accounted for.
Suggestions from respondents on how this definition could be clearer included:
Respondents were supportive of broader aims of limit setting tools and suggested that further guidance is provided to clarify how spend limits will work in various scenarios.
To what extent do you agree with the proposed definition of loss limits for implementation guidance? “Where the amount lost is restricted, i.e. winnings subtracted from the amount lost for the period or duration of the limit applied.”
The majority of respondents agreed with the proposed definition of a loss limit The definition was described by those that agreed with the proposed wording as clear, understandable and appropriate. Some respondents asked for more clarity around the application of such limits in respect of bonus funds.
Some of the respondents that disagreed described the definition as overcomplicated and unclear, while some offered alternative definitions.
A number of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, and of those some of them asked for more clarity in the definition.
Feedback provided by respondents included:
To what extent do you agree with the proposed term ‘net limits’ and its proposed definition for implementation guidance “The amount deposited into the account minus any withdrawals made for the period or duration of the limit applied.”?
The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal and comments were received about the definition being easy to understand. Respondents commented that ‘net limits’ aligned well with consumer behaviours and are supportive of more responsible gambling behaviour. However, amongst those that agreed, there was concern raised about the term ‘net limits’ being confusing, and alternative suggestions were offered.
Some respondents did not favour the term 'net limits' preferring instead the terms 'spend limits' or 'net deposit limits'. There were some concerns about consumer confusion, highlighting the risk of confusion for consumers by introducing unfamiliar or opaque labels like 'net limit'.
A small number of respondents didn’t agree or disagree with the proposal. Those in this category were supportive of the definition and the intention to bring clarity to this area, but also raised concerns about the potential to cause confusion.
We welcome the suggestions made to us to help improve customer understanding in this area. Set out below is our view on each of the proposed terms and definitions of a financial limit in the implementation guidance.
We acknowledge the points made by stakeholders about the term ‘stake and spend limits’ being potentially confusing to customers particularly when the terms stake and spend are used together. We also note the suggestions made in the responses to use the term ‘spend limit’ to describe ‘net’ deposit limits and could see how it could potentially help create a distinction between the different limit types. However, we consider that the term ‘spend’ would not be an accurate term to describe this form of limit because it would not take account of winnings that have been spent.
We also note the points raised about clarity on how things like unsettled wagers, ante-post bets, paused or abandoned game rounds and free bets and bonuses could be accounted for. As is currently the case, we would expect operators to fully explain their financial limits and how these types of activity will affect the limit. This is to ensure that the impact of any type of gambling activity on a chosen limit is clearly understood. We would also expect that in circumstances where a stake is returned to a customer (subject to the operator’s terms and conditions) any financial limit that is in place would be amended to reflect the stake has been returned to the customer. For example, if the stake limit was £20 and the customer placed a £5 bet (leaving £15 of the stake limit remaining) and the event is then called off. In circumstances where the £5 stake is returned to the customer the stake limit would return to £20.
We also note the point received more generally from a trade body that the Gambling Commission should not over prescribe how customer journeys are designed by operators.
The Commission monitors data sources, such as complaints or consumer contacts and compliance assessment findings to understand issues that might bring risks to consumers and would consider further action in response to increased risk in this area.
In response to the feedback received we have changed the term ‘spend’ to ‘stake’. We agree this would provide clarity to customers as the term ‘stake’ is better aligned to consumer gambling behaviour than ‘spend’ because the term ‘spend’ can be interpreted in a number of ways by a customer and therefore reduces clarity of the consumer.
We have considered the comments raised by stakeholders in the consultation responses and will make the following amendments to the wording of the definition of loss in the implementation guidance:
We note the points made by respondents who sought further clarity on what is meant by ‘the amount lost’ (as per the definition proposed in the consultation) and the application of loss limits when used during ante-post betting. The Commission expects all operators to clearly communicate the terms of financial limits and ante-post bets to customers so that the impact of that type of gambling activity on their chosen limit is clearly understood. Operators may consider that loss limits may not necessarily be the best type of financial limit for betting customers when used in conjunction with ante-post betting and it may be appropriate for operators to signpost customers to other more suitable types of financial limit such as a deposit limit.
Examples of good practice in relation to loss limit and ante-post bets would include that operators should include accessible information about each financial limit that they offer, including how different types of staking activity (such as ante-post bets), winnings and bonus earnings affect the limit (if applicable). We don’t believe there is a current need for this to be included in implementation guidance and we will monitor data sources to understand any issues that might bring risks to consumers.
We welcome the feedback and suggestions that we have received in respect of the terminology used to refer to ‘net’ deposit limits. In the consultation we proposed the term ‘net limits’ to ensure that operators could continue to offer net deposit limits but feedback from respondents said that they found ‘net limits’ confusing. Further suggestions were made in the responses to use the term ‘spend limit’ to describe ‘net’ deposit limits. However, we believe that the term ‘spend’ still isn’t clear as ‘net’ deposit limits are and, in our view, not an accurate representation of typical ‘spending’ behaviour because the term ‘spend’ can be interpreted in a number of ways by a customer and therefore reduces clarity of the consumer.
We also note the point made by respondents that customer comprehension rates of ‘net’ deposit limits are high and the term ‘net deposits’ is also used elsewhere in the regulatory framework. Following consideration of the feedback, we intend to proceed with the definition set out in the supplementary consultation and to use the term ‘net deposit limit’ to describe this limit type. After consideration, we are content that this is the most accurate way to describe the term in the implementation guidance. The definition of a net deposit limit will remain the same as set out in the consultation.
This guidance will come into force on 30 June 2026.
Applies to: All gambling – except subscription lotteries.
RTS implementation guidance 12B
In order to maximise consumer choice, operators could also offer:
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.
The evaluation of the changes set out in the supplementary consultation response will be embedded in the overall evaluation of the customer-led tool changes as detailed in the Autumn 2023 consultation – Proposed changes to LCCP and RTS: Consultation Response - Customer-led tools - Consultation Response.
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. Our position as a result of the initial assessment was set out in both our initial and supplementary consultation was that the Commission does not currently consider that the proposals set out in this consultation give rise to known negative impacts in the context of the policy objectives.
At the time of our initial and supplementary consultations, our assessment was that the proposals:
In our initial consultation we asked respondents for any evidence or information which might assist the Commission in considering any equalities impacts of those proposals. We received a small number of responses to help inform the next stage of our assessment in relation to specific proposals which do not form part of this supplementary consultation.
These included concerns around neurodivergence and processing or understanding information as well as responses to alerts consideration of cognisance of information for non-English speakers and other vulnerable groups more generally.
Through the supplementary consultation we asked again for evidence or information which might assist the Commission in considering any equalities impacts. We received information from one respondent making a general comment that operators must ensure that customers with learning disabilities must be able to access materials to help them understand their chosen limits.
In our initial consultation we proposed a series of amendments to the wording of requirements and implementation guidance, to reinforce our expectation that information should be easily understood and accessible by all customers. As a result of our analysis following the initial consultation and consideration of feedback provided to the supplementary consultation we consider that the changes being made 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.
The Commission monitors data sources, such as complaints and/or consumer contacts and compliance assessment findings to understand issues that might bring risks to consumers and would consider further action in response to increased risk to consumers.
We asked respondents to provide information about implementation and an estimate of the direct costs associated with implementing the proposals. Responses to this question highlighted:
We have taken into account feedback from industry stakeholders about the estimated length of time it may take to implement the requirements. We are aware that the timeframe for implementation will vary and will depend on the extent and the complexity of the changes to be made by each operator. In determining an implementation period for the proposals in this consultation we have also considered the timings of the other implementation dates set out by the Commission. Therefore, we consider it proportionate in this instance for all the changes set out in this document to be implemented no later than 30 June 2026.
For clarity we do not expect existing customers to be changed back to using ‘gross’ deposit limits on the implementation date. We expect:
Annex 1 lists organisations that consented to the publication of their name when responding to the supplementary consultation: definition of deposit limits in the Remote Gambling Software Technical Standards. 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:
Please note this wording includes both the changes coming into effect from 30 June 2026 and the changes to RTS 12 that are in effect from 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.
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.
For access media (including internet, interactive TV and mobile): customers must be presented with a ‘free text’ box to set a limit.
As a minimum, limits must be applied at the account level.
As a minimum, the gambling system must offer gross deposit limits - where the amount a customer deposits into their account is limited over a particular duration.
Only limits that meet this definition can be referred to as a deposit limit, and limits meeting this definition must be described to a customer as a deposit limit.
Where more than one type of limit is made available in the gambling system operators must ensure that ‘gross’ deposit limits are offered to customers with at least equal prominence to other limit types.
The period or duration of the limits on offer must include
Where a customer sets simultaneous time frames, for example a daily deposit limit and a weekly limit, the most restrictive limit must always apply. Therefore if a daily deposit limit of £10 and a weekly limit of £100 are both set then the maximum the system must allow to be deposited is £10 per day and £70 per week.
The gambling system must prevent a customer from further depositing funds once a deposit limit is reached, until the defined period of the limit restarts or the customer takes action to increase the limit (subject to standard 24 hour cooling off period).
Financial limit facilities must be provided via a link on the homepage and be clearly visible and accessible.
Facilities must be clearly visible and accessible on deposit pages/screens or via a 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.
Customer-led limits must only be increased at the customer’s request, only after a cooling-off period of 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.
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.
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.