Report
Consumers' views on informed choice in gambling
Findings from a research project to explore how consumers understand the meaning of “informed choice” in gambling.
General views on informed choice in gambling
Views on the definition of informed choice
When first asked what the term “informed choice” means in the context of gambling, participants emphasised the importance of consumers having sufficient information to make informed decisions. This included understanding whether a platform is safe and legal, whether their money and personal data are secure, how gambling products and games operate in practice, how much they can win or lose and the chances for this, how to stay safe, what games are more at risk, and how to ask for support if needed.
The current statement of principles, as established by the Gambling Commission, defines Informed Choice as:
5.13. The Commission expects that not only is gambling fair in the way it is
conducted/provided, but that the rules are transparent to players and they
know what to expect.
5.14. The Commission will ensure that the rules are fair and that easily understandable information is made readily available by operators to
consumers about, for example: the rules of the game, the probability of
losing or winning, and the terms and conditions on which business is
conducted.
Overall, participants viewed this definition as a strong starting point. In particular, they valued the principles that gambling companies should provide consumers with clear and accessible information and that gambling should be fair. However, some also highlighted several areas where the definition and its implementation in practice could be strengthened.
A recurring theme across the deliberative focus groups was that informed choice depends not only on information being available, but also on it being easy to access, understand, and apply at relevant points in the user journey. Some participants described situations where information about games, odds, or rules was difficult to find, for example, in gambling venues where they needed to ask dealers or staff members for clarification, or when playing online live casino games. As a result, some framed the challenge less as a lack of a clear definition, and more as a 15 gap between the principle of informed choice and how it is operationalised by gambling companies.
Participants who were more critical of the current definition identified several perceived limitations. First, some felt the definition does not sufficiently distinguish between the information needs of new consumers and the ongoing support required for existing players to remain informed over time. Second, participants felt the definition could place greater emphasis on gambling companies' responsibility for consumer protection, particularly in supporting consumers who may be at greater risk of gambling-related harm. Third, some believed the definition should more explicitly include information about the risks associated with gambling and help consumers identify what products can lead to the highest risk of harm or how to find support. Finally, it was noted that the definition provides limited guidance on more complex gambling products and experiences, where understanding probabilities, mechanics, or financial implications may require additional support.
Overall, while the current definition was positively received, participants wanted it to go further in requiring gambling companies to actively protect consumers and support genuine comprehension across the different stages of gambling. Their concerns were not limited to the risk of gambling harm; many related more broadly to whether consumers could make decisions on fair terms, for example whether they could understand the true cost of a promotion or verify that a game was operating as described. These findings are aligned with previous research in gambling and other domains. Parke et al. (2014) argued that informed choice is not just a pre-play decision but "a continuous state that must be maintained during the act of gambling," because the psychological dissociation and narrowed attention that occur during play can erode whatever understanding a consumer had before they started4 .
Do participants feel informed?
Participants' sense of how informed they felt varied considerably, shaped by the type of gambling they engaged in, their level of experience, and the complexity of the products they used.
Those who played familiar games or had extensive experience tended to feel confident in their understanding. One sports bettor noted: "I think I'm quite confident in understanding the odds," while another described having learned intuitively through years of using apps, promotions, and platforms. Some felt they simply knew enough: "I know what I need to," as one participant put it. Others felt informed through their own research, studying player patterns, comparing odds across gambling companies, or using external data sources before placing bets.
However, this confidence was not universal. Several participants acknowledged uncertainty around complex terms and mechanics, particularly Return to Player (RTP) metrics and multi-leg accumulators. Others lacked confidence in interpreting odds altogether, relying on friends or family to translate them, or simply ignoring odds when playing for fun.
Who should be responsible for informed choice?
Across the discussions, there was a consensus that gambling companies should be responsible for providing information in visible places and in ways that are easy to understand at a glance. There was agreement that their observed current status quo, where information is technically present but requires consumers to actively look for it, is insufficient. This need to shift from information provision to comprehension was also observed when looking at what informed choice looks like in other sectors: the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Consumer Duty (2022) requires firms not just to provide information, but to prove that their customers actually understand it, and to remove sludge that creates unreasonable barriers5.
While participants acknowledged that consumers retain personal autonomy, and that different products require varying levels of active information seeking (such as, sport betting requires knowledge of specific sports), they argued that informed choice should not depend on consumers actively searching for game specific information. Instead, they viewed informed choice as a baseline standard of upfront transparency that must be built directly into the platform experience.
“I can only make choices if I have that information in front of me. And if sometimes there's hiding things from me, then I cannot make that decision. So I think it's down for the operators but also the Commission to actually enforce the operators [to do it].”
Male, 27, Online slot machines
While visibility was widely accepted, debate emerged over how far gambling companies should go to ensure consumers actually understand the information. While some were happy with having information without active checks on their understanding, others advocated for a baseline of due diligence, where gambling companies verify that users comprehend their chances of winning, net profits, and risks. They felt this information should cover both immediate financial losses and long-term implications, such as impact on credit scores and mortgage applications. Rather than calling for exhaustive, bureaucratic barriers that disrupt the user experience, the consumers viewed these comprehension checks as a light-touch exercise.
“I don't see why they can't do due diligence [...] when they're registering an account: “have you betted before? Are you aware of this? Are you aware ofthat?” It's just one or two extra questions.”
Female, 42, In-person and online slot machines
This tension between personal autonomy and structural protection became particularly evident during discussions on platform architecture. When considering whether gambling companies should be restricted from utilising interface designs that distract from key risk disclosures, participants' views were dependent on who they were imagining as the end user. Reflecting on their own habits, several felt such restrictions were unnecessary, confident that they were already well informed and fully aware of the stakes. However, this perspective shifted when participants considered the experiences of more vulnerable players or those at higher risk of harm. For these groups, participants felt that particular vulnerabilities, combined with immersive designs, could overwrite an individual's autonomy in the moment. They expressed a distinct need for proactive interventions that interrupt design distractions and refocus the user's attention on key safety information. It would then be up to consumers whether they wanted to act on those prompts or not. It was further suggested that this protection should be personalised, requiring gambling companies to monitor and intervene when an individual's behavioural patterns show sudden changes indicative of escalating harm.
A need for accounting for the online platform architecture when assessing customers’ ability to make informed choices was also visible in other sectors. Whittle (2023) agreed that true informed choice requires "informative design": actively designing choice architecture to promote understanding, rather than treating a neutral environment as sufficient6. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) (2022) taxonomy of online choice architecture provides a comprehensive catalogue of the practices that undermine autonomous decision-making7. The Online Safety Act (2023) introduces statutory duties requiring platforms to conduct risk assessments, provide user empowerment features, and maintain transparent terms of service.
While the discussion focused primarily on the split between consumer and operator responsibility, some participants emphasised the wider role of the regulator and other stakeholders. The boundaries of this regulatory oversight remained a point of debate. One participant argued that so long as an operator is fully regulated and compliant with the law, it should retain the operational freedom to design its platform as it sees fit, provided essential information remains visibly accessible. Another argued that focusing on specific design bans misses the broader issue of corporate accountability: gambling companies should not need explicit prohibitions but should naturally embed a robust responsibility to reduce consumer harm into their business models, proactively looking after their customers from the start.
Other participants were sceptical of gambling companies’ motivations, acknowledging that they may prioritise commercial gains over consumer welfare. One participant doubted that companies could be trusted to self-regulate and suggested that the government or external authorities must impose mandatory safeguards, similar to those in the tobacco industry. Furthermore, given that consumers can use multiple gambling platforms, some highlighted that stakeholders who have the overarching view of a person's total expenditure, whether banks or a new body, could also intervene and provide information that individual operators lack.
Overall, the responsibility was split between consumers, gambling companies, regulators, and the wider industry. At a minimum, consumers thought gambling companies should do more to actively make people aware of key information about both potential wins, risks and consequences. It was also widely agreed that gambling companies should take more responsibility to offer consumer protection and offer personalised interventions when consumers show a risk of harm. This balance was not held evenly across the gambling journey: participants were more comfortable taking personal responsibility before they began playing, but looked increasingly to gambling companies, and in some cases to banks or a central body, as play became more immersive and as they considered their longer-term spend. This shift is explored in the sections that follow.
These findings are aligned with findings from other sectors (that is, across financial services, energy, and online safety), where the common direction of travel is away from a model where responsibility sits primarily with the consumer and towards one where providers must demonstrate that their environments actively support, rather than undermine, informed decisions.
References
4 Parke, A., Harris, A., Parke, J., Rigbye, J. and Blaszczynski, A. (2014). Facilitating awareness and informed choice in gambling. Journal of Gambling Business and Economics.
5 Financial Conduct Authority (2022). A new consumer duty: feedback to CP21/36 and final rules. Policy Statement PS22/9.
6 Whittle, R. (2023). The consumer duty: behavioural context and practical strategies to support informed decision making.
7 Competition and Markets Authority (2022). Online choice architecture: how digital design can harm competition and consumers. Discussion paper.
8 Online Safety Act 2023. UK Parliament.
Informed choice across the different stages of the Path to Play
Last updated: 15 September 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.