Report
Exploring online, illegal, individual-led lotteries and raffles
Exploring online, illegal, individual-led lotteries and raffles
Limitations of the approach
Despite these strengths, these research methodologies also each have their own limitations. Findings should therefore be read as a triangulated account of the overall story rather than as a single definitive measure.
Digital intelligence
Digital intelligence provides insight into public social media content and conversation and can help identify behavioural trends and patterns. However, it reflects expressed rather than confirmed behaviour and cannot be treated as representative of the wider population.
The analysis is also limited to public content and linked destinations. Because some creators move activity off-platform or into private spaces to avoid detection or consequences, this method cannot capture the full extent of activity taking place.
Quantitative research
Quantitative research provides a broad view of attitudes and behaviour across a defined sample. However, it cannot on its own explain why participants hold particular views or what factors shape their behaviour.
As outlined in the methodology section, this research focuses on those who have gambled online. The findings should therefore not be treated as representative of all those who gamble. Caution should also be taken when interpreting subgroup differences, such as those relating to gambling frequency or PGSI score, as these groups may not themselves be representative.
Qualitative Research
Qualitative sample sizes are, by their nature, small, so findings are directional unless contextualised by other evidence, such as the quantitative phase. Due to the small, exploratory nature, findings should be treated as illustrative rather than representative.
9 of out 10 qualitative participants were players; and only 1 was primarily a host, meaning the host perspective is less developed.
While the project focused primarily on TikTok, the sample also included Facebook and Instagram participants. This is because earlier research suggests that similar activity with illegal online individual-led lotteries and raffles also takes place across these platforms.
The qualitative sample skews towards older demographics (30 to 60-year-olds). While the quantitative data highlights higher participation among 18 to 24-year-olds, expanding the qualitative recruitment to include Facebook users naturally drew an older audience, making it more challenging to recruit young adults for in-depth interviews. To counter this, digital intelligence findings have been woven throughout the report to better reflect how younger audiences experience and interact with these draws online.
Qualitative research also relies on the interpretation of researchers, which introduces the possibility of researcher bias. This was mitigated through a grounded theory approach and systematic analysis of interview data and notes.
All insights gathered in this study are based on self-reported rather than observed behaviour, meaning that findings are limited to what participants felt comfortable disclosing in the research setting.
Legal context
When reading the findings, please note that participants engaging in these draws are not committing an offence. The illegal activity sits entirely with the individuals or organisations hosting the draws without the necessary licences or registrations. Any references to illegal or unlawful activity in this report refer to the provision of the draws, not the individuals playing them.
Ethics and governance
All research was conducted in accordance with standard market research guidelines and aligned with the Gambling Commission’s Research Governance Framework.
Participants across the quantitative and qualitative phases were fully informed about the purpose of the study and gave their explicit consent to take part. To ensure participants were safeguarded throughout the process, all data was anonymised and individuals were assured of their confidentiality. Given the sensitive nature of gambling research, qualitative participants were also signposted to independent support services, such as GamCare, at the conclusion of their interviews, should the discussion have raised any concerns.
This report continues in the Findings section.
Previous sectionStrengths of the approach
Last updated: 13 August 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.