Report
Illegal online gambling - Phase 3: Understanding push factors for consumer engagement with illegal gambling websites
The Gambling Commission's research into consumer engagement with the illegal online gambling market.
Attitudes towards gambling companies and regulation
Key findings:
- Broad support for regulation remains among the surveyed audience: There is an appetite for regulation among people who gamble online, with the vast majority saying there should be more rules and regulations in place. This even holds among those that have used illegal gambling websites, though Skilled Advocates are more likely to disagree than other groups.
- Skilled Advocates are more likely to view the industry with suspicion: Valuing personal freedom, they frequently perceive gambling companies as unfair and intrusive. They are more disposed to citing poor experiences in the legal gambling market, viewing operators with distrust.
- Social Explorers and Accidental Tourists hold more neutral views towards the industry: Viewing gambling as a casual recreational hobby, they tend to take a neutral stance towards gambling companies and regulation. They broadly assume regulation must exist to prevent harm and view illegal website usage as a complex area of shared responsibility, pointing specifically to consumer difficulties in identifying whether a site is legal or not.
Notes for readers
A definition of terminology mentioned in this section, such as PGSI, KYC checks, RTP and GamStop, can be found in our ‘How to read’ section.
Descriptions for each of the personas can be found in the ‘Exploring the persona audiences’ section.
Perceptions of gambling companies and regulation, among those who gamble online
As we have found in previous research, there is appetite for further regulation among the broader survey participants – that is, those that had gambled in the last 4 weeks. Around 4 in 10 (40% of illegal website users surveyed) think there should be more rules in place on gambling and just under half (47%) agree that adults should only be able to gamble on websites licensed by the Gambling Commission.
Table 1. Views on gambling regulation: Where do you sit on the below scales?1
| Statement | Total |
|---|---|
| There should be fewer rules in place on gambling (percentage) | 10% |
| Neither (percentage) | 47% |
| There should be more rules in place on gambling (percentage) | 40% |
| Don't know (percentage) | 3% |
Table 2. Views on gambling regulation: Where do you sit on the below scales?
| Statement | Total |
|---|---|
| Adults should be free to gamble on any website they like, even if they are not licensed by the Gambling Commission (percentage) | 14% |
| Neither (percentage) | 36% |
| Adults should only be able to gamble on websites licensed by the Gambling Commission (percentage) | 47% |
| Don't know (percentage) | 3% |
This is reflected in both attitudes and reported behaviours. Around three-quarters (74% of illegal website users surveyed) say they are ‘careful when choosing which gambling websites to gamble with’, and 72% consider ‘it is important for a gambling website to be licensed with the Gambling Commission’.
Most also support protective measures, with 68% agreeing that ‘Identity checks and/or Know Your Customer (KYC) checks on gambling websites are important to protect customers’ and 53% think ‘it is fair for gambling websites to ask for some of my financial information for large withdrawals’. It is worth noting that on occasion, operators can ask for proof of identity, which can be in the form of bank statements, for the purposes of preventing fraud or bonus abuse; these do not take the form of a ‘financial check’, however.
However, there are signs of friction with the licensed market; 52% ‘do not want to be bothered by the gambling company I am using whilst I'm gambling’, and 54% prioritise fast withdrawals over promotions or offers.
Perceptions of gambling companies and regulation, among illegal market personas
When it comes to what shapes these attitudes, within the qualitative focus groups, it was found that underlying attitudes towards authority, fairness and personal responsibility, fundamentally shape perceptions of the gambling ecosystem.
Skilled Advocates value their personal freedom and some see authority as a hindrance to this. Quantitatively, 21% of Skilled Advocates felt there should be fewer rules in place on gambling; double the overall proportion (10%) among people who gamble. In keeping, some members in the focus group spoke about how they often view gambling companies through a lens of suspicion, spontaneously referencing a lack of fairness in their practices, perceiving them to manipulate odds and hold back winnings in their favour of what they perceive to be “excessive” ID checking.
“The verification process for legal sites when it comes to ID checks can make it feel like gambling is a chore, rather than a hobby and it can feel really intrusive as well”
Accidental Tourist, Male, 28 years old
In contrast, Social Explorers and Accidental Tourists tend to view gambling as a recreational hobby. They tend to be less emotionally invested in gambling, which in turn impacts their wider perceptions of the gambling industry. They tend to take a more neutral stance toward gambling companies, simply seeing them as a business providing a service. Gambling companies are not top of mind for these individuals.
“I’d say my relationship to gambling is casual, and when I come across different gambling companies its just through browsing online and seeing sites pop up.”
Social Explorer, Female, 21 years old
When it comes to the Commission and its role, Skilled Advocates believe they have a moderate to strong awareness, however qualitative discussions exposed some discrepancies between reported awareness and true understanding, as well as some fragmentation in their knowledge. For example, better understanding was present around how the Commission is funded, while some other information regarding the Commission’s regulatory role was less accurate at times. Quantitative data indicates that Skilled Advocates as a whole remain broadly supportive of regulation. However, qualitative discussions provided a platform for a vocal minority to express strong sentiments. For instance, a small number of focus group participants described the Commission and regulation with words like ‘control’ and ‘collusion’, viewing these bodies as more authority figures who are not altruistic in their motives. For these select individuals, post-Covid, regulation is felt to be indiscriminate and unnecessarily heavy-handed, where too much personal information is required of individuals who gamble, and the Commission alongside regulation fail to fully understand the needs of the individual.
“The first word that pops into my head is control, they put together laws but they don’t really understand the topic.”
Skilled Advocate, Male, 35 years old
“Yes I know about the Gambling Commission and know of its aim to keep us safe”
Skilled Advocate, Female, 45 years old.
Social Explorers and Accidental Tourists report having a more limited awareness of the Commission and its role, though this can be slightly higher among Social Explorers, likely because they tend to be more engaged with gambling and are naturally more curious in nature. Regardless, both groups, when prompted, assume regulation must exist and can see there being a role for regulation in preventing gambling-related harm.
“Only briefly heard of the Gambling Commission, think I’ve seen them at the bottom of a site. But makes sense they are there.”
Social Explorer, Female, 21 years old
Views on roles and responsibility when it comes to illegal website use
Skilled Advocates tend to be more inclined to hold authority figures responsible when it comes to their use of illegal gambling websites. Some within this audience, see regulation, licenced gambling companies and the government as having a role to play, suggesting that strict rules and poor odds can inhibit their personal freedom and encourage them to migrate. Their antipathy towards authority appears, particularly for a select few, deeply ingrained, making them feel justified in their choice to use illegal gambling websites.
“Regulation and the Gambling Commission are manipulating the odds and then gambling companies, working with regulation, collect too much data they don’t even need.”
Skilled Advocate, Male, 35 years old
Social Explorers and Accidental Tourists point to an ecosystem of shared responsibility when it comes to individuals using illegal gambling websites. Of those spoken to, they are often not fully aware whether the websites they’re using are illegal or not, and they feel they recognise that this is a complex grey area no single party is responsible for. While this means they tend to feel more neutrally about gambling companies and regulation, it can also create a sense of apathy when it comes to this topic. It’s something they can’t control, nor can they easily identify illegal gambling websites, so ‘why should they try’.
"I think at the end of the day we are also responsible regardless of friends, family, influencers, other parties and whatever they're doing. We need to think for ourselves."
Accidental Tourist, Male, 28 years old
References
1For each of these 2 questions, respondents were shown a 10-point scale. Individual scale responses have been consolidated into broader categories for reporting purposes.
Exploring the persona audiences Next section
Influences shaping illegal gambling website usage
Last updated: 20 October 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.