Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. About us
  3. Initial findings from new data on consumer trust – GSGB

Report

Initial findings from new data on consumer trust – GSGB

Initial findings from new data on consumer trust – GSGB

Published
23 July 2026

Last updated
23 July 2026 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

  1. Contents
  2. Initial findings
  3. Composite Trust Score

Composite Trust Score

The overall composite trust score for all those who gambled in the past 12 months is 47.9. This appears to be driven by higher scores for statements relating to regulatory accountability and the understandability of odds and offers, and lower scores for fairness of games and machines and the protection of young and vulnerable people. Across the sample scores varied by demographic factors, the types of activities people participate in, and people’s feelings towards their most recent gambling experience.

Table 2: Composite trust score by 5 core statements
Table 2: Composite trust score by 5 core statements
Composite score statements Score
Gambling companies are held accountable by a regulator if their conduct falls short of standards 66.3
Activities, offers and odds provided by gambling companies are clear, easy to understand and not misleading 50.1
Gambling companies are free from corruption 42.8
Effective measures are in place to protect young, and other vulnerable, people when gambling 41.6
Gambling games and machines are fair and free of errors 40.1

The composite score increases as age rises with 18 to 24-year-olds reporting lower levels of trust (43.6) and those aged 75 and over reporting the highest levels (51.7), as shown in Figure 1.

For each of the 5 core statements, respondents aged 18 to 24 scored lower than those aged 75 and over. The biggest differences were seen for regulatory accountability (59.5 compared with 73.7), corruption (37.8 compared with 48.5) and fairness of games and machines (36.8 compared with 43.8). Age differences were less pronounced for statements around the understandability of offers and odds (46.5 compared with 51.8) and protection of young and vulnerable people (40.3 compared with 42.7).

Figure 1: Composite trust score by age group

Figure 1: Composite trust score by age group

Figure 1: Composite trust score by age group
Age group Composite trust score (percentage)
Aged 18 to 24 43.6
Aged 25 to 34 46.1
Aged 35 to 44 47.1
Aged 45 to 54 49.4
Aged 55 to 64 48.7
Aged 65 to 74 49.1
Aged 75 and over 51.7
Base: Gambled in the past 12 months (N=12,194)

There are also differences in trust scores when looking at different gambling activities. People who had participated in casino and fruit and slot games in the past 4 weeks had higher trust scores than people who had played lottery draws.

Table 3: Composite trust score by past 4 week gambling activity

Table 3: Composite trust score by past 4 week gambling activity
Gambling activity in past 4 weeks1 Composite trust score Base size
Lottery draws 48.6 6,388
Scratchcards 50.1 1,954
Instant win games 50.4 1,257
Betting 52.6 1,616
Bingo 52.3 714
Casino games 53.2 466
Fruit and slots 53.1 757


Participants were asked how they felt about the last time they spent money on gambling. Responses were given on a scale of 0 to 10 with 0 being ‘hated it’ and 10 being ‘loved it’. Participants who assigned a score of 0 to 4 were grouped as having a ‘negative’ experience, those who assigned a score of 5 were grouped as ‘neutral’, and those who scored 6 to 10 were grouped as having a ‘positive’ experience.

For statements relating to ‘accountability’ and ‘understandability of odds and offers’, participants who rated their most recent gambling experience as ‘positive’ had higher scores compared with those who rated their experience as neutral or negative. Statements relating to ‘corruption’, ‘player protection’, and ‘fairness’, were less strongly associated with participants’ most recent gambling experience as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Composite trust score by most recent gambling experience

Table 4: Composite trust score by most recent gambling experience
Statement Negative Neutral Positive
Gambling companies are held accountable by a regulator if their conduct falls short of standards 64.5 63.7 69.1
Gambling companies are free from corruption 39.7 41.9 44.6
Gambling games and machines are fair and free of errors 37.1 38.9 42.3
Activities, offers and odds provided by gambling companies are clear, easy to understand and not misleading 44.0 48.7 53.9
Effective measures are in place to protect young, and other vulnerable, people when gambling 39.1 39.4 44.2
(Base size2) (1734) (3390) (3849)

Taken together, these findings highlight that trust in the gambling industry varies based on the types of activity people play, as well as the emotional tone of recent interactions. While we are unable to conclude that these factors directly influence people’s trust in the industry, our findings highlight the variability of consumer attitudes.

References

1 Note: Participants may have taken part in more than one gambling activity in the past 4 weeks.

2 Base sizes for the statement 'Gambling companies are held accountable by a regulator' are shown. Base sizes for other statements are similar.

Next section
Overall agreement levels
Is this page useful?
Back to top