Report
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Lived experiences of affected others: Qualitative research
Links to evidence gaps and priorities
The Gambling Commission’s Evidence Gaps and Priorities sets out the key areas where strengthening the evidence base will best support effective regulation. This research directly contributes to 4 evidence themes:
Evidence Theme 3: Gambling-related harm and vulnerability, and the associated roadmap on people who gamble and affected others
Evidence Theme 4: The impact of operator practices, and the associated roadmaps on the direct impact of marketing and advertising on gambling harms and the effectiveness of operator-led harm prevention measures
Evidence Theme 5: Product characteristics and risk, and the associated roadmap on consumer interactions with products or features with increased risk of harm
Evidence Theme 6: Illegal gambling and crime, specifically the focus on improving knowledge of the extent and impact of the unregulated market, and understanding consumer awareness of when they are gambling with a licensed operator versus an unlicensed one.
By providing qualitative depth to complement the Gambling Survey for Great Britain's (GSGB's) population-level data, the findings help address identified evidence gaps around the nature, extent, and experience of gambling-related harm among affected others. The findings also raise potential areas for regulatory consideration, which are set out below across four areas: gambling-related harm and vulnerability; the impact of operator practices; product characteristics and risk and illegal gambling and crime.
Evidence Theme 3: Gambling-related harm and vulnerability
This research adds qualitative depth to the GSGB picture of who affected others are and what they experience. Three findings have direct relevance to how the Commission continues to deepen its understanding of gambling-related harm and vulnerability as the industry regulator.
First, the compounding and interconnected nature of harm. Affected others in this study described consequences that spanned health, relationships, and financial resources simultaneously, with each domain feeding and intensifying the others. The GSGB captures these domains separately; this research shows that the lived experience is rarely so cleanly separated. Approaches that address single dimensions of harm in isolation (whether regulatory, policy, or support-focused) are unlikely to reflect or adequately respond to the reality of affected others’ experience, where financial, relational, and health consequences typically compound and reinforce one another.
Second, the experiences of underrepresented groups. Affected others in close-knit communities (such as certain ethnic, religious, or rural groups) can face strong barriers to speaking up, including shame, stigma, and pressure to deal with problems privately within the family. Because of this, they are less likely to appear in surveys or seek support. As a result, standard estimates may underestimate how common and how severe harms are in these groups. This means the Commission may wish to consider how experiences of harm vary across communities and ensure its approach reflects these differences.
Third, the non-linearity of harm over time. Affected others' harm does not follow a simple arc from unawareness to crisis to recovery. It cycles, accumulates, and in many cases becomes chronic, persisting long after an acute crisis has passed, or continuing indefinitely, sometimes in the absence of any crisis at all. Current evidence and intervention frameworks tend to be oriented around crisis points; this research makes a strong case for attention to chronic and legacy harm as distinct and significant categories.
These findings speak directly to the Commission’s evidence roadmap priority of understanding the prevalence and impact of legacy harms on people who gamble and affected others. The accounts gathered here point to legacy harms as an area that warrants greater attention in evidence collection and intervention design.
Evidence Theme 4: Impact of operator practices
Gambling adverts felt almost impossible to avoid for affected others, showing up everywhere - on TV, social media, streaming platforms, sports coverage, and even in the post. For those living with someone trying to cut down or stop gambling, this constant exposure was seen as getting in the way of progress. It kept gambling visible and, in some cases, made it harder for them to stop. Targeted offers like free bets or bonus promotions were especially harmful, as they often appeared at moments when the person was trying to step back, making relapse more likely.
The GAMSTOP self-exclusion scheme was understood by some affected others as a meaningful safeguard, but its limitations were visible and disillusioning in practice. Advertising sometimes continued to reach the person gambling after self-exclusion, including from unlicensed companies operating illegally and who explicitly marketed themselves as outside GAMSTOP’s scope. Affected others could not tell whether those operators were licensed or unlicensed, nor find a clear recourse to redress. The experience of watching what should be a trusted protective measure be undermined without any ability to intervene, compounded the sense of helplessness that characterises much of the affected other experience.
More broadly, safer gambling tools are currently designed around the person gambling’s consent and action. Deposit limits, account restrictions, and self-exclusion all require the person gambling to initiate and maintain them. The practical work of harm prevention tends to default to the affected others themselves, through informal and improvised strategies that are burdensome, unsupported, and largely outside of the formal protection landscape. The Commission and other stakeholders, including other statutory bodies, may wish to consider what a more affected other-inclusive approach to safer gambling tools could look like, whether that is through third-party flagging mechanisms, shared account protections, or other routes that do not require the person gambling’s consent as the sole point of entry.
Evidence Theme 5: Product characteristics and risk
Online and app-based gambling, particularly mobile casino and slot games, was consistently identified by affected others as the form most strongly linked to escalation, concealment, and delayed recognition. The invisibility of mobile gambling, its constant availability, and the removal of any natural friction or stopping point were experienced as qualitatively different from in-person gambling. They were also described as direct contributors to the affected other experience of hypervigilance, mistrust, and sustained anxiety.
The shift from in-person or social gambling to individual mobile-based gambling was identified by many participants as a turning point, not just in the person gambling’s behaviour, but in the affected other's ability to see what was happening. In-person gambling was more obvious, and felt contained. App-based gambling was not legible in the same way, and the consequences of that invisibility were borne disproportionately by affected others.
Participants also described the effects of features like digital payments, free bets, promotions, and bonuses. They highlighted how these features can make it harder for both the person gambling and the affected other to accurately perceive the scale of the amount being spent.
Evidence Theme 6: Illegal gambling and crime
While this research was not designed to explore the illegal gambling market directly, participants’ accounts touched on its consequences in ways that are relevant to the Commission’s work on this theme.
The most consistent finding was participants’ inability to distinguish between licensed and unlicensed operators. On social media in particular, advertising did not indicate to audiences whether they were for operators within the regulated market. For affected others already struggling to manage the person gambling’s behaviour, this was a largely invisible distinction.
This was most evident in participants' experiences when the person gambling had self-excluded. Where the person gambling had registered with GAMSTOP, some participants described advertising continuing to reach them from operators who explicitly marketed themselves as outside GAMSTOP’s scope. It is most likely these operators are unlicensed, operating outside the regulatory framework and therefore outside the reach of the protections that apply to the licensed market. Affected others were unaware of this and did not distinguish between licensed and unlicensed operators in their accounts.
These findings point to the illegal gambling market as a complicating factor in the affected other experience, undermining the protections available within the licensed market, and extending the reach of gambling advertising beyond regulated channels.
It is also worth noting that in a small number of cases, there were links to wider gambling related crime. Two participants described the accumulation of debts with lenders connected to criminal networks, with threatening behaviour directed at the affected other and their family. These cases illustrate how gambling-related harm can draw affected others into contact with gambling-related crime, with serious consequences for their safety and wellbeing.
Previous sectionImplications for the GSGB and future data collection Next section
Recommendations for further research
Last updated: 25 June 2026
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.