Why the UK sector should prove its case to the Gambling Commission

Many in the UK gambling industry feel their voices are being ignored. That feeling has become harder to dismiss as white paper measures have taken effect, gambling taxes have increased and Labour MP Alex Ballinger has argued for the 2005 Gambling Act to be reviewed in light of technological change. Reform keeps arriving, and for many operators the market feels more restrictive.

Remote Gaming Duty has risen from 21% to 40% of gross gambling yield, while a new 25% remote betting rate within general betting duty will apply from April 2027.

Gambling has become a political football. Operators watch MPs chase short-term wins in an unstable political climate while organisations outside the industry often appear to have a louder voice in the policy debate. Plenty in the sector feel they have no way of answering back, and it is hard to blame them.

So when the Gambling Commission invites the industry to put forward proposals on regulatory burden, a degree of scepticism is only natural. Some will read it as engagement after the event rather than a genuine invitation to shape what comes next.

What the Commission has actually asked for

The Commission is asking the industry to point to areas where regulation is creating disproportionate pressure, then back that up with evidence showing what could be changed or adapted without weakening its core licensing objectives.

That covers requirements or guidance that have simply been overtaken, whether by time or by other regulatory change, and no longer do the job they were designed for. It includes the Commission’s own Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice, although proposals can reach beyond them.

White paper measures are, in practical terms, off the table. Affordability checks, enhanced identification checks, the statutory levy and the online slots stake cap are settled, and this exercise is not a route to reopening them. Live policy areas are unlikely to be revisited unless there is strong evidence of adverse consequences.

This is not a consultation, and the Commission has been clear about that. The industry is therefore being asked to do something more disciplined than lobbying. It is being asked to distinguish between regulation it dislikes and regulation that no longer works as intended.

The rough with the smooth

Gambling is licensed because it carries risks relating to crime, fairness, openness, children and vulnerable people. Mature operators know that effective regulation is part of the price of a viable, stable market. Effective regulation also means accounting for the realities of the black market and being proportionate.

Some burdens are necessary. A licensed market needs anti-money-laundering controls, safer-gambling checks and fair terms. Serious operators know that.

But some burdens consume time, money and management attention without obviously improving consumer protection or regulatory oversight. These are areas where firms spend more time interpreting expectations than improving controls.

Making the case properly

The strongest responses will be specific. If an operator wants a requirement changed, it needs to show what the problem is, what the cost is, where the duplication sits and how the licensing objectives would still be protected.

The Commission will not be persuaded by general frustration. It will need evidence and a workable alternative. A proposal that can show the same protection for consumers, or better, with less friction along the way, is the one that gets read twice.

That means keeping its statutory purpose in mind. Gambling must be kept free from crime and conducted fairly and openly. Children and vulnerable people must be protected from harm or exploitation.

This is where the industry has to separate necessary safeguards from avoidable process. The more clearly a proposal does that, the harder it becomes to dismiss.

Take note of past mistakes

There is also a lesson to be learned from the fractured response to the Gambling Act Review. Too many misaligned voices leave decision makers with little coherence to take on board, even when individual ideas have merit.

There is now a chance for trade bodies like the Betting and Gaming Council to organise areas of focus and encourage collaboration across the sector, so the strongest arguments arrive backed by evidence from more than one operator.

In a sector where healthy debate is too often stifled by suspicion and defensiveness, the industry has been invited to make the case for proportionate regulation.

SolutionsHub empowers iGaming and fintech businesses to succeed in any market without complexity. The team of former regulators, government officials and industry veterans provides unparalleled insight into licensing, compliance and operational challenges.