UK

DCMS has updated the Terms of Reference for the Gambling Levy Programme Board, providing further detail on the governance framework overseeing the distribution of funding for gambling-related harm research, prevention and treatment (RPT) initiatives, projects and programmes under the UK’s new statutory levy.

The Board is structured to bring together relevant UK government departments alongside representative authorities from the Scottish and Welsh governments, reflecting both the cross-departmental scope of levy spending and the devolved nature of health and education policy.

DCMS states that the Board’s principal duty is to ensure that appointed commissioning bodies are delivering on the government’s objectives to improve and expand research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm.

The department notes that levy expenditure spans multiple departmental boundaries, making it necessary to establish a formal forum through which stakeholders can collectively monitor the levy’s progress and performance.

As such, the Board holds collective responsibility for overseeing the overall functioning and health of the levy system, including whether it is delivering against agreed objectives and commissioning priorities.

However, the department stresses that the Board does not hold responsibility for decisions on detailed expenditure programmes, which remain the responsibility of the individual commissioning bodies appointed by DCMS.

New leadership for new levy
Under the updated framework, the Gambling Levy is overseen by a role-based Levy Board, rather than by individually appointed public figures.

The Board is chaired by the Director for Sport and Gambling at DCMS, a position currently held by senior civil servant Ben Dean, and is supported by the Deputy Director for Gambling and Lotteries, currently Julie Carney.

DCMS has published an annex confirming that the Board comprises 10 members, all appointed due to their institutional role within the levy system rather than in a personal capacity.

DCMS retains overall responsibility for implementing the statutory levy. Under Section 123 of the Gambling Act 2005, the DCMS Secretary of State — currently Lisa Nandy — or the minister responsible for gambling policy, Baroness Twycross, holds final approval powers over levy funding allocations, alongside HM Treasury.

The Treasury is formally named in the legislation as a joint approver, providing fiscal oversight, though DCMS notes that its engagement is expected to be proportionate, particularly after the levy’s first year of operation.

Operational responsibility for commissioning is distributed across specialist departments. DHSC leads on treatment and public health, overseeing both NHS England as the treatment commissioning body and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) as the prevention lead.

DSIT acts as the sponsoring department for research through UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Meanwhile, the Scottish and Welsh governments retain responsibility for prevention and treatment spending within their respective jurisdictions, reflecting the devolved status of health and education policy.

The implementation of the RPT levy – formerly the research, education and treatment (RET) levy – is one of the biggest ongoing adjustments for UK gambling, though next year’s tax raises will likely take this mantle from it.

Changes include the levy’s mandatory status, as well as the NHS taking over the lead from GambleAware as the main commissioner of treatment projects – a move that has led to the planned dissolution of GambleAware in March next year, wrapping up over 20 years of activity.

Flutter Entertainment has reached a £2m regulatory settlement with the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) over social responsibility failures relating to customer interaction with its Paddy Power Betfair brands.

Social responsibility failures listed by the UKGC included having systems “not sensitive enough to identify indicators of harm”, resulting in customers making significant losses, deposits, stakes or activity before being identified for interaction.

In response, a Flutter UKI spokesperson has told iGaming Expert that there is “no suggestion” from the commission that any of the customers reviewed experienced any harm and that the operator believes it leads the industry in player protection.

Won’t be repeated

Flutter told iGaming Expert that the issues spotlighted in the UKGC investigation will not occur again.

“Flutter takes its safer gambling responsibilities incredibly seriously and we firmly believe that we lead the industry in player protection,” said a Flutter UKI spokesperson.

“Customer safety is our number one priority and there is no suggestion that any of the customers reviewed by the Gambling Commission experienced any harm. Our controls have evolved significantly and we recently introduced a next generation customer safety platform, with the vast majority of checks now happening in real-time.

“As such, we are confident that the issues highlighted by the Commission in its public statement would not be repeated today. We continue to invest in our technology and our people to raise standards in the regulated industry.”

This is the second time Paddy Power Betfair has faced regulatory action from the UKGC, as the operator was fined £490,000 for marketing to vulnerable customers in 2023.

Social responsibility failures

The UKGC stated that four remote operators, trading under the names Paddy Power and Betfair – PPB Entertainment Limited, PPB Counterparty Services Limited, Betfair Casino Limited, and TSE Malta LP – will pay the money as part of the settlement with the commission.

As previously mentioned, the listed social responsibility failures for Paddy Power Betfair included not having sensitive enough systems in place to identify harm indicators:

One customer deposited £12,000 over 15 days before they were identified for review.

Another customer deposited £25,000 in 25 days before being contacted.

A third customer lost £12,300 in five weeks before being identified for an interaction.

A fourth customer staked £86,000 over 16 days during which time they lost £6,000. No manual account review took place despite the high velocity of spend.

A fifth customer displayed concerning behaviour in terms of intense spikes in activity without interaction, with their longest session throughout 17 days being seven hours and 46 minutes. Over 300 bets amounting to £20,000 were placed in this period. Their gambling behaviour was only identified as an indicator of harm after hitting a loss trigger, at which time the account was manually reviewed.

Fully cooperative

However, the UKGC did list mitigating factors, as they said Paddy Power Betfair put an action plan in place swiftly that was designed to remedy the failings and provided updates, with some improvements taking place before the compliance assessment.

In addition, the operator was said to be fully cooperative with the commission’s investigation throughout, being open and collaborative and providing information by agreed deadlines. Paddy Power Betfair was also said to have “accepted the failings at an appropriately early stage in the investigation”.

John Pierce, Director of Enforcement at the UKGC, added: “This £2m settlement reflects the seriousness of the failings identified and the importance of meeting social responsibility and customer interaction standards.

“Our compliance assessment in 2024 uncovered examples where interactions fell far short of what is required. These failings should never have occurred. While the licensees co-operated fully with the investigation, accepted the failings early, and implemented an action plan quickly, this immediate response is the minimum we expect from operators when serious shortcomings are identified.

“Operators must ensure systems to identify and address harm work effectively and at the right time. Over-reliance on automation and failure to intervene when clear harm indicators are present exposes consumers to unnecessary risk. Where we find failings, we will act decisively to protect players.”

Leading gambling treatment charities have accused the UK government of “shifting the goalposts” as they prepare for the implementation of the statutory levy.

A spokesperson for Gordon Moody revealed fears for the future of charity, telling The Guardian that sustainability remains uncertain beyond March 2026 – as it adapts to the NHS becoming the main administrator for the treatment and prevention of gambling harms.

“This approach is leaving longstanding, expert and proven organisations like Gordon Moody uncertain about their future beyond March 2026, and is already impacting on frontline services and the people with the most severe gambling harms,” the spokesperson said.

“We are calling on the government to approve interim funding for charities delivering essential treatment and prevention activities for the next 12 months and to initiate a comprehensive evaluation of all treatment providers.”

These worries were also shared by Victoria Corbishley, Chief Executive of GamCare, who revealed to The Guardian that services like GamCare still “don’t know what commissioners want from us from April”.

It’s a lack of clarity that should raise alarm bells for the government, with it significantly risking the ability of such organisations to provide support to problem gamblers.

What is the statutory levy?

Following changes made by the government, UK operators are now required to contribute to a statutory levy to support research, education and treatment (RET), with contributions determined by companies’ gross gambling yield.

As such, the NHS has replaced GambleAware as the leader of allocation funding for the treatment and prevention of gambling harms. Previously, GambleAware, which is undergoing a managed closure until March 2026, distributed funds garnered from voluntary contributions from the industry.

20% of the expected £100m annual yield will be allocated to research, while the Prevention Commissioner, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID), will receive 30% of the levy funding.

Finally, the remaining 50% will go to the NHS, which will commission treatment and support services in collaboration with the third sector.

Continued concern

However, concerns have refused to die down over how the funding will be allocated and the future of charities like Gordon Moody.

As far back as March, Shafaq warned that the uncertainty over funding was being exacerbated by calls from some within gambling reforms to exclude organisations “tarnished” by taking money from the industry in the past.

Speaking on a recent episode of iGaming Daily, Dan Waugh, Partner at Regulus Partners, echoed these concerns, saying that many charities will be “put in a real pinch” due to the “ideological purity” that public health insists on.

“These charities have been told you cannot seek money from the gambling industry, which has funded you for the past 25 years or more, you’re not allowed to. Charities will be put in a real pinch,” he said.

“The commissioners under the levy generally are self-interested. So OHID and the NHS both have their own services. They will likely prioritise them, which means that charities will be at the back of the queue.”

Minister for Gambling, Baroness Twycross, who is being charged with leading the NHS-led approach to addressing gambling, has previously promised that the new levy will build on the work of organisations within the third sector.

She said: “As the new statutory gambling levy system comes into effect, managing a smooth and stable transition is an absolute priority, and we are taking significant steps to maintain service provision. The new levy system will build on the successes of the current system to improve and expand efforts to further understand, tackle and treat harmful gambling.”

However, as the new year draws closer and the industry adapts to the new framework, as well as a significant upheaval in the UK’s tax regime, the future of the third sector remains shrouded in an uncertainty that the government will need to work quickly to clear to ensure vital treatment isn’t disrupted.

NetBet Enterprises Limited has been ordered to pay a £650,000 penalty after an investigation by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) discovered anti-money laundering and social responsibility failures.

The operator, which runs netbet.co.uk, will also undergo an independent audit into its operations and will pay the money as part of a settlement with the commission, with all £650,000 going to socially responsible causes.

“This case highlights the serious consequences of failing to meet anti-money laundering and social responsibility obligations,” stated John Pierce, Director of Enforcement at the UKGC.

“We expect all operators to take note and ensure their systems are not only well-designed but are working effectively to protect consumers and to keep crime out of gambling.”

AML failures

Regarding AML, the UKGC noted that failures by NetBet included being over-reliant on financial triggers, with examples of customers being able to spend disproportionately to their net income.

According to the commission’s report, one customer was not referred to the Money Laundering Reporting Officer and remained AML low risk “despite depositing circa £2,000 within four active days, via an e-wallet (Apple Pay), and working in a higher-risk occupation”.

The customer later submitted a pay slip which “showed monthly net pay of circa £2,800, however, disproportionate spend was not considered when the customer deposited £1,650 within a two-hour period”.

The UKGC also discovered examples of “significant gambling activity” where customers were still considered low risk despite demonstrating concerning behaviours.

In addition, the operator’s money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment also “omitted some key risks, including the management of third-party business relationships, high stakes gambling and controls relating to third-country nationals residing in the UK”.

Exhausted monthly deposit limit in minutes

Regarding social responsibility, the UKGC listed that NetBet’s failures included not implementing effective customer interaction systems and processes to minimise the risk of customers experiencing harm associated with gambling.

NetBet also failed to identify indicators of harm promptly, such as overnight play, velocity of deposits/exhausting limits and escalated gameplay. These indicators were often also only identified after a manual review had taken place.

According to the commission’s report, one customer “routinely exhausted their monthly deposit limit within a few minutes” depositing £15,000 within 40 minutes in one session, then four weeks later £15,500 within two hours.

The customer was also able to “deposit £31,000 in a two-day period at the end of one month (£15,500) and the beginning of the next month (£15,500), because the limits set were per calendar month”.

However, the behaviour was only identified as an indicator of harm after the customer’s account was manually reviewed.

It was noted by the commission that “low-level interventions were occurring, and systems have since been strengthened”.

The UKGC added that inaccurate information was submitted by NetBet when the operator filed its regulatory returns.

“The operator was instructed to take immediate action and make significant improvements to its systems and controls,” Pierce stated.

“This included strengthening their risk assessments, improving how they identify and respond to indicators of harm, and ensuring the accuracy of the data they report to us.”

Action plan

Regarding mitigating factors, the UKGC stated that NetBet had:

Swiftly put in place an action plan to remedy the failings and provided updates

Fully cooperated with the investigation and provided information by agreed deadlines

Accepted the failings at an appropriately early stage in the investigation.

An independent audit of NetBet’s operations will also be carried out to make sure that the improvements being made are effective.

iGaming Expert has reached out to NetBet for comment on the penalty it has received from the UKGC.

Pierce added: “Alongside the £650,000 financial penalty, the operator is also required to commission an independent audit of its policies, procedures, and controls to ensure the necessary improvements they have implemented are properly embedded and remain effective in practice.

“Our focus is on ensuring operators meet the standards we expect, and where they fall short, we will intervene.”

Betfred has told iGaming Expert that it has found “no evidence of criminal spend” in any of its betting shops after a UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) investigation discovered social responsibility and anti-money laundering failures.

The UKGC investigation resulted in a £825,000 fine for Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Limited, who run Betfred’s land-based operations, as well as a warning and the operator will undergo a third-party audit to ensure AML and safer gambling policies, procedures and controls are being implemented effectively.

Between May 2024 and March 2025, AML failures listed by the commission through its investigation included:

Unable to effectively identify and manage money laundering risks associated with customers using B3 gaming machines. Machine alerts and daily reports were used, but practices in 2024 meant the operator was unable to assess overall customer spend and the associated money laundering and terrorist financing risks.

Not having an effective policy in place to identify and handle customers who may be subject to financial sanctions.

Thresholds for enquiries regarding customers’ income source not being appropriately risk-based – thresholds set at £15,000 losses and at £125,000 stakes in 365 days.

Between May 2024 and November 2024, the UKGC discovered the following social responsibility failures:

Not being able to adequately identify spend and any associated financial indicators of gambling harm for customers using B3 gaming machines.

Customer interactions were not always taking place after a risk indicator was identified, or when they did, interactions were not conducted in a way which minimised gambling-related harm risk.

Quality of interactions, in particular, understanding the interaction’s impact, did not meet the standards required.

Betfred defence

In response to the investigation, Betfred has told iGaming Expert that it has made improvements to its operations and that it did not discover any information that pointed towards criminal spend.

“Following a review of our UK-based betting shops by the Gambling Commission, we have further strengthened our Anti-Money Laundering and Social Responsibility policies,” said a Betfred spokesperson.

“During the review, the Commission found no evidence of criminal spend in our shops. Betfred is committed to ensuring a safe gambling experience for all our customers.”

This is the second time Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Limited has faced regulatory action, as the operator paid a £3.25m regulatory settlement for social responsibility and AML failures in 2023.

John Pierce, Director of Enforcement at the UKGC, said: “While the failings identified during the 2024 Compliance Assessment were predominantly technical breaches rather than arising from specific customer examples, they were nevertheless unacceptable, particularly with thresholds appearing too high and insufficiently risk-based when assessed in practice, and deficiencies in some processes and procedures adopted by the Licensee.

“We fully acknowledge the improvements the operator has already made since these issues were identified, and the independent audit will be key to confirming these changes are sustained so that the operator continues to be fully compliant with social responsibility and anti-money laundering requirements.”

Online regulatory action

Betfred’s online platform operator, Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited, also recently received a £240,000 penalty from the UKGC for having online slot features which breached its Remote Technical Standards (RTS), including “hosting games which failed to display the consumer’s net position and games which celebrated losses as wins”.

RTS requires all gaming sessions to clearly show a customer’s net position, and a gambling system must not celebrate returns that are less than or equal to the total stake gambled.

Concerns about the celebratory effects’ fairness when a customer was in an overall losing position were raised by the UKGC, which stated that it may “negatively impact a player’s ability to interpret their gameplay accurately and make informed choices”.

According to the report, action was immediately taken by Petfre (Gibraltar) to decommission the affected titles.

A Betfred spokesperson told iGaming Expert: “When we identified the issue with games provided by a third-party supplier, we acted quickly to remove them and reported the issue to the Gambling Commission. This experience has helped us improve and strengthen our safeguards.

“We’re committed to player protection and ensuring the very best and most transparent experience for all our customers.”

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ruled against Lewis Hamilton’s inclusion in betting social media campaigns for the second time this quarter.

Betway has been told to remove a Facebook post from 4 July 2025 which centred around Formula One. The post featured a video of three F1 drives, filmed from behind, along with the Betway logo.

The driver standing in the middle of the trio wore a red uniform with ‘Hamilton’ sketched across the back, while the other two did not have any names. A heading read ‘Who’s the best of the Brits?’.

A complainant queried whether the ad violated the CAP Code by featuring someone who may be of strong appeal to under-18s. The ASA has upheld this complaint, reiterating its view that Hamilton has a strong appeal to young people and comes across as a role model.

The ASA’s statement explained: “The ad featured Sir Lewis Hamilton, who had won a joint-record seven Formula One World Drivers’ Championship titles and was recognised with a knighthood in 2021 for his outstanding achievements and contribution to motorsport.

“In his “Hall of Fame” bio on the Formula 1 website, Sir Lewis Hamilton was described as recognising his responsibility as a role model for young people, which further described that “the social media star encouraged his millions of supporters in ‘Team Hamilton’ to follow their dreams and never give up”.

The ASA did say that it may have allowed the use of an athlete with strong appeal to under-18s in a medium where visibility by that demographic could be excluded, but did not consider Facebook to be such a medium.

To support its rationale, the ASA referenced Hamilton’s 6.3 million Facebook followers – though noting that the demographic of these has not been determined – as well as his 1.6 million under-18 followers across Instagram and TikTok.

Hit brakes on Lewis Hamilton ads
To avoid bad press, it’s probably best for the betting industry to avoid using Hamilton, and probably other F1 drivers, on social media posts and other marketing. As noted above, this is not the first time the seven-time drivers champion has appeared in an ASA ruling.

Just under two months ago, a plethora of ASA rulings came out in just one day, one of which focused on Hamilton’s inclusion in a kwiff social media post. Similar to the Betway post, the kwiff one came ahead of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone this year, which Hamilton won.

Marketing is becoming an increasingly complex task for operators, with the CAP Code guidance presenting multiple factors for operators to consider. On the same day as the kwiff ruling, Betway was told to remove a post featuring Chelsea FC scarves and Sky Bet to remove a post featuring Gary Neville, despite football pundits and retired players previously being approved in other ASA rulings.

As the dust settles on last week’s UK budget, however, marketing expenditure is likely going to decrease too. Operators need to cut costs as they prepare for tax hikes to take effect from April next year, and marketing is a logical first step.

As marketing expenditure drops, perhaps recurrent complaints – the ASA has issued countless rulings this week while University of Bristol researchers seem to be a constant source of complaints – will also drop.

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has increased its regulatory scrutiny of Adult Gaming Centres (AGCs) throughout this year.

Andrew RhodesCredit:UKGC
This was confirmed by UKGC CEO Andrew Rhodes himself in his speech during amusements trade body Bacta’s Annual Convention in Leeds.

Rhodes confirmed that official communiques were sent out by the regulator to all licensed AGCs earlier this year, reminding them of obligations around self-exclusion.

Although not directly referenced, this move could’ve been prompted by an undercover BBC investigation published back in June where a reporter was allowed access to multiple AGC venues in South England despite self-excluding themselves prior to that.

At the time, John Bollom, then-President of Bacta, criticised the investigation for being “unrepresentative” of the land-based arcade sector that the organisation represents – words also echoed by Rhodes in his latest speech.

“The media coverage often implies that one case or one example is indicative of the industry or sector as a whole. You know, this may be unfair, but it is the reality,” the UKGC CEO said.

“Earlier this year, the Commission wrote to all adult gaming centre licensees to remind them of their obligations around self-exclusion.

“Unfortunately, despite the warnings, some operators weren’t taking their responsibilities seriously. At the start of this month we announced that we had taken decisive regulatory action.

“Seven AGC operators have seen their operating licences immediately suspended this year for failing to be part of a self-exclusion scheme. While most of those licences have since been reinstated following clear steps to remedy failings, all operators concerned remain under investigation, which may result in further regulatory action being taken.”

Illegal land-based gambling ripe for culling
Whether or not the UKGC was reminded of its land-based compliance assessment duties by the BBC report remains a topic of speculation. One thing, however, that remains fully within the UKGC remit and which the regulator never leaves out of sight is funding.

The 25 November Budget announcement by Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves revealed a total of £26m of additional funds set aside for the regulator, to be granted over a period of three years.

This was warmly welcomed by the UKGC and the importance of the announcement was further emphasised by Rhodes’ words: “In my 20 years on executive boards of public bodies I’ve never known that kind of multiple from the Treasury ever before.”

The top honcho of UK gambling regulation additionally revealed that the money will be used specifically to push back against illegal land-based gambling, but what exactly that fight will look like still remains to be seen.

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) signed a joint declaration against black market gaming with its peers in Europe on the morning the government increased taxes and a £26m war chest to fight unlicensed operators. The government said that the tax rises will cause some leakage to the black market, which it factored into its sums.…