Featured

OASIS self-exclusion proves effective for volatile German gambling market 

iGamingExpert0153 views

OASIS, the central gambling self-exclusion system of Germany has recorded a major ramp-up in 2024 in-line with new measures imposed on licensed operators to improve player protection and customer intervention as part of regulatory remit of the Fourth Interstate Gambling Treaty (GlüNeuRStV),

Operated by the Darmstadt Regional Council under the oversight of the Bundesland of Hesse, the system is a key component of the (GlüNeuRStV) regime, in force since August 2021. OASIS acts as a centralised registry allowing players to block themselves from all licensed gambling platforms both online and land-based.

“The number of exclusions recorded in the OASIS player blocking system is increasing continuously,” the report states, “which suggests growing awareness and use of player protection measures.”

Graph 1: “Gesamtanzahl der in OASIS eingetragenen Sperren” (Total bans over time)

Over the course of 2024, more than 320,000 new exclusions were recorded, a significant jump from prior years. This rise is thought to reflect stronger public awareness, as well as greater consumer appetite for preventative tools as regulated gambling offerings expand across Germany.

GlüNeuRStV terms dictate that all licensed gambling operators must immediately make customers aware of several mandatory player protection tools, forming the cornerstone of the country’s consumer safeguarding strategy – tools that cannot be considered an option under German Law.

Players can register either voluntarily or through third-party referrals, such as family members or operators. Once listed, individuals are blocked from participating in any licensed gambling activity nationwide.

Unlike traditional blacklists, OASIS allows users to tailor the length of their exclusion. Durations range from the mandatory minimum of three months to multi-year bans, with the one-year option proving the most popular—accounting for over 50% of all exclusions.

Graph 2: “Dauer der eingetragenen Spielsperren” (Exclusion duration breakdown)

“The one-year exclusion period remains by far the most frequently chosen,” the report notes, “accounting for the majority of current entries.”

While many opt for short-term blocks, a growing proportion of users—particularly those with a history of problem gambling—are locking themselves out for between two and ten years, or more.

Among the standout features of the system is the 24-hour self-block, which has become a default safeguard. Available via a single click on any licensed gambling operator’s website, the feature was triggered between 40,000 and 55,000 times per month during 2024—suggesting it has become a go-to harm-reduction tool.

Graph 3: “Kurzzeitsperren (24-Stunden-Sperre)” (24-hour blocks)
Insert after this paragraph to show regular monthly use, peaking near 50,000.

“This option is activated immediately by the player without further checks,” according to the official guidance. “The ban is lifted automatically after 24 hours.”

OASIS is also a core part of operator compliance. Before processing any bets or player activity, licensed operators—both digital and physical—must verify each customer against the OASIS register. In 2024, that translated into more than 100 million verification checks per month, underlining the scale of the system and the regulatory load on providers.

Notably, exclusion registrations continue to outpace removals, contributing to a steady net increase in the number of blocked individuals.

Graph 4: “Eintragungen und Aufhebungen von Sperren” (Registrations vs Removals)

Insert here to show the gap between new bans and lifted ones—removals falling to ~3,000 while entries stay above ~8,000.

“The number of successful applications for lifting an exclusion remains low,” the report acknowledges, adding that third-party ban reversals require “psychological and financial evaluations”.

While the operations of OASIS remain under the jurisdiction of the Bundesland of Hesse, and not directly overseen by the federal Gambling Authority (GGL), the system’s data, structure, and regulatory insights are expected to play a key role in shaping future gambling policy across Germany.

Its insights will inform the upcoming academic atlas on the Fourth Interstate Gambling Market, particularly in areas concerning advertising regulation and customer protection frameworks. As Germany enters the fifth year of its regulated interstate gambling model in 2026, these foundational debates continue to polarise opinion within the Bundestag, especially around questions of governance efficacy, federal-state alignment, and the balance between market liberalisation and consumer welfare.

Read more

GambleAware goes for concrete but lands on glass in latest industry critique

Steve Hoare0137 views

A study by GambleAware has claimed that operator safer gambling ads have a reverse effect, but it’s not without speculation.

Commissioned by the safer gambling charity, consultancy group Thinks Insight & Strategy looked at problem gambling campaigns produced by five different entities – GambleAware itself, the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), Betfair, William Hill, and 888, the latter two owned by the evoke Group.

The research paper was conducted as a Randomised Controlled Trial with a total pool of 4,013 participants. The charity did note that this presents a risk of bias, as only 443 participants meaningfully engaged with the practical part of the exam.

Participants were presented with a random safer gambling video from the catalogue, after which a pop-up of a mockup betting app was shown on screen, prompting the viewer to claim a free bet.

According to the study, the ad by GambleAware had the lowest click-through rate (3%) towards the betting app. This was followed by Betfair’s ad (4%) and BGC’s (6%). William Hill (18%) and evoke (15%) ads had the highest rates.

Alexia Clifford, GambleAware Chief Communications Officer, said: “This new research shows that so-called ‘safer gambling’ videos produced by gambling operators could be doing more harm than good. It’s unacceptable that adverts claiming to help people reduce their risk of harm are encouraging people to gamble more instead.”

Clifford called for more monitoring of industry-led ad campaigns led by stronger legislation on gambling marketing and advertising.

Potential for biases
As noted above, the report highlights that there was room for biases, with the researchers pointing that there were a list of limitations as far as the methodology is concerned.

As mentioned previously, any concrete conclusions are impossible due to the small number of participants (443) that went through with the betting app.

Furthermore, the research measured click-through rates to the mock gambling app instead of actual wagers placed. The authors highlighted that it is difficult to get an accurate estimate of actual gambling harm risks without direct evidence of financial expenditure.

Finally, the survey acknowledged that questions were placed at the end of the experiment, which could’ve led to a “cognitive fatigue” that led respondents to answers which they would’ve otherwise answered differently – essentially inflating PGSI scores.

GambleAware will stop existing in March 2026 as a result of a new UK statutory framework which will see the NHS manage all research, education and treatment funding to combat gambling-related harms.

Read more

Interview: Huw Thomas on Recovery in Gaming 

Steve Hoare0147 views

Former NYX, SG Digital and OpenBet marketing supremo Huw Thomas has launched Recovery in Gaming, an alcohol and drug recovery community for people in the gambling industry. Recovery in Gaming is holding its first meetings at the SBC Summit in Lisbon from Sept 16th-18th. Here, we speak to Huw about the origins of Recovery in…

Read more

AGs’ cry for help to DOJ shows need for support in black market battle

SBC Americas0149 views

States and stakeholders begging the U.S. federal government to take a firmer stance against unauthorized gambling is nothing new. But, given the industry shifts we’ve seen in recent times, and the strength of both the numbers and the evocations used this time around, the latest incident makes one sit up and take notice.

In their letter to the Department of Justice this week, a group of 50 U.S. attorneys general urged the DOJ to quell the “rampant spread” of illegal gambling by replicating online poker’s Black Friday of 2011.

Calling for measures such as the pursuit of injunctive relief under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and the seizure of website domains and other assets, the chief legal officers of 46 states are essentially egging on the federal government to smash doors and take names.

Their rhetoric sounds powerful, and 50 AGs coming together to urge such action is certainly meaningful. But the very fact that states are sending cries for help to federal..

Read more

Opinion: Poland calls on EU to tighten noose on illegal gambling payments

Steve Hoare0167 views

Justyna Grusza-Głębicka
Dr Justyna Grusza-Głębicka reports that Poland has initiated a direct fight against grey market gambling payments. In full swing, consequences could be felt beyond Polish borders as stakeholders will likely demand the EU intervene on facilitating illicit payments…

Battleground drawn
Since 2017, Poland has enforced legislation prohibiting payment service providers (PSPs) from facilitating transactions for websites blacklisted in the country’s Register of Domains Used to Offer Gambling in Violation of the Law. PSPs are required to block such services within 30 days of a domain being listed. In practice, however, enforcement has been inconsistent and the grey market for online gambling has flourished.

Now, Polish regulators are stepping up their efforts. Authorities have turned their focus to the financial intermediaries that continue to process transactions for offshore gambling operators, despite legal prohibitions. The target is clear: the estimated 41% of the market that remains outside the state’s regulatory reach.

Poland operates a monopoly on online casino operations, granted exclusively to Totalizator Sportowy, a state-owned entity. But this monopoly has been persistently undermined by unauthorised operators, many of whom find willing partners among payment institutions that, knowingly or otherwise, enable funds to flow across national and regulatory boundaries.

Coordinated actions
The matter took centre stage at the European Financial Congress, held in Sopot in June, during which the financial sector and the grey area of gambling were discussed.

Participants included Beata Stelmach, CEO of Totalizator Sportowy; Maciej Akimow, CEO of iGaming Dragon; Tadeusz Białek, representing the Polish Bank Association; Adam Lamentowicz, an executive at Superbet Group and President of the Polish Chamber of Entertainment and Betting Industry; Marcin Mikołajczyk, representing the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF); and Jerzy Mroczek. associated with the BLIK mobile payments system.

The creation of a dedicated task force was proposed, with the aim of combating the transfer of funds to illegal operators.

The declarations made at the Congress quickly found real-world resonance. A discussion broke out on LinkedIn noting that the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) had sent letters to payments companies, stating that it had identified the involvement of certain PSPs of offering payment services related to online gambling in Poland without the required licenses, with some PSPs cooperating with others.

The authority expects payment providers to immediately verify their operations in this context and comply with Poland’s Gambling Act by ceasing to provide such services.

Deep consequences
This is an important message for all entities involved in the payments market. It is worth noting that not every entity technically enabling payments has the status of a payment institution. However, even without such status, it may still be held liable. This includes not only administrative liability but also potential criminal or fiscal-criminal responsibility.

Put simply, payment providers, whether complicit or merely inattentive, can be viewed as “enablers of a shadow economy”. Though Poland is now moving assertively, its experience mirrors that of many EU member states struggling to contain grey-market gambling without a harmonised legal framework.

Spotlight on Brussels
There are currently no unified EU-level regulations concerning gambling apart from a few specific provisions applicable across all Member States – at least for now.

However, there is a clear trend towards harmonisation in the financial regulatory space. The gambling sector has found ways to operate underground and has embraced cryptocurrencies.

Still, we now have the MiCA Regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation), which introduces harmonised EU-wide rules on crypto-assets, specific requirements for entities operating in this space, and applicable AML procedures.

Whether this signals a more coordinated European approach to gambling oversight remains to be seen. But the message from Warsaw is unmistakable: those facilitating illegal gambling whether operators, affiliates, or financial intermediaries will no longer be given a pass.

_______________________________

Author Bio: Dr Justyna Grusza-Głębicka is a lawyer and expert in gambling law in Poland. She holds a Doctor of Laws degree, with her doctoral dissertation focused on the issue of state monopoly in the gambling sector. She runs her own law firm, specializing in gambling law, compliance-related matters, particularly anti-money laundering (AML), audits, legal opinions, and obtaining licenses for gambling operators.

Dr Grusza-Głębicka is an active participant in academic conferences and the author of numerous publications, both scholarly and industry-oriented. In 2024, she was nominated for the prestigious Rising Stars – Lawyers of Tomorrow award, organized by Wolters Kluwer.

Read more

Government warned about threat to gambling harm support network after GambleAware closure

iGamingExpert0170 views

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has told iGaming Expert that the UK Government’s move to a statutory levy “must not mean handing control to a narrow group of anti-gambling campaigners or creating a publicly funded cottage industry driven by ideology rather than evidence”.

Representing the regulated UK betting and gaming industry, the standards body’s statement comes in response to GambleAware announcing last week that it would undergo a “managed closure” by the end of March next year as a result of the new levy system.

The BGC highlighted the work achieved by GambleAware in providing gambling harm support, before reminding the UK Government that it is important to make sure funding is still made available to services who can offer help to those that need it the most.

A BGC spokesperson said: “GambleAware has played a central role in funding and commissioning independent research, education and treatment for more than two decades, underpinned by the voluntary contributions of the betting and gaming industry.

“This long-standing commitment, unmatched by other sectors, has helped establish and fund services that support thousands of people every year.

“While we campaigned for and support the Government’s decision to move to mandatory contributions, this must not mean handing control to a narrow group of anti-gambling campaigners or creating a publicly funded cottage industry driven by ideology rather than evidence.

“What matters is that funding remains independent, ringfenced and focused on delivering real outcomes for those at risk of harm.”

Industry concerns

Many in the gambling industry have raised concerns about the funding of services once the switch to the statutory levy takes place.

Deal Me Out has written to the Government asking for services to be treated fairly, while GAMSTOP Group highlighted the vital work GambleAware has done and stated that it believes this will continue under the statutory levy, adding that player welfare must be the focal point of all work.

GambleAware’s CEO Zoë Osmond has called on the levy’s Research, Prevention and Treatment Commissioners – the UK Research and Innovation, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, as well as NHS England and relevant bodies in Scotland and Wales – to build on the charity’s work.

Dan Waugh, Partner at Regulus Partners, believes the funding system is not living up to its billing and is creating more uncertainty for gambling harm treatment providers. BetBlocker Founder and Trustee, Duncan Garvie, added that service providers must be protected during the statutory levy transition period

Some of these statements were also echoed by the BGC, calling for any decisions that will be made to be based on facts.

The standards body said: “Industry contributions have totalled over £170m since 2020 alone, supporting NHS clinics, third-sector providers, and national education programmes. BGC members remain unequivocally committed to safer gambling, and to a robust, independent, and evidence-led system.

“The transition to a statutory levy must protect existing expertise, maintain service continuity, and ensure that decisions are based on data, not dogma.”

UK Gov wants ‘smooth and stable transition’

In response to GambleAware’s closure, the UK Government’s Minister for Gambling, Baroness Twycross, praised the charity’s work and the wider third sector, adding that the levy will build on their work and that a smooth transition to the new system is a priority.

“GambleAware and others across the third sector, including the National Gambling Support Network, have worked with tireless commitment over the years to commission and deliver effective services for people experiencing gambling-related harm,” noted Twycross.

“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.

“I want to thank GambleAware and all their staff for their efforts to support those in need across our country.”

Read more

UKGC to address data concerns after stats regulator critiques flagship survey of gambling habits

iGamingExpert0145 views

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has issued a response to the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) following its review of the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB), outlining a timetable for addressing any outstanding recommendations.

Within its response, the UKGC said that most of the recommendations will be addressed in October this year, which is when the second annual GSGB report is scheduled to be published.

GSGB reflections and OSR recommendations

Reflecting on the past year since the first official GSGB statistics were published, the Commission noted that the GSGB hub on its website had 5,271 user visits and includes a variety of outputs from the statistics, including a series of supplementary tables and two deep-dive reports.

Nearly 50 users downloaded the first GSGB raw data, published in the UK Data Service in February 2025, with the data being included in several externally published studies.

Back in May, OSR published its review of the GSGB from Professor Patrick Sturgis of the London School of Economics, outlining seven recommendations for the UKGC to act on. These recommendations were:

Research to better understand the relationship between the survey topic and the propensity of gamblers to respond to survey invitations

Undertake additional research to understand the role of socially desirable responding as the driver of the difference in gambling estimates between in-person and self-completion surveys.

Undertake a randomised experiment to evaluate the effect of the updated list of gambling activities on estimates of gambling prevalence and harm.

Take steps to assess the extent of potential bias in the subset of questions administered to online respondents only.

Continue to monitor best practice in the area of household selection of adults in push-to-web surveys.

Research the prevalence of gambling and gambling harm in groups that are excluded from the GSGB because they are not included in the sampling frame.

Seek opportunities to benchmark the estimates from the GSGB against a contemporaneous face-to-face interview survey in the future.

UKGC’s progress so far

Publishing its response to the OSR recommendations, the UKGC stated it has completed the following:

Updated the GSGB hub’s survey improvements page with information about experimental research commissioning – April 2025.

Hosted a webinar to launch experimental research implementing recommendations 1-3 from Professor Sturgis’ report – April 2025.

Provide a GSGB feedback channel for users – June 2025.

Created and published a user engagement strategy outlining how it will interact and understand the needs of users – July 2025.

Develop and implement a GSGB communications strategy – July 2025.

In terms of recommendations that are ongoing, the Commission stated that it will continue:

Updating the improvements page with the latest developments.

Incorporate user feedback to ensure the survey remains relevant.

Offer user feedback on contributions that can or can’t be addressed via GSGB.

Review and broaden the stakeholder engagement network where possible.

Build on partnerships with other official statistics producers.

Inform users on GSGB page updates in a timely and transparent manner.

Commission’s schedule ahead

As for what still needs to be completed, the UKGC has scheduled to:

Publish research governance framework – July 2025.

Receive feedback from the GSGB statistics user group on other information they would find useful regarding usage of statistics – July 2025.

Feedback from users on GSGB content they want to see published and how they would like to access data – July 2025.

Publish a report from experimental research – August 2025.

Show how GSGB links to evidence roadmaps – September 2025.

Provide additional quality assurance information in the GSGB technical report to combine UKGC and National Centre for Social Research processes – October 2025.

Publish information on how GSGB data is validated against other data sources within the technical report – October 2025.

Add links to guidance on using GSGB data from GSGB statistical landing pages and technical report – October 2025.

Tailor outputs to different users and potentially provide notes to editors when appropriate – October 2025.

Bring two GSGB technical support sections together – why the survey may underreport (people with lived experience may not respond) and why it may overreport (gambling focused) – into the same section – October 2025.

Potentially update guidance after experimental research based on Professor Sturgis’s recommendations and share with the statistics user group – October 2025.

Update materials relating to GSGB consistency and comparability with other related statistics after experimental research to implement Recommendations 1-3 from Professor Sturgis’s report is completed – October 2025.

Expand Power Bi dashboard, offering more granular data, cross-tab potential and smaller geographical area data – October 2025.

Bring hyperlinks from Excel contents page to tables and data tables – October 2025.

Investigate adding Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for publications to track how GSGB is being used and/or published – October 2025.

Publish communication on how GSGB data fits within the broader gambling data landscape and how data is integrated with other sources – December 2025.

Benchmark GSGB data against Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) – December 2025.

Benchmark GSGB data against the 2024 Health Survey for England – March 2026.

Additional questions have also been incorporated into the GSGB, including questions on consumer trust in gambling, unlicensed gambling and if respondents have registered with GamStop, while the question set about bingo has been expanded to understand the locations where bingo is being played in person.

Read more