UK youth gambling rates stable despite survey changes
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has published the datasets of its Young People and Gambling Survey 2025 facing its now customary questioning.
The protection of adolescents from gambling remains one of the most emotive in UK gambling, particularly amid a backdrop of political concerns of digital harms and dysfunctional behaviours. Yet beyond the headlines lies a picture that is hard to frame by numbers and stats alone.
Participation rises but context matters
The Commission reports that 49% of young people aged 11–17 participated in some form of gambling in the past year. But this topline figure is under the context that the majority of activities are “legal, non-commercial, or informal,” ranging from arcade machines to private bets between friends.
Of significance, 30% of young people reported spending their own money on gambling — a modest rise from 27% in 2024.
The Commission attributes this increase primarily to a rise in unregulated, informal gambling, not underage access to licensed products. In fact:
21% spent money on arcade machines
14% bet with friends or family
5% played cards for money
Just 6% spent money on age‑restricted, regulated forms of gambling — exactly the same level as last year
Youth problem gambling “statistically stable”
The most politically sensitive figure — the youth problem gambling rate — is reported at 1.2%, down from 1.5% in 2024. The Gambling Commission is clear: this shift is “statistically stable,” meaning the change is not significant given sample size and margins of error.
But here is where industry analysts such as Dan Waugh of Regulus Partners who raise important questions.
The DSM‑IV‑MR‑J, used to classify “problem gambling”, is not a diagnostic tool. Its thresholds are broad: behaviours such as using lunch money to gamble or arguing with parents can count toward a score of “four or more” — the bar for an “adult problem gambler.”
By comparison, NHS Health Surveys, using adult screening tools (PGSI, DSM‑IV), consistently find near-zero problem gambling in 16–19‑year‑olds. If the “crisis” identified by DSM‑IV‑MR‑J disappears as soon as participants turn 16 or 18, something is off.
This leads Waugh and others to argue that the tool inflates prevalence and can create the appearance of a “youth gambling problem” that the harder data simply does not support.
Advertising high exposure but no causation
Advertising remains the political lightning rod. The survey shows:
49% of young people see gambling ads weekly on social media
47% see them in apps
Boys are particularly exposed (53% on YouTube vs 31% of girls)
But again, exposure does not mean influence. The Commission’s own data shows most young people do not act on these ads, and many of the ads they see are for lotteries, not high-risk gambling products.
Waugh also notes that some studies cited to support advertising restrictions use “extraordinarily wide definitions of children” — including people up to age 25 — or classify someone as “susceptible” if they refuse to say they will never gamble in the future. The framework is hardly rigorous.
Check the regulatory temperature
Operators recognise their responsibility to protect young people, and most already back: stricter ID checks, dedicated youth education programmes and heavily restricted marketing pathways.
But there is growing concern that selective readings of the YPGS are being used as a blunt tool to justify sweeping restrictions. Yes — policy should evolve and safeguarding matters. But policy built on misinterpreted or overly broad data will rarely deliver the intended outcomes.
A useful tool… but poorly used
The YPGS has been shown to have been one of the best resources that have helped to inform on youth behaviour, in particular with regards to first adolescent engagements with gambling..
However, when its findings are stripped of nuance or weaponised, it is little a guide to constructive policy and great simply for serving as a political sledgehammer.
If it means to actually improve protections for young people, then we need more accurate measures to determine youth/teen harms. Policy interventions need to be based on measured analysis, not alarmism as the data is useful. but the real concern lies in how it’s used.