Britain’s gambling regulator cannot show how many GamProtect users were stopped from gambling. It also cannot confirm whether the system failed during the year ending 31 March 2026.

The gap leaves operators, lawmakers and consumers without a basic measure of whether the industry’s shared self-exclusion technology is working as intended.

The disclosure came in a Gambling Commission freedom of information response published on 30 September 2026. The request covered 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 and sought records of system failures, blocked attempts, contacts and registered users. (Gambling Commission)

What the regulator disclosed

The Commission said it could neither confirm nor deny whether it held records showing that GamProtect users were able to gamble despite being registered with the system. It relied on section 31(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the law-enforcement exemption.

The regulator said disclosure could affect the openness of sources that share information with it and could prejudice its regulatory work. That refusal to confirm or deny is not proof that failures occurred.

On successful interventions, the answer was clearer. The Commission said it held no information on attempts flagged or blocked by GamProtect, including attempts to gamble or open an account.

  • Seven GamProtect-related contacts reached the Commission’s contact centre during the reporting year.
  • 12,778 people were recorded on GamProtect as of 20 March 2026.
  • The response gave no matching count of blocked accounts, refused registrations or prevented gambling attempts.

The registered-user figure also falls nine days short of the requested 31 March 2026 reference date. The Commission did not explain the difference in its published response.

Why the missing number matters

GamProtect is an industry scheme designed to let participating gambling companies share information about customers who need stronger protection. Its stated aim is to help those customers receive safer-gambling controls across participating UK-licensed websites. (GamProtect)

A registration total shows the size of the scheme, not its results. It does not show how often an operator identified a person, stopped an account opening, closed an account or prevented a gambling transaction.

The Gambling Commission’s guidance says businesses must take reasonable steps to stop people gambling after self-exclusion. It also says gambling businesses must have their own self-exclusion arrangements. Customers who manage to gamble while excluded are encouraged to report it because those reports help test whether procedures work. (Gambling Commission)

The FOI response provides a count of people inside GamProtect, but no public measure of the protection delivered to them.

A fragmented system with different schemes

GamProtect is not the same as GAMSTOP. GAMSTOP covers online gambling through a single self-exclusion request. GamProtect is an information-sharing scheme intended to support operator protections for customers identified as needing further safeguards.

Land-based gambling uses separate arrangements. The Commission lists schemes including GAMSTOP Betting Shops, SENSE, the Bingo Association’s scheme and BACTA-linked systems. These frameworks do not create one universal self-exclusion database across every form of gambling in Great Britain. (Gambling Commission)

In a separate September 2025 freedom of information response, the regulator said it held no information on plans by independent land-based scheme operators to extend self-exclusion sharing beyond GamProtect. It confirmed that licensed operators must provide their own self-exclusion arrangements and participate in the relevant multi-operator scheme under licence conditions. (Gambling Commission)

The risk beyond licensed websites

The data gap comes as the Commission examines why some self-excluded gamblers move to illegal websites. In a report published on 18 September 2025, the regulator found that nine per cent of surveyed online gamblers had previously signed up to GAMSTOP.

The figure rose to 38 per cent among respondents with a high Problem Gambling Severity Index score. The report said some self-excluded people searched for websites that were not registered with GAMSTOP. It also recorded concerns about aggressive marketing, payment risks and difficulties withdrawing money.

That evidence does not prove that GamProtect failed. It does show why regulators need to distinguish between three separate questions:

  • How many people are registered?
  • How many attempts does the system detect?
  • How many gambling opportunities does it actually prevent?

(Gambling Commission)

What remains unknown

The FOI response does not establish whether GamProtect suffered a technical failure, how many participating operators use it, how many alerts were generated or what happened after an alert.

It also does not say whether the Commission plans to publish performance measures.

For Great Britain’s licensed online gambling market, the result is an uncomfortable imbalance. The system can count people placed inside the protective network. Public data cannot yet show how often that network catches them before gambling continues.