The deal would broaden OpenBet’s technology portfolio, but it does not automatically give OmniLogic permission to offer gambling services in Great Britain.

What OmniLogic adds

OmniLogic provides technology for regulated lottery operators and sportsbook businesses. Its platform includes:

• Trading operations
• Risk management
• Back-office functions
• Retail, online and mobile betting

European Gaming reported on September 16, 2026, that the Győr-based company has served regulated operators and World Lottery Association members across Europe, the Middle East and Africa for more than a decade. OmniLogic also has teams in Cyprus and the Philippines.

Why Great Britain matters

OpenBet is a business-to-business supplier, not a consumer-facing bookmaker. Its technology can support licensed operators, but the proposed acquisition would not itself authorise OmniLogic to provide gambling services to players in Great Britain.

The Gambling Commission’s public register lists OpenBet Limited as holding an active remote gambling software licence. The company is listed under account number 3213, with a London head office and a licence active from January 1, 2009.

The register confirms OpenBet’s existing software licence, but it does not confirm that the acquisition has been completed or that OmniLogic holds a separate British licence. Gambling businesses must meet separate requirements covering player protection, technical standards, anti-money-laundering controls and regulatory reporting.

A wider supplier consolidation question

European Gaming described the purchase as part of OpenBet’s expansion since its management buyout from Endeavor Group Holdings in March 2025. OpenBet previously acquired Neccton, a responsible gambling and anti-money-laundering technology specialist, in June 2023.

For British operators, the immediate issue is not a change to betting rules. It is whether a larger supplier can combine sportsbook, lottery, retail and compliance technology without disrupting the systems used by licensed businesses.

That question will remain open until the transaction receives regulatory approval and OpenBet sets out how OmniLogic’s products and teams will be integrated.

The figures were published by the Gambling Commission on 17 September 2026. They show a sharp contrast between online betting and activity at racecourses.

• Online horseracing betting turnover fell 0.4% year on year to £7.85 billion.
• On-course turnover rose from £240 million to £270 million.

The data covers Great Britain and licensed operators from April 2025 to March 2026. It excludes Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Online turnover falls while racing yield rises

The online turnover decline was smaller than in the previous reporting period. Turnover fell from more than £10 billion in 2021-22 to £7.88 billion in the year to March 2025.

Despite the lower turnover, remote betting gross gambling yield from horseracing rose by almost 1% to £769.3 million.

Gross gambling yield is the amount operators retain from stakes after paying winnings. It is measured before other costs and taxes.

Horse racing was one of the few major online betting segments to record higher yield. Overall remote betting gross gambling yield fell 7% to £2.45 billion during the same period, according to Racing Post’s analysis of the Gambling Commission figures.

Racecourse betting bucks the wider retail decline

The on-course increase came as Britain’s betting-shop network continued to shrink. The number of betting shops fell to 5,617 in March 2026, down 3.6% from a year earlier.

• Over-the-counter horseracing turnover in betting shops fell 3.65% to £2.9 billion.
• Non-remote betting gross gambling yield fell 3.3% to £2.4 billion across the full sector.

The stronger racecourse result does not establish why bettors changed their behaviour. Industry figures have linked the shift to pricing, product availability and customer checks. Those explanations remain claims, not findings by the Gambling Commission.

Affordability checks remain part of the debate

DragonBet co-founder James Lovell told betting.co.uk that restrictions applied away from racecourses were discouraging some customers. He also said changes to tax and betting products had reduced traditional bookmakers’ ability to compete on price.

That argument puts racing’s commercial concerns alongside the regulator’s player-protection duties. Licensed operators in Great Britain must comply with Gambling Commission rules on customer interaction, identity checks, financial risk and harm prevention.

Higher on-course turnover alone cannot show that customers are avoiding online safeguards. It does give policymakers another data point when assessing how regulation affects different betting channels.

Why the split matters for British racing

British racing receives funding through the statutory Horserace Betting Levy. The levy is based on a share of gross gambling yield from bets on British racing, so yield matters more directly than turnover alone.

The latest figures show lower online turnover, higher online racing yield and a rare expansion in on-course betting. They do not, by themselves, explain the change in customer behaviour.

The remote racing yield of £769.3 million implies a levy base of roughly £76.9 million at a 10% rate, before adjustments under the levy system. This is a calculation from the published figure, not the final amount collected by the Horserace Betting Levy Board.

Racing also faces pressure from betting-shop closures, higher operator costs and possible future tax changes. Further retail decline could affect media-rights income and other commercial payments that support racecourses and the wider racing economy.

What happens next

• The Gambling Commission’s figures will remain the main official benchmark for Great Britain’s licensed market.
• Racing bodies and bookmakers will continue to dispute the effects of affordability checks, product restrictions and tax policy.
• Policymakers will need to separate verified changes in betting behaviour from industry claims about their causes.

The immediate picture is clear. Online racing betting has stabilised at a lower level, while the racecourse market has expanded. Further evidence will be needed to determine whether that reflects renewed interest in attending races, changes in pricing or a shift away from online restrictions.

The increase is set out in the Gambling (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. The statutory instrument was made on 14 July and laid before Parliament on 16 July. It is scheduled to take effect on 1 October.

The immediate question is whether higher fees will give the Gambling Commission stable funding, or lead to further increases and legislative changes.

Why the fees are rising

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the Gambling Commission’s reserves could be exhausted during the current financial year without an October fee increase.

The department linked the pressure to higher regulatory costs, investment, changes in the gambling market, illegal gambling risks, and product and payment innovation.

The Commission has also recorded annual budget deficits since its fees were last updated in 2021, according to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The committee said the government had created urgency by bringing forward the regulations shortly before the summer recess. The changes are due to take effect during the parliamentary conference recess.

Operators will not all pay the same increase

The 25% figure is an overall increase. The amount payable will depend on the licence type, the operator’s gross gambling yield band, and the regulatory work linked to the activity.

• Some remote casino operators will face increases above 25%.
• Some licence holders will face smaller increases.
• Some operators may receive a fee reduction.
• Society lottery fees are largely exempt from the increase.

The Gambling Commission has published revised application and annual fee tables for charges starting on 1 October. The new schedules use wider gross gambling yield bands for several betting licences.

That means operators must check the yield band assigned to their licence category rather than apply the headline 25% figure to every charge. UKiGaming also reported that operators would face higher costs from October.

Commission must find £8 million in savings

The Commission must find at least £8 million in efficiency savings over five years to maintain the same level of activity under the new arrangements, the scrutiny committee said.

DCMS told the committee that the savings were achievable and consistent with the government’s Better Regulation agenda. It also said the government would provide about £26 million to support work against illegal gambling over the next three years.

The committee warned that continued financial pressure could affect licensing, compliance and enforcement work. It urged the government to introduce primary legislation giving the Commission greater flexibility and control over its funding.

Great Britain rules do not cover Northern Ireland

The new fees apply to Gambling Commission licences covering England, Scotland and Wales under the Gambling Act 2005.

Northern Ireland has separate gambling legislation and enforcement arrangements. The October changes are not a licensing reform for the whole United Kingdom.

What operators need to check

The regulations have already been made and are scheduled to come into force on 1 October 2026. Operators serving the Great Britain market should check three points before the new charges apply:

• the relevant licence category;
• the applicable gross gambling yield band;
• the next payment date.

The fee increase is therefore only part of the change. The longer-term issue is whether the new income will provide enough resilience for the Gambling Commission to regulate a changing market without relying on repeated emergency increases or future primary legislation.

Land-based gambling grew more slowly. Its yield increased 1.1 percent to £4.9 billion during the same period.

Online gambling accounted for just under half of Great Britain’s total gambling yield as the number of licensed premises continued to contract.

• Total gambling Gross Gambling Yield reached £17.5 billion, up 4.4 percent.
• Licensed gambling premises fell 2 percent to 8,081.
• The number of betting shops fell 3.6 percent to 5,617.
• Remote casino, betting and bingo generated £8.3 billion.

What the figures measure

Gross Gambling Yield measures the yield generated by operators from customer gambling. It is not the same as stakes, deposits, turnover, revenue after costs or profit.

The annual figures come from regulatory returns submitted by operators licensed by the Gambling Commission.

The £8.3 billion remote figure combines online casino, online betting and online bingo. The Gambling Commission’s headline release does not provide a separate total for online casino. The figure should not be described as casino revenue alone.

Online growth meets higher tax

The statistics cover April 2025 to March 2026. From April 1, 2026, HM Revenue and Customs increased Remote Gaming Duty from 21 percent to 40 percent for remote gaming with UK customers.

The tax increase took effect after most of the reporting period covered by the Gambling Commission’s data. It creates a new financial test for online casino operators as they enter the following reporting period.

The duty applies on a UK place-of-consumption basis. The Gambling Commission’s industry statistics cover Great Britain.

Participation is a separate measure

The Gambling Commission’s participation research does not directly explain the industry yield figures. Wave 1 surveyed 5,277 adults in Great Britain between January 19 and May 26, 2026.

The survey found that 49 percent had taken part in any gambling activity during the previous four weeks. Participation fell to 28 percent when people who only played lottery draws were excluded.

Industry Gross Gambling Yield and survey participation answer different questions. The first measures operator yield reported through regulatory returns. The second estimates consumer activity from a sample of adults.

What the data shows next

The figures show a market shifting further towards regulated online services while the physical gambling network contracts. They do not establish whether gambling-related harm has risen or fallen.

The key question for licensed operators is whether remote growth can continue after the April 1 tax increase. For consumers, the data points to a smaller retail network and a larger online market.

FTSE Russell confirmed the move in its September quarterly review, published on September 2. The decision follows the rules of the FTSE UK Index Series. It is not a Gambling Commission sanction or a finding against Entain’s operating licences.

Entain’s index transfer changes its position in UK equity benchmarks. It does not change the company’s ownership structure, operating licences or regulatory status.

What changes for investors

• Entain leaves the FTSE 100 after the close of trading on September 18.
• The company joins the FTSE 250 at the start of trading on September 21.
• The move may affect funds that track either index.
• It does not alter Entain’s corporate structure or gambling regulation.

Index changes can affect funds that track the FTSE 100 or FTSE 250. They can also draw attention to a company’s share-price performance, market value and ability to deliver its recovery plans.

The transfer does not mean Entain has left the London market. The company remains listed on the London Stock Exchange. Entain’s shareholder information identifies its operational headquarters and tax residency as being in the UK. The company is incorporated in the Isle of Man.

Pressure on the UK business

Entain has direct exposure to Britain through brands including Ladbrokes and Coral. Its Great Britain operations are overseen by the Gambling Commission. Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands operate under separate legal and licensing arrangements.

Entain said in its 2026 interim results that higher UK online gambling taxes will affect its 2026 outlook. The company expects to offset part of the increased tax impact while continuing to target lower leverage.

Those expectations are company guidance. They are part of the investment case, not an independent regulatory assessment.

What the move does not show

Entain’s transfer to the FTSE 250 does not by itself indicate a breach of safer-gambling rules, anti-money-laundering controls or advertising standards. The Gambling Commission records licensing information and enforcement decisions separately from stock-index reviews.

The commission’s public register was updated on September 17, 2026. A stock-index review and a regulatory register serve different purposes, so neither should be treated as a substitute for the other.

Why the change matters

The immediate consequence is greater financial scrutiny. Investors will assess whether Entain can protect its UK earnings, absorb higher gambling taxes and reduce debt while competing in a regulated market.

The next test is operational performance. Entain will need to show that its recovery plans can support stronger market value, whether inside the FTSE 250 or in a future return to the FTSE 100.

What Prediction.com offers

Prediction.com combines live sports data with market prices, trading volumes and event-contract information from multiple prediction platforms. Users can compare equivalent contracts across venues and track price changes as a game unfolds.

The service is designed for discovery and comparison. Genius Sports has not said in its announcement that Prediction.com accepts bets from consumers in Great Britain.

Prediction.com brings prediction-market information closer to consumers, but the launch does not itself authorise betting in Great Britain.

Why the British market matters

Genius Sports UK Limited holds an active Gambling Commission remote gambling software licence. The public register lists the licence as active from 19 February 2018 and records the company at an address in London.

• Licence holder: Genius Sports UK Limited
• Licence type: remote gambling software
• Licence status: active
• Start date listed by the register: 19 February 2018

That licence confirms a regulated UK gambling-software presence. It does not establish that Prediction.com is licensed to accept bets from British consumers.

The Gambling Commission said on 4 February 2026 that prediction-market products offered in Great Britain would generally be expected to fall within the existing gambling framework, depending on their business model. It said many such products could resemble betting exchanges and require an appropriate betting-intermediary licence.

No new UK gambling rule

The 17 September announcement is a commercial technology launch. It is not a new Gambling Commission rule, licence condition, consultation or enforcement decision.

If a platform later facilitates gambling with consumers in Great Britain, its operator would face requirements covering licensing, consumer protection, market integrity and crime prevention. The Gambling Commission has warned unlicensed prediction-market operators not to target or transact with consumers in Great Britain.

For the British market, the immediate change is commercial rather than legal. Genius Sports is establishing a consumer-facing gateway for comparing markets and following live probabilities, alongside its existing role as a supplier of data and integrity services to the sports and betting industries.

The case involved UK-facing advertisements for Casimba and The Grand Ivy Casino, operated by White Hat Gaming Ltd. The page included live match coverage, player statistics, team information and betting odds.

The ruling was an advertising decision. It was not a Gambling Commission licensing decision or an enforcement action against White Hat Gaming.

The ASA found no breach, but the case showed how difficult it can be to assess youth exposure when an esports website lacks direct age data for its visitors.

Why the ASA rejected the complaint

The ASA assessed the advertisements under rules 16.1 and 16.3.13 of the CAP Code. The rules cover social responsibility and the targeting of gambling advertising.

The regulator said the page was built around professional competitive esports. It did not consider the presentation to be directed at children or young people, despite the potential for live Counter-Strike coverage to attract under-18 viewers.

The CAP Code prohibits gambling advertisements from being directed at under-18s through the choice of media or context. The ASA also said such advertising should not appear in a medium where more than 25% of the audience is under 18.

The complaint was not upheld, and the ASA required no further action.

Audience data remained incomplete

The ruling highlighted a central problem for esports advertising. HLTV's website analytics did not provide reliable age data for under-18 visitors.

White Hat Gaming submitted referral data showing that users who registered after arriving from HLTV were adults. The ASA said that data did not establish the age profile of the wider audience because only adults could complete those registrations.

HLTV supplied social media figures. They showed that 1.5% of its Instagram audience was aged 13 to 17, while 3.6% of interactions on Twitter came from users in that age group. The ASA said the figures did not directly represent visitors to the HLTV website.

The regulator instead relied on the page's content and context. It concluded that the professional, data-led presentation did not indicate that under-18s were likely to make up more than 25% of the audience.

What the ruling means in Great Britain

The decision gives operators and esports publishers some regulatory clarity. It does not create blanket approval for gambling advertisements around gaming content.

Separate ASA guidance says marketers must consider whether the surrounding activity has strong appeal to under-18s. They must also take reasonable steps to reduce under-age exposure.

A previous ASA ruling involving a virtual football site found a breach after an advertisement was shown to a user known to be 16.

That contrast is significant. The Counter-Strike complaint concerned an open professional esports page where the visitor's age was not verified. The earlier case involved a logged-in user whose age was known.

White Hat Gaming holds active Great Britain remote licences for casino, real-event betting, virtual-event betting, bingo and gambling software, according to the Gambling Commission's public register. Those licences do not remove the separate advertising duties imposed by the CAP Code.

The decision leaves operators and publishers with a practical question. What evidence is sufficient when specialist esports sites attract adult betting audiences and younger gaming fans, but lack direct age data for every visitor?

About £8 million may have been staked with illegal gambling operators during the 2026 St Leger Festival, according to the Betting and Gaming Council. The trade body estimates that about £2 million of the total may have been placed on the St Leger itself.

The council issued the warning on 14 September, two days after the 250th running of the race at Doncaster Racecourse. The four-day festival ran from 10 to 13 September. The main race took place on Saturday, 12 September. More than 30,000 people attended St Leger Day, according to Doncaster Racecourse.

What the £8 million figure means

The estimate comes from the Betting and Gaming Council, which represents licensed betting and gaming businesses. It is not a regulator’s count. The Gambling Commission has not presented the figure as an independently verified measure of illegal betting at Doncaster.

The figure refers to estimated stakes, not operator revenue or confirmed customer losses. It does not show the amount lost by customers, the number of people who used illegal sites or the tax generated by the activity.

• Estimated illegal stakes during the festival: about £8 million.
• Estimated stakes on the St Leger: about £2 million.
• Festival dates: 10 to 13 September 2026.
• Attendance on St Leger Day: more than 30,000 people.

The council said illegal operators targeting British customers avoid requirements imposed on licensed businesses. These include age checks, anti-money-laundering controls and safer-gambling measures. It also said illegal operators make no direct contribution through the regulated betting market to British horseracing.

Why licensed bookmakers face pressure

Licensed bookmakers must compete with sites that may offer fewer checks and less friction for customers. Operators licensed in Great Britain remain responsible for identifying risk, monitoring customer activity and intervening when gambling may be causing harm.

Major sporting events bring concentrated betting activity over a short period. That creates an opportunity for unlicensed operators to target British customers through offshore websites, social media and payment channels.

The Gambling Commission’s 2026 money-laundering and terrorist-financing risk assessment, published on 30 July, identifies the increased presence of illegal casinos targeting British consumers as a growing concern. It rates remote casino, betting and bingo as a high-risk sector for exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing.

The assessment covers risks examined between 1 April 2023 and 31 October 2025. Its publication provides regulatory context for the council’s warning, but it does not verify the £8 million estimate.

How the regulator defines illegal gambling

The Gambling Commission defines illegal gambling in Great Britain as commercial gambling offered without a Commission operating licence or a valid exemption. A licence issued by another country does not permit an operator to offer gambling to consumers in Great Britain.

The regulator says illegal markets create a high risk of consumer harm because they operate outside the British licensing framework. Its enforcement work includes disrupting websites, referring domains to search engines and engaging payment and hosting providers.

If customers move to illegal sites, licensed operators can lose betting activity while still carrying the cost of complying with British rules. Racing may also lose income linked to the regulated betting market.

The policy dispute

The St Leger warning has renewed a long-running dispute. Industry representatives argue that a less competitive licensed market may push some customers towards illegal alternatives. Regulators and consumer-protection groups say stronger safeguards and action against unlicensed operators must work together.

The £8 million estimate cannot resolve that argument. It does show how a major British sporting event can test the boundary between licensed gambling, customer protection and the illegal market.

The findings raise a compliance question for operators serving customers in Great Britain. Do online casino interfaces present game rules, mechanics, costs and risks as clearly as promotions, rewards and potential wins?

The report does not create a new licence condition or announce an enforcement decision. The Behavioural Insights Team conducted the research for the Gambling Commission’s Consumer Voice Programme. The regulator may use the findings to shape future evidence work and policy development.

Information must work during play

The study reviewed 53 sources, held three deliberative focus groups and conducted four in-depth interviews with players at higher risk of gambling harm.

It proposes a consumer-led definition of informed choice. This means having an ongoing ability to understand and act on relevant information at each stage of gambling.

Rules, odds, mechanics, costs and risks should be presented with the same prominence as promotions and rewards, in ways consumers can understand and use.

That approach goes beyond placing information somewhere on a website. The report says understanding can weaken during play because of product design, speed, emotional state and narrowed attention.

Online casino design faces closer scrutiny

Participants reported different needs across casino products. Some players began using new casino games before understanding the rules. They favoured free trial modes and permanent, clearly visible menus explaining how games work.

Players familiar with casino games described the fast and immersive nature of play as a barrier. They wanted interventions that highlighted changes in stake, net spend and time spent on a platform.

The findings also identify a practical issue for operators and software suppliers. A game may meet existing technical requirements while still presenting information in a way that consumers do not notice, interpret or use.

Great Britain already has rules covering remote gambling information. The Gambling Commission’s technical standards require customers to see or easily access account balances, gambling history and net deposit information. Separate requirements cover game information and testing for licensed remote gambling software.

The research questions whether static disclosures are enough when fast play, promotional content or complex game mechanics can overwhelm important information.

No immediate rule change

The publication is an evidence report, not a consultation, piece of legislation or final enforcement notice. It does not announce penalties against a named operator or impose a new deadline on licence holders.

Its proposed definition could still influence future regulatory work. The Gambling Commission says the research will support work on consumer comprehension, decision-making and the impact of operator practices.

The immediate pressure is practical rather than legal. Operators serving England, Scotland and Wales may need to examine whether their casino journeys make key information visible before and during play, rather than relying only on terms, help pages or account statements.

The position does not automatically apply to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which operate under separate legal and regulatory arrangements.

What operators will need to watch

• Whether game rules and mechanics appear before a customer commits money.
• Whether potential losses receive comparable prominence to potential rewards.
• Whether net spend, stake changes and time played remain visible during a session.
• Whether safer gambling information is understandable for consumers with different levels of literacy and experience.
• Whether design speed or promotional features make important information easy to miss.

The research leaves the central question open. The Gambling Commission has not converted the proposed consumer definition into a new formal rule.

It has, however, indicated that informed choice may be judged by what consumers can understand and use during play, not only by what an operator has made available.

The consultation covers about 20% of the group’s 2,000 customer-care roles across 11 countries. Entain has not disclosed how many affected posts are in the United Kingdom. The process is not a final redundancy decision.

What Entain has announced

Entain, the Isle of Man-based owner of Ladbrokes, Coral and BetMGM, said on Wednesday, September 16, that it was reviewing its customer-care operation.

The company said the plan would address higher gambling taxes and simplify the structure of the function. Reuters reported that the roles are spread across the group’s international business, but did not identify their locations or provide a UK breakdown.

Why betting shops are central to the dispute

Entain chief executive Stella David wrote to Prime Minister Andy Burnham on September 11. She warned that doubling Machine Games Duty would add a major cost for labour-intensive betting-shop operators.

“A further doubling of Machine Games Duty would therefore add another significant cost to businesses already struggling to absorb major tax increases,” David wrote.

Machine Games Duty applies to qualifying gaming machines, including machines operated in betting shops. HM Revenue and Customs lists rates of 5%, 20% and 25%, depending on the cost of play and prize structure.

The tax changes already in force

The dispute follows a rise in remote gaming duty to 40% from April 1, 2026. Government policy documents also set out a 25% remote betting rate from April 1, 2027, subject to stated exclusions.

Those measures apply to remote gambling. They are separate from Machine Games Duty on qualifying machines in physical premises.

That distinction matters because the job consultation is international, while the warning about Machine Games Duty concerns betting-shop costs in Britain. The issues are linked by Entain’s broader claim that tax increases are forcing it to reduce costs, but they affect different parts of the business.

What changes for UK operators

• The 400-role consultation remains subject to a formal process.
• Entain has not confirmed UK job losses.
• A possible Machine Games Duty increase is not yet a final tax measure.
• Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited remains listed by the Gambling Commission with active remote and non-remote operating licences.

The Gambling Commission requires operators providing betting facilities in Great Britain, including betting shops and online services, to hold the relevant operating licences.

Its public register lists Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited as an active licensee for both remote and non-remote activities.

Why the consultation matters

The announcement gives the tax debate a direct employment dimension. It also shows how measures aimed at raising gambling revenue can affect different parts of a licensed operator, from customer support to high-street premises.

For workers, the immediate issue is consultation rather than confirmed dismissal. For betting-shop operators, the next key questions are whether the government proposes a higher Machine Games Duty rate, when any measure would take effect, and whether ministers publish an assessment of its impact on jobs, premises and player protection.

The consultation does not confirm UK redundancies, but it puts employment and betting-shop costs at the centre of the gambling tax debate.

The industry assessment estimates that betting-shop closures could reduce racing income by about £17 million a year through lower levy, media-rights and sponsorship revenue.

The scale of the retail decline

Racing Post reported the assessment on 16 September 2026. It estimates that the closures could cut racing income by about £17 million a year. The calculation includes funding linked to betting activity, including the Horserace Betting Levy and media-rights payments.

The Betting and Gaming Council estimates that around 11,000 gambling-industry jobs have disappeared since the previous Budget. Racing Post reported that the losses include:

• About 6,000 jobs in online gambling businesses.
• About 5,000 jobs linked to betting shops.
• About 600 shops that have closed or are closing since November.

The assessment attributes the closures to higher taxes, rising operating costs and weaker retail economics. It names William Hill, Betfred, Paddy Power and Entain among operators that have closed outlets or announced reductions.

Flutter Entertainment has said that up to 100 Paddy Power shops across the United Kingdom and Ireland are under review. About 400 roles could be affected. The company has not disclosed how many of those shops are in Great Britain, according to SBC News.

The tax measures at the centre of the dispute

HM Revenue and Customs raised Remote Gaming Duty from 21% to 40% for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2026. The Government has also set a new 25% rate for most remote betting from 1 April 2027.

Remote bets on British horse racing and bets placed through self-service betting terminals in licensed premises remain subject to the 15% rate.

Machine Games Duty remains separate. For the 2026 to 2027 tax year, the rates are 5%, 20% and 25%, depending on the machine’s cost of play and maximum cash prize.

The industry says further increases in machine taxation could make more betting shops unviable.

Why racing remains exposed

Racing was excluded from the new higher remote betting rate. Its wider commercial income still depends heavily on the health of licensed bookmakers.

Fewer shops can mean fewer betting transactions, weaker media-rights payments and less spending on sponsorship and customer offers. The projected £17 million reduction is therefore linked to the wider contraction of the retail network, not a direct tax increase on racing.

Government policy documents say remote bets on British horse racing remain at 15% because operators already pay a 10% statutory levy on those bets. That protection does not remove the commercial pressure created when bookmakers reduce their retail estates.

Licensed operators in Great Britain must continue to comply with Gambling Commission licence conditions and safer-gambling requirements, whether they operate online or from betting premises.

What changes next

• Operators are expected to continue reviewing shop numbers and staffing levels.
• Racing bodies face pressure to protect levy and media-rights income.
• The Treasury is likely to face renewed calls to assess the combined effect of gambling duties and business costs.
• Any future change to Machine Games Duty could affect the viability of more retail betting shops.

The central policy question is whether the Government can raise gambling revenue while preserving the retail network that supports jobs, high-street activity and a substantial share of racing’s commercial income.

The report will increase scrutiny of gambling marketing, but it will not change the law or impose new restrictions by itself.

The document is an evidence and scrutiny report. It is not legislation, a licence condition or a final regulatory decision. Any changes would require further action by ministers, Parliament, the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority or other relevant bodies.

What the Lords inquiry is examining

• How gambling advertising has changed since the committee’s July 2020 report.
• How under-18s are exposed to gambling marketing.
• The relationship between advertising, under-18 gambling and gambling-related harm among adults.
• Whether the current advertising rules are working effectively.
• Who or what is responsible for the estimated 1.0 million to 1.5 million adults in Great Britain experiencing problem gambling.

The review involved members of the former Gambling Industry Committee and the Liaison Committee. The House of Lords said copies would be released to the media under embargo on 16 September. Publication is scheduled for 00:01 on 17 September.

Why the timing matters

The inquiry comes as the government considers a separate proposal to ban advertising and sponsorship by gambling operators that do not hold a Gambling Commission licence for Great Britain.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport published the consultation on 15 July 2026. It closed on 9 September. The government’s preferred option would use secondary legislation and introduce the ban from a fixed date in August 2027, before the 2027-28 football season.

The proposal covers physical advertising and sponsorship arrangements. These include shirts, equipment, stadium advertising, event programmes and the naming of venues or competitions. The proposal is not yet law. The government said it plans to publish its formal response later in 2026.

Two separate regulatory questions

The Lords report is expected to examine the wider system for gambling advertising. That includes licensed operators, media placement, marketing content and exposure among young people.

The government consultation addresses a narrower legal gap. Under the proposal, a company, club, venue or other organisation could commit a criminal offence by advertising or accepting sponsorship from an operator that is not licensed by the Gambling Commission. This could apply even where the operator claims to block access from Great Britain.

The distinction matters. The Lords report cannot impose a ban. The government consultation cannot, by itself, rewrite the wider advertising rules.

What the current rules require

In Great Britain, licensed gambling businesses must comply with the Gambling Commission’s licence conditions and codes. Advertising must also meet the UK advertising codes enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Gambling marketing must not be directed at children or young people. The Gambling Commission says people under 25 must not appear in gambling marketing outside limited circumstances, including certain material shown where a bet can be placed directly.

The rules also restrict advertising that is likely to have strong appeal to under-18s. Sports personalities, celebrities, imagery and links to youth culture can create compliance risks when they make gambling marketing particularly attractive to younger audiences.

What happens next

• The Lords report will set out findings and recommendations, but not immediate legal changes.
• Ministers must decide how to respond to the consultation on unlicensed sponsorship.
• Any proposed secondary legislation would need parliamentary approval.
• The Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority would continue to enforce the existing framework unless new rules take effect.

For operators and sports organisations in Great Britain, the immediate issue is regulatory pressure rather than a new prohibition. The report could shape future government policy, but its legal effect will depend on decisions taken after publication.

Mr Justice Cawson issued the decision during a case management stage in Entain Operations Ltd & Ors v Liquidity Trading Ltd & Ors. The proceedings concern businesses behind Outplayed, OddsMonkey, Team Profit and Team Casino.

Those businesses provide information and tools linked to bookmaker offers in Great Britain. The case therefore tests how intellectual-property rights apply to services that direct customers towards licensed bookmakers’ promotions.

Why the copyright claim failed

The judge found that Entain had not pleaded its copyright allegations with enough factual detail. The deficiencies included:

• identifying the authors of the disputed works;
• stating the relevant publication dates;
• specifying the original elements on which Entain relied; and
• showing the ownership chain for websites, sports logos and casino logos.

The ruling was procedural. It was not a final finding that the disputed material could never qualify for copyright protection.

The court ordered that the copyright claim be struck out unless Entain promptly amends its pleadings to address the defects. Entain may still seek to identify the creators and establish assignments or exclusive licences.

The decision highlights the importance of documenting rights obtained through agencies, historic brand acquisitions and transfers between group companies. Long-term use of material does not, by itself, establish the authorship and ownership details required in a claim.

Trademark allegations survive

The High Court did not strike out the trademark infringement claims. The defendants accepted that those claims were sufficiently pleaded and had a real prospect of success.

The defendants are expected to rely on arguments including referential use, honest practices and the absence of a commercial connection with Entain.

The surviving claims concern about 18 Entain trademarks associated with brands including:

• Ladbrokes;
• Coral;
• bwin; and
• Sportingbet.

They focus on how matched-betting websites used brand names, marks and related information. The trademark claims do not depend on reconstructing the authorship history of every logo or website element.

The ruling narrows Entain’s case, but leaves the central trademark dispute for a later stage.

Why the case matters in Great Britain

Matched-betting businesses generally present themselves as information, training or educational services rather than gambling operators. They may refer users to bookmaker promotions and explain how betting activity can be coordinated across different markets.

That model operates close to the commercial activity of licensed bookmakers without necessarily making the service itself a licensed gambling operator. The litigation could clarify how far bookmakers can use intellectual-property law to challenge the commercial use of their brands by such services.

For Entain, the copyright setback increases the importance of the trademark claims. Those claims focus on the use of brand identifiers and do not require the same detailed evidence about who created each underlying design asset.

What happens next

Entain must decide whether to amend its copyright case within the period allowed by the court. If it cannot identify the relevant authors and establish the rights chain, the proceedings could continue only on trademark issues.

The September 10 decision is an interlocutory ruling. It does not determine whether the defendants infringed Entain’s trademarks, whether their use was protected as a legitimate reference to bookmaker services, or which side will ultimately prevail.

The High Court proceedings therefore remain unresolved.

Google announced the update on July 13, 2026. The policy extends a requirement introduced in March and applies it across all covered categories.

What changes for UK advertisers

Google permits advertising for online casinos, bingo, sports betting and other gambling products in the United Kingdom, except Northern Ireland, subject to its certification conditions.

In Great Britain, online gambling operators must also hold a valid operating licence from the Gambling Commission. Great Britain covers England, Scotland and Wales.

Google’s rules also cover gambling-promoting content, including affiliate and comparison websites. Those sites may advertise only when the gambling services they promote meet the relevant local authorisation requirements.

• Advertisers must demonstrate good policy health.
• Businesses must directly own and control the domain submitted for certification.
• Free subdomains and unrelated standalone domains are not eligible.
• Landing pages must display licensing, responsible gambling, age and privacy information where required.

Manager accounts face wider exposure

Google said manager accounts, which agencies and marketing groups use to control multiple advertising accounts, can lose eligibility after repeated online gambling certificate revocations.

Accounts operating under a manager account may also put existing certifications at risk if they repeatedly breach gambling policies. An agency’s compliance record can therefore affect several clients.

Repeated certificate revocations or gambling policy violations can prevent a manager account from applying for new online gambling certificates.

Google checks do not replace UK licensing

Google certification does not replace UK gambling regulation. The Gambling Commission requires businesses advertising gambling into Great Britain to hold the relevant licence. Operators also remain responsible for marketing carried out by affiliates and other third parties.

The Commission’s advertising requirements form part of the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice. Breaches can lead to a licence review, financial penalty, suspension or revocation.

A comparison site may not need a Gambling Commission operating licence in every case. The operator connected to its marketing must still manage the risks created by that relationship. Google separately requires affiliate destinations to link only to fully licensed and authorised gambling entities in the targeted market.

Why the Great Britain distinction matters

Google identifies the eligible market as the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland operates under a separate gambling framework and is not covered by the Gambling Commission’s Great Britain licensing regime.

For UK-facing advertisers, the compliance review now extends beyond checking an operator’s licence. Agencies and affiliates must also examine:

• Domain ownership and control.
• Licensing information on landing pages.
• Linked brands and promoted operators.
• Previous account and certification breaches.
• The compliance record of the manager account controlling the campaign.

What happens next

The policy is already effective. It does not create a new UK gambling licence, but it gives Google a stronger basis to refuse or withdraw advertising certification.

For licensed operators, the commercial risk is losing access to a major advertising channel. For affiliates, the immediate pressure is on licensing claims, promoted websites and controls designed to prevent repeated policy breaches.

The ASA ruling makes clear that an AI-generated character can still breach gambling advertising rules if the finished ad makes the character appear under 25.

What the ASA found

The paid TikTok ad was seen on 3 July 2026. It showed a man using a gambling app and promoting a football betting offer.

The ASA said the character's facial features, hairstyle, clothing and behaviour made him appear to be in his late teens or early twenties. It found that the ad breached CAP Code rules 16.3 and 16.3.14.

The regulator rejected the argument that the character's fictional, AI-generated status removed the advertising risk. It assessed how the character appeared to viewers. The ad showed him gambling and placed him at the centre of the promotion.

The ASA ordered Dribble Media Ltd, trading as Midnite, and Limay Media Ltd not to run the ad again in the form complained of. The decision was an ASA ruling, not a Gambling Commission licence sanction. (Advertising Standards Authority)

Midnite blamed an unauthorised affiliate

Midnite told the ASA that it had not authorised the ad. It said Limay Media created the material without permission to publish paid social media posts.

Midnite said it investigated the matter and ended its relationship with the affiliate.

Limay Media said its usual process included management review and client approval. It said that process failed in this case and that the ad remained online for only a few hours.

The company said it later added age-related prompts, specific checks for perceived age, and records of AI-generation and approval steps.

Why the ruling matters for Great Britain

The case raises a central compliance question: how much control must a licensed operator retain when an affiliate produces and distributes its advertising?

Midnite's published affiliate agreement requires prior written approval for additional advertising material. It also says that affiliates and the company share responsibility before the UK advertising authority for content published on the company's behalf or intended for UK customers.

The Gambling Commission separately says responsibility for compliance on an operating gambling website remains with the licence holder and cannot be transferred to another party. Its guidance says gambling businesses must take reasonable steps to control risks created by affiliates and other third parties.

• Affiliate contracts do not replace operator approval and monitoring.
• AI-generated characters still require checks for apparent age and youth appeal.
• Operators need records showing who created, reviewed and approved each campaign.
• Ending an affiliate relationship after publication does not prevent an ASA ruling on the advertisement.

No fine, but a wider control problem

The ASA ruling does not announce a financial penalty or a Gambling Commission investigation. Its direct action is that the ad must not appear again in the complained-of form.

The ruling also instructs both companies to prevent similar use of people who are, or seem to be, under 25 in gambling advertising.

The practical risk extends beyond the individual ad. A licence holder may outsource production, media buying or affiliate distribution, but a public-facing breach can still affect the operator's brand and compliance position.

That makes approval logs, access controls, campaign audits and rapid takedown procedures important parts of advertising compliance for operators serving Great Britain.

The decision also gives advertisers a clear warning about synthetic creative. Calling a character fictional or AI-generated will not resolve an age-appeal complaint if the finished advertisement makes the character look too young.

Shufti said its Transaction Trust Monitoring product links transaction alerts to identities verified during customer onboarding. It routes cases through controlled investigations and prepares reports for review by a money-laundering reporting officer.

The company said the system does not replace human judgment. A designated officer must review and approve any report before further action is taken.

The technology may automate detection and case preparation, but licensed operators remain responsible for the decisions made under their anti-money laundering controls.

What the system does

According to Shufti’s September 10 product announcement, the platform scores transactions against identity and compliance information collected during onboarding. It is designed to connect suspicious activity with a customer record rather than treat each transaction as an isolated alert.

• Transaction alerts are linked to verified customer identities.
• Cases move through role-controlled investigation workflows.
• Reports can be prepared for approval by a money-laundering reporting officer.
• Operators retain responsibility for the final decision.

Shufti Pro Limited remains an active private company registered at Coppergate House in London. Companies House lists its business activities as software development and data processing.

The Companies House record does not establish that Shufti Pro holds a Gambling Commission operating licence.

Why Great Britain is a target market

The Gambling Commission published its 2026 money-laundering and terrorist-financing risk assessment on July 30. The assessment covers licensed gambling in Great Britain and examines risks during the period from April 1, 2023, to October 31, 2025.

It rates remote casino, betting and bingo as high-risk sectors. The Commission identifies remote verification limits, fraudulent documents, mule accounts, multiple payment methods and the growing use of artificial intelligence to bypass know-your-customer controls as relevant risks.

The assessment is a regulatory risk document. It is not a new law or a new licence condition. It is intended to inform operators’ own risk assessments and the Commission’s supervision and enforcement work.

Operators still carry the legal burden

Licence condition 12.1.1 requires gambling licensees to assess their exposure to money laundering and terrorist financing. They must maintain suitable policies, procedures and controls, implement them effectively and review them when circumstances change.

An automated monitoring tool cannot transfer those obligations to its supplier. The operator must determine whether the system identifies relevant risks, produces usable evidence and supports the controls required under its licence.

For British operators, the key test will be whether AI helps reduce missed warnings without creating a new layer of unchecked automated decisions. The Gambling Commission’s rules continue to place accountability on the licensee and its compliance leadership.

Adoption remains unconfirmed

Shufti’s announcement describes the product’s capabilities but does not identify a Great Britain gambling operator using the system. It therefore confirms a compliance technology launch, not deployment across the British licensed market.

For operators serving Great Britain, the practical issue is control quality. Any new monitoring technology must fit the operator’s written risk assessment, customer due diligence process, escalation rules and reporting arrangements.

The product is aimed at sportsbook operators, including suppliers and licence holders serving regulated markets such as Great Britain. It is a betting mechanic, not a new Gambling Commission licence or regulatory approval.

Upside Betting could extend a single wager across an entire match. Its commercial claims now face a separate question: how should operators assess the safer-gambling risks of longer in-play engagement?

How Upside Betting works

A customer places one bet before kick-off. The bet remains active during the match, while potential returns increase when specified events occur.

• The product can include goals, corners and cards.
• Jackpot settings can be configured at 10 times, 25 times or 50 times the original stake.
• Spotlight said the product currently covers major domestic and international football leagues.
• The companies said it is due to expand into basketball during September 2026.

The structure differs from a standard pre-match bet. It is designed to create a continuing in-play experience without requiring the customer to place another bet after kick-off.

Supplier figures remain unverified

Spotlight said early users who found and played Upside generated 109% more gross gambling yield than a comparable recreational group. The company also said those users staked 27.5% more and were 1.8 times more likely to remain active after 28 days.

Those figures are supplier-reported. The announcement does not provide the sample size, the identity of the comparison operators, the reporting period or an independent audit.

The figures therefore show how the companies are positioning the product commercially. They do not establish that Upside improves customer outcomes or reduces gambling-related risk.

Why Great Britain will scrutinise the design

For operators licensed in Great Britain, the central issue is whether the product’s design and use fit existing duties on customer protection, product oversight and safer gambling.

The Gambling Commission’s remote customer-interaction guidance requires operators to monitor behaviour, identify indicators of harm, take action and assess the outcome.

A wager that remains active throughout a match may create an additional behaviour pattern for operators to assess. This could include continued gambling after repeated in-play events. The guidance does not, by itself, amount to approval of Upside Betting.

The Gambling Commission’s technical standard for in-play betting also requires operators to warn customers that live broadcasts can be delayed. It states that other people may have more up-to-date information.

Any deployment in Great Britain would need to account for that requirement on relevant in-play pages or screens.

A licence does not cover every operator

Sporting Solutions Services Limited, the company behind Sporting Solutions, holds an active Gambling Commission remote gambling software licence. The public register lists licence 052033-R-329380-007 as active from 27 September 2018.

That licence confirms the company’s software authorisation, but it does not confirm that every operator using Upside may offer it to customers in Great Britain. Each operator would remain responsible for its own regulatory obligations.

Marketing would face a separate test. Great Britain’s advertising rules prohibit gambling communications that encourage socially irresponsible behaviour or exploit vulnerable people.

The rules also restrict content likely to appeal strongly to under-18s, including in football-related campaigns.

The immediate significance of Upside is commercial. It gives sportsbooks a way to extend one football wager through the full match. The regulatory question is whether that longer engagement can be measured and controlled without making a single bet a stronger prompt for continued gambling.

The figures provide a recent measure of demand for protection in betting shops. They also reveal a gap in oversight. The Commission does not hold one total covering every land-based self-exclusion scheme in Great Britain.

What the figures show

The Commission recorded 9,075 active exclusions in MOSES, the Multi-Operator Self-Exclusion Scheme for betting shops. This is a snapshot of people whose exclusions were active at the end of the reporting period. It is not a count of new enrolments.

SENSE, the multi-operator scheme for casinos, recorded 12,445 active self-excluded customers. The Commission said those customers enrolled over the previous three years and remained excluded. The figure therefore includes people who joined before the 2025 to 2026 reporting period.

• MOSES: 9,075 active betting-shop exclusions.
• SENSE: 12,445 active casino exclusions.
• SENSE database removals under earlier terms: 8,695 people.

The 8,695 people removed from the SENSE database under earlier terms and conditions must not be added to the 12,445 figure. The number does not represent a second group of active customers or new enrolments.

No national total

The freedom of information request covered four schemes. Only MOSES and SENSE supplied figures for the period. The Commission said it did not hold equivalent data from BACTA, which covers arcades, or the Bingo Association.

The available figures are separate scheme snapshots, not a combined measure of all land-based self-exclusions in Great Britain.

The data also exclude Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Those jurisdictions operate under different gambling arrangements from Great Britain.

The Commission’s published guidance says multi-operator schemes cover the same type of land-based gambling within a customer’s area. Betting, casino, bingo and arcade operators must participate in the relevant scheme under Social Responsibility Code Provision 3.5.6.

What the numbers do and do not measure

The Commission defines an active self-exclusion as one that remains live or enforced, regardless of when it was added. The count can include the customer’s chosen exclusion period and an additional retention period, unless the customer takes positive action to return to gambling.

This makes the figures useful for measuring the number of people currently seeking protection. They do not show how many people entered a scheme during the year, how many breached an exclusion or how many appear in more than one scheme.

The Commission has previously warned that self-exclusion data can be difficult to compare. Individual operator returns may count one person several times when that customer excludes from multiple operators. Multi-operator schemes also report different measures, including new exclusions, individuals and active customers.

Regulatory pressure on operators

The figures come as the regulator continues to enforce land-based self-exclusion rules. On 31 July 2026, the Commission imposed a £150,000 financial penalty on Holland Park Leisure Limited after finding that the Leicester-based adult gaming centre operator failed to participate in a required multi-operator scheme. The Commission announced the action on 18 August 2026.

The operator also faces a third-party audit of its policies, procedures and staff training. The Commission said participation in a recognised scheme and effective controls to prevent excluded customers from gambling are licence requirements, not optional measures.

For policymakers, the data show the scale of demand in two major sectors while leaving the wider picture incomplete. Until all relevant schemes provide comparable figures, the 9,075 MOSES exclusions and 12,445 SENSE exclusions should remain separate measures.

Seven is free to enter, but its rewards and account requirements connect the game directly to Entain’s Ladbrokes betting brand.

How Seven works

Seven is built around Premier League fixtures. Users select seven players and receive a successful pick when a chosen player scores either the first or last goal in a match.

Prizes are available from three successful selections. The top prize can reach £100,000 through a shared jackpot, according to Entain.

• Players choose seven Premier League footballers each gameweek.
• Selections are based on first-goalscorer or last-goalscorer outcomes.
• Three or more successful picks can qualify for prizes.
• The app provides live updates, player information and rolling selection deadlines.
• The Google Play listing says the app is available to users aged 18 and over in the UK.

Entain says the product was developed with Angstrom, its sports modelling and analytics business. The company describes Seven as a standalone entertainment product. It also says the app could introduce new adult audiences to the wider Entain ecosystem.

The Ladbrokes connection

The game is free to enter, but the commercial link is direct. Entain says Seven rewards are delivered through Ladbrokes.

The Google Play listing says users need a Ladbrokes account to access the listed rewards, including cash prizes and free bets. That makes the account requirement a central part of the product’s route from free play to a licensed betting brand.

Age checks and advertising scrutiny

Google Play labels Seven “Adults only 18+” and “Real Gambling”. Its listing says the UK product became available on August 10, 2026. The earlier app-store date and the September 15 announcement date indicate that availability and public promotion occurred at different points.

The Advertising Standards Authority said on May 27, 2026, that it had begun active monitoring of gambling app-store listings. The regulator also said it was reviewing gambling advertising in free-to-play digital environments, where content can reach younger audiences.

The ASA has not ruled against Seven. Its guidance published on October 14, 2025, says advertisers should assess whether gambling content has strong appeal to people under 18.

That guidance is relevant to Seven because the app uses football, player statistics and prediction mechanics. Its free entry does not remove the need for effective age controls or responsible marketing.

What the licensing record shows

The Gambling Commission’s public register lists Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Limited with active remote betting, casino and gambling software permissions. The register was updated on September 14, 2026.

The register also lists LC International Limited, the developer named in the Google Play listing, as a gambling business trading as Ladbrokes. The app listing identifies its head office as being in Gibraltar.

The Gambling Commission regulates gambling in Great Britain. The app listing uses the wider term “UK”, so the launch should not be read as proof that one licensing framework covers Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

What changes for users

Seven creates repeated contact with football fans without requiring an initial stake. The immediate activity is a prediction game, but the rewards route leads to a Ladbrokes account.

Entain says leagues and social competition are planned for October. The company also says it is considering other markets and sports.

The key test will be whether Entain can expand the product while keeping its age-gating, advertising and betting-brand links clear to users. Those safeguards will matter as regulators examine how free-to-play games interact with gambling audiences.

The website described itself as “the official Tesco casino”, according to an investigation published by The Guardian on 13 September 2026. It claimed to be backed by Tesco but did not hold a licence to provide gambling services in Great Britain.

Removing an advert can cut one route to an illegal gambling site. It does not automatically close the website, identify its operators or protect people who may already have shared money or personal data.

Meta removed the adverts

Meta removed the Facebook and Instagram adverts after The Guardian contacted the company. The linked website remained accessible in Great Britain during checks reported by the newspaper.

Tesco referred its concerns to the National Cyber Security Centre and Report Fraud, the service operated by the City of London Police. The force confirmed that it had received the report but had not referred it for investigation when The Guardian published its report.

The case draws a clear line between a platform response and a regulatory outcome. Removing an advert may stop one route to the site. It does not automatically close the website, identify its operators, recover customer funds or prevent the same business from returning under another name.

What the Great Britain licence rule means

The Gambling Commission requires businesses that provide remote gambling to consumers in Great Britain, or advertise those services to them, to hold an operating licence. Great Britain covers England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland operates under a separate legal framework.

A licence brings an operator into a system covering suitability checks, operating controls and social responsibility requirements. An unlicensed site sits outside those protections.

For consumers, the practical risks can include weaker or absent safeguards involving:

• Age checks and identity verification
• Self-exclusion
• Complaints and dispute handling
• Suspicious transactions and the handling of customer funds

The Gambling Commission said illegal gambling linked to trusted brands creates a particular risk because consumers may mistake an unauthorised service for a legitimate business. The regulator also said it was working with the Advertising Standards Authority on the issue.

Why the pressure extends beyond Tesco

The fake Tesco operation was part of a wider pattern described in The Guardian’s report. Other household brands and sports personalities, including Barclays, Monzo, Lewis Hamilton, Tyson Fury, Jude Bellingham and Erling Haaland, were used in material linked to casinos that were not authorised to target British consumers.

Legitimate gambling companies face a separate risk. Illegal operators can copy their brands while licensed businesses continue to pay taxes, meet regulatory conditions and fund compliance systems.

Entain, which owns Coral and Gala Bingo, said the activity harmed both British consumers and licensed businesses.

Ofcom’s proposed fraud rules add pressure

The incident comes as Ofcom consults on proposed measures for fraudulent advertising under the Online Safety Act 2023. The consultation, published on 10 July 2026, covers paid-for adverts on major online services and is scheduled to close on 2 October 2026.

The proposals are not final rules. Ofcom has said platforms should improve systems for detecting scam adverts, make reporting easier and take stronger action against accounts used to distribute fraudulent material.

The regulator has also said platforms do not need to wait for new measures before increasing investment in fraud prevention.

The Advertising Standards Authority has separately warned that illegal gambling advertising creates risks because it operates outside the regulated system. The ASA says it contributes intelligence to the Gambling Commission and works with major online platforms to identify and remove such advertising.

The enforcement test

The Tesco case leaves three practical questions for regulators and platforms:

• How quickly can an advert be removed after a complaint?
• Can the linked gambling website be blocked or disrupted?
• Can investigators identify the advertisers and protect people who have already supplied money or personal data?

The central enforcement challenge is that a fake operator can borrow the credibility of a trusted British brand, reach users through a major platform and remain visible online after an advert has been removed.

The National Crime Agency secured the extension while investigating whether the funds could be linked to suspected criminal conduct involving third parties. The court action does not accuse the Premier League of wrongdoing.

The freeze investigation and Sorare’s gambling prosecution are separate legal matters. Neither has established criminal wrongdoing by the Premier League or resolved the allegations against Sorare.

Two separate legal matters

The account-freezing case concerns money held by The Football Association Premier League Limited. District Judge Sam Goozee said the order was necessary and proportionate to prevent the suspected proceeds from being moved while the investigation continues.

The order is not a criminal conviction. It also does not determine whether Sorare breached British gambling law.

Sorare faces a separate prosecution brought by the Gambling Commission. The regulator alleges that Sorare provided gambling facilities to consumers in Great Britain without the operating licence required under the Gambling Act 2005.

Trial postponed to June 2027

The Gambling Commission first published a warning about Sorare on 8 October 2021. It said the platform was available to consumers in Great Britain but was not licensed by the regulator.

The Commission later charged Sorare with providing facilities for gambling without an operating licence. The trial was initially listed for 15 June 2026 at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.

On 18 May 2026, the Commission confirmed that the trial had been postponed to 7 June 2027, also at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court. The prosecution remains unresolved.

Why the Premier League connection matters

The court proceedings have placed the league’s commercial relationship with Sorare under scrutiny. The Premier League agreed a four-year deal worth £120 million with the digital fantasy football company in January 2023.

The arrangement allowed Sorare to use digital cards featuring Premier League players. The league continued receiving money linked to the arrangement until June 2025, according to evidence reported from the Westminster hearing.

The Independent reported that the Premier League knew in October 2021 that the Gambling Commission was examining whether Sorare’s services amounted to gambling. The league later received a summary of Sorare’s legal advice, which maintained that its contests were not gambling.

Judge Goozee said the advice warned that it should not be relied on by third parties. The judge also found no suggestion that the Premier League itself had engaged in unlawful conduct.

What happens next

• The frozen funds remain subject to the National Crime Agency investigation.
• Sorare’s Gambling Commission prosecution is scheduled for trial on 7 June 2027 unless the case changes earlier.
• The court’s findings do not establish criminal wrongdoing by the Premier League.
• The gambling case concerns activity available to consumers in Great Britain. It is not a ruling on gambling regulation in Northern Ireland or other jurisdictions.

The two cases create separate legal tests for the football and gambling industries. The first concerns the possible origin of funds. The second will examine whether Sorare’s fantasy contests required a British operating licence.

The purchase was completed on September 10, 2026, through Hurstwood subsidiary AM Sci Tech. CDC Gaming reported a net initial yield of about 15%.

Property deal, not operator takeover

The 21,991-square-foot property remains fully let to Grosvenor Casino Limited. The lease has about four years remaining and includes fixed annual rent increases of 2.5%.

The lease is guaranteed by Rank Group Gaming Division Limited. Rank owns and operates the Grosvenor casino business in Great Britain.

The sale transfers ownership of the building to Hurstwood while Grosvenor remains the reported casino operator and tenant under the existing lease.

For the remaining lease term, Hurstwood is the property owner and Grosvenor remains the casino business occupying the site.

Gambling licence remains a separate question

The Gambling Commission’s public register lists Edinburgh-Maybury Grosvenor Casino under Grosvenor Casinos (GC) Limited. The operator’s non-remote casino licence is shown as active. The premises licence is issued by the City of Edinburgh Council.

A change in building ownership does not, by itself, prove a change in the licensed gambling business. Any future change involving the operator, licence holder or premises arrangements would need to be addressed through the relevant regulatory and local licensing processes.

Why the deal matters to Grosvenor

The sale gives the property a new landlord while preserving the casino’s existing lease arrangement for the remaining term. The fixed rent increases give the buyer a defined income profile, subject to the lease terms and the tenant’s continued performance.

The transaction comes as Rank continues to manage a large UK land-based casino estate. Rank says Grosvenor has 50 venues and represents 45% of the UK casino market by venue numbers.

The Maybury building dates from 1935, when it operated as the Maybury Roadhouse and Diner. It was converted into a casino in the late 1990s and includes gaming floors, bars, lounges, private rooms and dedicated parking.

What changes next

• AM Sci Tech owns the Edinburgh property.
• Grosvenor remains the reported tenant.
• About four years remain on the lease.
• Rent increases are fixed at 2.5% annually under the reported terms.
• The property sale has not established a change to the Gambling Commission licence.

The transaction separates ownership of the building from operation of the casino. For customers and regulators, the relevant question is whether a later filing or licensing decision changes the operator or premises permissions.

A cash-collect slot awards prize values when special symbols appear and are collected during a bonus feature. The five-reel game uses three colour-coded pot modifiers and carries a stated maximum win of 12,500 times the base bet, according to European Gaming’s report on the release.

Triple Power Cash Strike shows how suppliers can refresh a familiar mechanic while operators remain responsible for compliance, testing and player protection.

Rapid iteration around a familiar mechanic

Triple Power Cash Strike is the fifth title in Blueprint’s Cash Strike series launched in less than 12 months, according to the supplier’s announcement reported by European Gaming.

The release adds green, red and blue fireballs linked to separate Power Spins modifiers:

• Green symbols can expand the feature by adding rows.
• Red symbols can collect cash values shown on the reels.
• Blue symbols can award multipliers of up to 5x.

The approach reflects a common strategy in online casino content. Developers retain a recognisable mechanic and add new symbols, bonus routes or modifiers for operator game libraries.

That can support faster product releases. It also increases the importance of testing, accurate disclosures and operator controls when similar games reach different markets.

What Great Britain’s rules require

Blueprint Gaming Limited appears on the Gambling Commission’s public register under account number 6516. The register lists an active remote gambling software licence and an active remote game host, casino licence. It also shows separate applications or variations in progress.

The licence status does not mean every British operator must offer the game. Availability depends on the operator’s licence, supplier certification, commercial agreements and jurisdiction.

Any version supplied through a Gambling Commission-licensed operator must meet the Commission’s remote gambling and software technical standards. Gambling software must also undergo testing before it is made available to customers.

As an online reel-based casino game, the title would also fall within Great Britain’s online slots controls when offered to British players:

• The maximum stake is £5 per game for adults aged 25 and over.
• The maximum stake is £2 per game for adults aged 18 to 24.
• The limits took effect on April 9, 2025, and May 21, 2025, respectively.
• Remote slots must allow at least 2.5 seconds before another game cycle can begin.

The Gambling Commission’s guidance sets out these requirements for operators offering online slots in Great Britain.

A maximum win is not a forecast

The 12,500x figure is a maximum advertised win. It is not an expected return or a promise that players will reach that amount.

Operators must provide accurate game information, apply the correct stake controls, present bonuses compliantly and monitor customer behaviour.

Great Britain’s framework places obligations on both sides of the supply chain. Blueprint must provide compliant software. The licensed operator remains responsible for the gambling facilities presented through its website or app.

The Gambling Commission says businesses supplying remote gambling software to Great Britain need the relevant licence, even when the supplier is not based in the country.

Triple Power Cash Strike is therefore not only a product launch. It also illustrates the regulatory challenge of updating established slot mechanics without breaching the technical, licensing and safer-gambling controls that apply to online casino products in Great Britain.

• 49% saw gambling advertising weekly on social media.
• 47% saw gambling advertising through apps.

The figures come as policymakers examine how digital advertising, influencer marketing and illegal gambling content reach younger audiences. The briefing is not new legislation or a Gambling Commission enforcement decision. It is a parliamentary research paper that summarises evidence, existing rules and proposals for tighter controls.

Exposure is concentrated online

Gambling advertising reaches young people through several channels. Digital platforms are a central focus because adverts, sponsored content and influencer posts can appear alongside ordinary entertainment.

The Gambling Commission’s 2025 survey found that 30% of 11 to 17-year-olds had spent their own money on gambling in the previous 12 months. The figure rose from 27% in 2024.

The regulator said the increase appeared largely linked to unregulated gambling. The proportion reporting unregulated gambling rose from 15% to 18% over the same period.

• 30% reported spending their own money on gambling in 2025.
• 27% reported this in 2024.
• Unregulated gambling rose from 15% to 18%.
• The survey covered 3,666 pupils in England, Scotland and Wales.

The survey describes Great Britain. It does not cover Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which operate under separate arrangements.

What automated monitoring can and cannot do

The Committee of Advertising Practice and the Advertising Standards Authority use an AI-powered Active Ad Monitoring system to capture online advertising across social media, search engines, websites and influencer marketing.

The system flags material that may breach advertising rules. Advertising Standards Authority specialists then review the flagged content and decide whether action is required.

In 2025, the system processed more than 60 million adverts and supported more than 30 regulatory projects, including work on gambling advertising.

AI can expand the regulator’s reach, but it does not replace human assessment or operator accountability.

That distinction matters for licensed operators and technology suppliers serving the British market. A monitoring system can identify patterns at scale. It cannot alone determine whether an advert breaches the full advertising code, whether age-targeting controls worked, or who should face action.

Pressure on operators and platforms

The Advertising Standards Authority said its monitoring work includes paid adverts and organic social media content connected with gambling services. Its June 2026 snapshot assessed 1,845 Instagram posts from 18 licensed gambling operators.

The findings show that operator-owned content can fall within advertising rules when it promotes gambling services. For operators, the compliance risk extends beyond the advert itself.

Compliance teams must also review influencers, audience settings, platform distribution and the route by which content reaches younger users.

The House of Lords briefing records calls for stronger controls, including wider restrictions on social media marketing, influencer activity and gambling sponsorship. Any future change would require a separate government, parliamentary or regulatory process.

The 11 September briefing does not change licence conditions or advertising law.

The accountability gap

Regulators face two linked problems: detecting content quickly and reducing the supply of illegal gambling material outside the British licensing system.

AI monitoring can help identify potentially non-compliant advertising. It cannot close offshore websites, replace age and identity checks, or guarantee that platform algorithms will stop unsuitable content reaching children.

Responsibility remains divided between regulators, licensed operators, advertising intermediaries and social platforms. The practical question is how quickly each party can act after potentially unlawful or unsuitable content is identified.

SBC News reported that the agreement was announced on 11 September 2026, two days after a government consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorships closed.

The timing has raised questions about football clubs’ checks on gambling partners and the timetable for any new legal restrictions.

What the register shows

The Gambling Commission’s public register is the relevant source for businesses licensed to provide gambling services in Great Britain.

Shuffle was not listed under that name in the register at the time of the 12 September update. Shuffle’s terms state that its website is operated by Natural Nine B.V. in Curaçao and licensed by the Curaçao Gaming Authority.

That licence is separate from a Gambling Commission operating licence for Great Britain. A licence issued elsewhere does not give an operator permission to provide gambling facilities to consumers in England, Scotland or Wales.

• Great Britain is covered by the Gambling Commission’s licensing system.
• Northern Ireland operates under a separate gambling framework.
• The Gambling Commission register does not cover Northern Ireland.

The proposed ban is not yet law

The government consultation closed on 9 September 2026. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it plans to publish a formal response later in 2026.

The preferred option would use secondary legislation under the Gambling Act 2005. It would prohibit sponsorship and physical advertising by gambling operators that do not hold a Gambling Commission licence.

• The proposed start date is August 2027, before the 2027/28 football season.
• The proposed scope includes kit sponsorships, stadium advertising, programmes and venue infrastructure.
• Continuing an arrangement after the rules take effect could become a criminal offence.

The consultation also presented an alternative. New unlicensed sponsorship contracts could be prohibited after the legislation takes effect, while existing agreements could continue until a final deadline in August 2028.

The proposals have not been approved by Parliament. They do not currently prohibit every sponsorship arrangement involving an unlicensed operator.

Why the Sunderland deal matters

The Shuffle agreement highlights the gap between the government’s proposed rules and the current legal position.

The consultation said existing legislation can allow sponsorship by an operator that is not licensed in Great Britain when its services are inaccessible to consumers in Great Britain.

Licensed operators and regulators have criticised that position. Their concern is that sponsorship can give offshore brands significant visibility among British football audiences.

The government has also linked unlicensed gambling promotion to weaker player protections, limited dispute routes and increased money laundering risks.

The Gambling Commission requires remote gambling businesses that advertise to consumers in Great Britain to hold an operating licence. It also tells licensed operators to monitor business relationships and act when partners offer illegal gambling facilities to the British market.

Pressure on football clubs

Sunderland’s agreement follows wider scrutiny of football clubs that have partnered with gambling brands without Great Britain licences.

Clubs face questions about whether they check a sponsor’s licence status, ownership structure, customer access controls and marketing reach before signing an agreement.

A fixed August 2027 start date would leave clubs needing to replace affected sponsors before the 2027/28 season. That could apply even where existing contracts still had time to run.

For now, the Sunderland partnership remains a commercial agreement announced before any proposed ban has become law. Its significance is the timing: it was announced as the government considers whether football shirt visibility should be limited to gambling businesses regulated in Great Britain.

PokerStars UK will stop poker gameplay through its current platform after a planned downtime period. Withdrawals are expected to remain available during the transition. The company has not announced a final effective date for the UK migration.

The key test is whether players can access their funds and existing protections without interruption when the transfer takes place.

What will change for UK customers

Players without an active Betfair account are expected to use their existing PokerStars credentials after the transfer. They will need to accept Betfair’s terms and move their funds to the Betfair platform.

Customers who already have an active Betfair account face a different process. PokerStars says they should withdraw their funds from PokerStars and then continue using their Betfair account.

• PokerStars UK will no longer provide poker gameplay through its current platform.
• PokerStars games will continue through the co-branded PokerStars on Betfair service.
• Funds will transfer after customers accept Betfair’s terms and conditions.
• Recently played-game history will not transfer.
• Some payment methods will need to be set up again.

The company says only the three most active debit cards will transfer. Pay by Bank withdrawals may also require a previous Pay by Bank deposit on Betfair. Other payment methods, including some e-wallets and bank-transfer arrangements, may need to be added again.

Data responsibility will move to a different company

The data controller for gameplay accounts and related personal data will change from TSG Interactive Services Ireland Limited to Power Leisure Bookmakers Limited.

Power Leisure holds active remote gambling software and general betting licences on the Gambling Commission’s public register. The register applies to Great Britain. Northern Ireland operates under a separate legal framework, and the migration notice does not set out a separate licensing position for the region.

PokerStars says customers’ privacy rights will not change. Power Leisure will handle personal-data requests after the transfer.

Self-exclusion will continue, but settings are not identical

PokerStars says existing self-exclusion and time-out periods will remain in place during the move. Great Britain’s remote gambling rules require operators to prevent self-excluded customers from gambling and to close self-excluded accounts.

The position is less straightforward for other safer-gambling tools. PokerStars says safer-gaming settings will not transfer in full to Betfair.

• Existing PokerStars deposit limits will be handled through Betfair’s limit system, with the most restrictive option transferred where applicable.
• Stake limits will replace PokerStars Casino and Sports stake limits.
• Previous “Do Not Play” preferences will not transfer.
• Customers previously self-excluded from PokerStars Casino or Sports must adjust those preferences on Betfair.

This creates a practical distinction between protections that the operator says will remain active, such as poker self-exclusion and time-outs, and settings that customers may need to review or recreate after logging in.

Why Flutter is consolidating the brands

Pokerfuse reported on September 8, 2026, that Flutter is turning PokerStars into a broader PokerStars Network. Betfair became the first Flutter brand to join the network on August 13, moving away from the iPoker network. Paddy Power and Sky Poker are expected to follow later in 2026.

The stated commercial aim is to combine player liquidity across Flutter’s poker brands. A larger shared pool could support fuller cash games and tournament fields. The UK migration also allows Flutter to route PokerStars customers through Betfair rather than maintaining PokerStars as the main UK poker access point.

For customers, the immediate issue is whether account access, funds, payment methods and safer-gambling controls work as promised when the migration takes place.

What players should check after the transfer

• Confirm that the correct balance and account details appear in the Betfair cashier.
• Review self-exclusion, time-out, deposit and stake settings.
• Check marketing preferences, which may not transfer in full.
• Re-add any missing payment method.
• Save account records before the planned downtime if recently played history is needed.
• Contact customer support before attempting to play if a time-out or self-exclusion status appears incorrect.

The Gambling Commission’s remote self-exclusion code treats failures to block excluded customers as a licensing matter. The migration must not create a route around an existing protection.

Immense Group announced the renewal on 11 September 2026. The company said sponsorship idents and the Mr Vegas jingle will run across the series. Branding will also appear on the programme’s voting platform.

The renewal is a commercial agreement, not a new gambling licence or a regulatory ruling.

What the deal means

The arrangement gives Mr Vegas repeated exposure around one of Britain’s best-known reality formats. Immense Group said the brand’s 2025 sponsorship campaign generated strong viewer recognition and supported renewed investment in the 2026 series.

Those performance claims come from the company. The announcement did not provide independent figures for viewer recognition or the campaign’s commercial impact.

The sponsorship does not create a new gambling licence. The Gambling Commission’s public register lists Videoslots Limited as an active remote casino licence holder and lists www.mrvegas.com as an active domain.

Rules governing gambling sponsorship

Television sponsorship must comply with advertising and broadcast rules. The Advertising Standards Authority says gambling advertising cannot appear in or beside programmes commissioned for, principally directed at, or likely to appeal particularly to audiences under 18.

Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code requires sponsorship credits to identify the sponsor clearly and remain separate from advertising. Credits must not include calls to action or encourage viewers to buy the sponsor’s products or services.

These rules do not automatically prohibit every gambling sponsorship of a general entertainment programme. Compliance depends on factors including the programme’s audience, the placement of the credits, their content and whether the treatment strongly appeals to under-18s.

Why the operator’s record matters

Videoslots Limited remains licensed, but it has faced recent regulatory action. On 30 October 2025, the Gambling Commission issued a warning, imposed a £650,000 financial penalty and added a licence condition.

The action followed findings of anti-money-laundering and customer-interaction failures between October 2023 and February 2024.

The Commission’s enforcement notice cited several weaknesses:

• Ineffective monitoring of gambling risk.
• Delays in source-of-funds checks.
• Weaknesses involving digital prepaid vouchers.
• The need for an independent audit of the company’s controls.

The enforcement decision does not establish that the Big Brother sponsorship breaches advertising rules. It does provide relevant context for public scrutiny of the brand’s return to a large television audience.

What will be watched

• Whether the sponsorship credits remain distinct from promotional advertising.
• Whether the programme and surrounding content attract a significant under-18 audience.
• Whether the creative treatment gives Mr Vegas strong appeal to children or young people.
• Whether the operator maintains effective safer-gambling and customer-monitoring controls after the 2025 enforcement action.

No regulatory ruling on the 2026 arrangement is cited in the published material associated with the announcement. Any future compliance issue would depend on the broadcast treatment and the audience reached, rather than on the sponsorship announcement alone.

The sponsorship concerns gambling activity regulated in Great Britain. Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man operate under separate legal arrangements. The Great Britain licence register should not be treated as covering those jurisdictions.

The reported rate remains under consideration. It is not government policy, and no final rate or start date has been announced.

The reports emerged on September 11, 2026, ahead of the Budget scheduled for October 28, 2026. The next formal opportunity for ministers to announce a change will be the Budget.

How Machine Games Duty works

Machine Games Duty applies to the net takings from taxable machine games. This is the money retained after winnings are deducted. The duty covers machines offering cash or qualifying prizes in betting shops and other licensed venues.

• 5% for lower-rate machines, generally costing no more than 20 pence to play, with prizes of up to £10.
• 20% for standard-rate machines, generally costing between 21 pence and £5 to play.
• 25% for higher-rate machines that exceed the standard limits.

HM Revenue and Customs says the applicable rate depends on the cost to play and the potential prize. A machine offering different game types can be taxed at the highest applicable rate across its takings.

Separate from the 2026 online gambling tax changes

The reported proposal concerns land-based machines. It is separate from tax changes already applied to remote gambling.

• Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40% on April 1, 2026.
• A new 25% rate for certain remote betting is due to begin on April 1, 2027.
• Bingo Duty was abolished from April 1, 2026.

The measures were legislated through the Finance Act 2026. The government’s published response said the package would not change tax on in-person gambling. A Machine Games Duty increase would therefore be a new decision, rather than part of the earlier online reforms.

Why high streets could feel the impact

Great Britain had 5,782 betting shops and 190,965 machines in Gambling Commission-licensed premises between July and September 2025.

Land-based gambling generated £1.2 billion in gross gambling yield during that quarter. Non-remote betting generated £592 million. These figures measure gross gambling yield, not stakes, deposits or operator profit.

The Betting and Gaming Council has warned that a higher Machine Games Duty rate could affect venue investment, employment and high-street businesses. Those are industry claims, not independent government forecasts.

In a July 2026 response to a Social Market Foundation proposal to increase the duty, the council said the analysis did not adequately model possible closures, job losses or differences between betting shops, casinos, bingo clubs and adult gaming centres. The trade body also said regulated venues provide stronger consumer controls than illegal operators.

What remains undecided

There is no confirmed 40% rate, effective date or published Treasury impact assessment. If the measure is adopted, ministers would need to determine:

• whether the rate would apply to all machine categories or only selected machines;
• whether existing rates would be replaced or supplemented;
• how bingo halls, casinos and adult gaming centres would be treated;
• whether higher taxation would reduce machine use and taxable receipts; and
• how venue closures could affect jobs, business rates and access to regulated gambling.

Until the government publishes legislation, a consultation response or a Budget announcement, the current 5% to 25% Machine Games Duty structure remains in force.

The central policy question is whether additional tax receipts would outweigh the risk of higher costs reducing venue numbers, investment and regulated gambling activity in Great Britain.

The agreement shows how Jupiter Gaming is expanding its catalogue through direct contracts with game suppliers. It is not a regulatory decision or a licence change.

What went live

European Gaming Industry News reported that the games went live across the following brands:

• 666casino.com
• dreamjackpot.com
• kingcasino.com
• ladcasino.com
• mrluck.com
• redcasino.com

The 13 Wazdan titles were:

• 9 Balls
• 9 Coins Grand Platinum Edition
• Fisherman’s Luck
• Hot Slot: 777 Cash Out
• Hot Slot: 777 Crown
• Magic Fruit$: Cherries
• Magic Fruit$: Oranges
• Mighty Crown: Empire of Gold
• Mighty Hot: Amazonia
• Ox Coin
• Power of Gods: Hades
• Sizzling 777 Deluxe
• Sun of Fortune

Separate supplier and operator permissions

Wazdan holds active Gambling Software and Game Host permissions under Gambling Commission account 48872. Those permissions cover the supplier role. They do not authorise Wazdan to operate a consumer casino.

Jupiter Gaming Limited holds Gambling Commission account 67098. The Commission’s public register lists its remote bingo, casino and general betting permissions as active from August 28, 2025.

Jupiter Gaming is registered in Jersey. Its listed permissions concern remote gambling supplied into the British market.

Great Britain requires operators providing remote gambling to consumers in the jurisdiction to hold the relevant Gambling Commission permissions.

Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man operate under separate legal and regulatory arrangements.

Jupiter expands its direct supplier network

The Wazdan agreement follows a deal with Gaming Corps announced in June. Gaming Corps said its titles would be distributed across Jupiter Gaming’s UK-facing brands as they moved onto Jupiter’s own licence.

The two agreements indicate that Jupiter is building its catalogue through direct supplier contracts. This is an inference from the announced deals, not a statement from the Gambling Commission.

For suppliers, one operator relationship can provide access to several consumer brands. For Jupiter, direct agreements can expand the available catalogue while keeping supplier arrangements linked to its own operating permissions.

What remains unknown

The announcement does not disclose player numbers, revenue, gross gambling yield, game performance or the commercial value of the agreement.

It also does not establish that the titles are available in every part of the United Kingdom. The reported launch covers six Jupiter brands serving Great Britain.

Compliance remains the key test

A larger game catalogue does not reduce the operator’s regulatory duties. These include age and identity checks, customer-funds protection, safer gambling controls, complaints handling, anti-money-laundering measures and accurate product information.

The Gambling Commission advises consumers to check that a gambling website’s licence status, domain name and trading details match the public register.

That check remains relevant when brands change ownership, licence arrangements or content suppliers. The Wazdan deal adds 13 titles, but it does not by itself show how Jupiter’s controls operate across its six brands.

Customers can see the stage of a review, whether documents have been requested or received, and the expected completion time. Midnite also said customers may receive account credit if a review misses its stated deadline.

Atlas makes the compliance process more visible, but it does not remove the checks required for identity verification, fraud prevention or safer gambling.

What customers can see

Compliance reviews can involve identity checks, source-of-funds requests, fraud controls and safer-gambling assessments. These checks can restrict deposits, betting or withdrawals while an operator examines an account.

Atlas is designed to show customers what is happening during that process. Midnite said the tool automates customer messages, document requests and the application of account controls. Its compliance staff continue to manage the review journey.

The company’s announcement was reported by iGamingBusiness on 8 September. The figure of more than 3,000 processed accounts is a statement from Midnite, not a published Gambling Commission performance measure.

What the regulator requires

Midnite Limited’s Gambling Commission register entry lists active remote licences for casino, bingo, real-event betting, virtual-event betting and pool betting. The licences shown on the register became active on 11 August 2026.

The licence status applies to Great Britain. It does not establish the same regulatory position for Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, which operate under different legal and licensing arrangements.

For remote operators in Great Britain, Gambling Commission licence conditions require systems that identify, address and evaluate the risks of gambling harm. Operators must monitor indicators including:

• Spending and spending patterns
• Time spent gambling
• Gambling behaviour and account activity
• Customer contact
• Use of gambling-management tools

Identity verification also supports age controls, self-exclusion checks, anti-money-laundering measures and fraud prevention. The Commission has said operators should avoid requesting information at the withdrawal stage when they could reasonably have requested it earlier.

The technology test

Atlas may reduce uncertainty for customers, but visibility is not the same as a faster or successful review. A progress tracker cannot replace evidence checks, risk decisions or controls required under licence conditions.

The practical test will be whether the tool gives customers accurate time estimates while allowing Midnite to extend a review when the facts require more work. It must also explain restrictions without revealing sensitive anti-money-laundering information or weakening fraud controls.

The Gambling Commission’s 2026 risk assessment identifies technology-driven changes, including artificial intelligence, as a challenge for customer due diligence. It says operators need controls that respond to changing money-laundering and terrorist-financing risks.

Why the development matters

Midnite’s tool places customer communication inside the compliance process rather than treating it as a separate service issue. That matters in a market where operators can restrict accounts for regulatory reasons but must still treat customers fairly.

The Commission has previously said operators should be transparent about when and why accounts may be restricted. It has also recognised that anti-money-laundering and fraud checks can delay payments, while warning that those checks do not automatically justify confiscating customer deposits.

Atlas gives Midnite a measurable responsibility as well as a customer-facing feature. If its time estimates, explanations and account controls remain accurate under pressure, the system could offer a stronger model for player communication. If not, automation could make an opaque process look more polished without making it fairer or faster.

The UK has signed the treaty but has not ratified it. The Government laid the agreement before Parliament on 4 June 2026. The scrutiny period was extended to 12 October 2026. The House of Lords is scheduled to debate the agreement on 15 September 2026.

19 cases referred, no successful Commission prosecution

Written evidence from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, dated 25 August, said the Gambling Commission had referred 19 betting-integrity cases for enforcement action during the previous three years.

None had resulted in a successful criminal prosecution by the Commission when the evidence was submitted. The evidence confirmed that one successful prosecution under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005 concluded in 2015. That case involved cheating at gambling.

Several investigations remain ongoing, including prosecutions linked to Operation Scott, according to the Government evidence.

Section 42 covers cheating at gambling, attempts to cheat and helping another person to cheat. The Gambling Commission can investigate and prosecute these offences in Great Britain. It can also void individual bets and impose regulatory sanctions when licensed operators fail to meet their obligations.

Intelligence does not automatically become courtroom evidence

The Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit received 595 reports of suspected betting-related corruption in 2025. That was up from 464 reports in 2024.

The Lords report said the increase may reflect both the growth of regulated markets and stronger monitoring. About one third of the reports involved sporting events held in Great Britain or participants from Great Britain.

• Football, tennis, esports and table tennis generated the largest volumes of reports.
• The figures record reports of suspicious activity, not findings that competitions were manipulated.
• Proving criminal conduct can require evidence of relationships, communications and money flows.

A sports body may impose a disciplinary sanction under a lower civil standard of proof. Prosecutors must prove a criminal offence beyond reasonable doubt. This difference helps explain why intelligence may lead to disciplinary action without producing a criminal conviction.

What ratification could change

The Macolin Convention would formalise international cooperation and information sharing. A manipulated event may involve an athlete in one country, a betting account in another, money moving through a third jurisdiction and organisers based elsewhere.

The Lords committee said ratification would strengthen cooperation with foreign authorities and give the UK a seat on the Convention Follow-up Committee. It also warned that ratification alone would not prevent manipulation or eliminate illegal betting markets.

The practical test is whether intelligence can move more quickly from regulators and sports bodies to investigators, prosecutors and courts.

The Gambling Commission already works with betting operators, sports governing bodies, police and international partners. Its existing framework allows referrals to Europol, Interpol and other national platforms.

The committee heard that ratification could replace some consent-based arrangements with more formal and predictable cooperation. That could improve the route from suspicious activity reports to cross-border investigations, but it would not remove the need for admissible evidence or investigative resources.

Lower-tier sport and prediction markets

The scrutiny also identified risks outside the largest televised competitions. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport officials told the committee that lower-tier sport can have weaker governance, fewer resources and less developed education and reporting systems.

These conditions can leave participants more exposed to attempts at manipulation. The committee also examined micro-events, such as an individual player receiving a yellow card, and prediction markets that allow users to trade contracts linked to future events.

The convention is designed to remain technology neutral and can cover these forms of activity. Licence condition 15.1 requires operators serving Great Britain to report suspicious or irregular market activity to the Gambling Commission.

More reporting can produce more intelligence, but enforcement still depends on international cooperation, investigative capacity and evidence that meets the criminal standard.

Great Britain and Northern Ireland use separate systems

The Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission’s Section 42 powers apply to Great Britain. Northern Ireland operates under separate gambling legislation.

The Department for Communities told the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport that Article 169 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 can support prosecutions for cheating linked to betting markets.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said the UK’s wider legal framework is sufficient to prosecute sports manipulation involving fraud, bribery, corruption or related offences.

Ratification is therefore at the scrutiny and proposed-ratification stage. It would not create a new criminal offence or immediately change betting licence conditions.

For Britain’s regulated betting market, the central question is practical: can the UK convert detailed betting intelligence into faster cross-border investigations and more cases that survive the criminal courts?

Allwyn said Rodano spent 10 years at Playtech, where he led work on player protection, behavioural analytics and long-term business sustainability. He also spent almost a decade as director of remote gaming at Italy’s gambling regulator, Agenzia Dogane e Monopoli.

Why the appointment matters in Great Britain

Allwyn holds the Gambling Commission’s current licence to operate the National Lottery from February 1, 2024, until January 31, 2034. The Commission also issues separate licences for individual National Lottery games.

The appointment changes Allwyn’s internal leadership. It does not change the National Lottery licence or represent a new regulatory ruling.

The Gambling Commission remains responsible for protecting National Lottery participants. Its regulatory framework requires the lottery to be run with due propriety, while protecting players and maximising returns to good causes.

Regulatory pressure remains unchanged

The current licence uses an outcomes-based model. This gives Allwyn flexibility to change products and systems. It also leaves the operator responsible for meeting its licence obligations and providing policies and information for regulatory review.

The Commission has said it will continue to monitor and challenge Allwyn on player protection. In decisions covering new National Lottery products in 2026, it also stressed the need to monitor harm, prevent excessive play and intervene when high-risk players are identified.

Rodano’s experience in behavioural analytics could be relevant to how Allwyn tests interventions, identifies risk and evaluates player-protection measures. That is an editorial inference based on his stated experience and the Commission’s published expectations. It is not evidence of a confirmed change to Allwyn’s controls.

What changes next

• Rodano will lead Allwyn’s responsible-gaming agenda across its brands, products and markets.
• Allwyn will remain accountable for the obligations attached to its Great Britain National Lottery licence.
• The Gambling Commission will remain responsible for licensing and monitoring the National Lottery in Great Britain.
• No new licence condition or enforcement action was announced with the appointment.

The practical test will be whether the new leadership produces measurable improvements in age checks, risk monitoring, player interventions and the handling of potentially harmful play. The appointment itself does not show that any such improvement has occurred.

BresBet Ltd and Bet St George Ltd left the Great Britain gambling market on 4 September 2026, after surrendering their operating licences following suspensions by the Gambling Commission.

The regulator announced the suspensions on 28 August under section 116 of the Gambling Act 2005. The action was a regulatory suspension pending investigation. It was not a final finding that either company had breached its licence conditions.

What changed

The Commission’s public register records Bet St George’s four remote permissions as surrendered, with an end date of 4 September 2026. The register also records BresBet’s remote bingo, casino and betting permissions as surrendered on the same date.

• Bet St George held permissions for remote betting, virtual events, casino and bingo.
• BresBet held the same four categories of remote permission.
• Neither company can resume trading under the surrendered licences.
• A return to the regulated Great Britain market would require a new licence application.

The Commission said customers could access their accounts and withdraw funds during the suspension. It also reminded both businesses to take steps to ensure consumers were not unnecessarily disadvantaged during the closure.

Suspension was not the same as revocation

The distinction is important. A suspension stops licensed gambling activity while the regulator investigates. A surrender is initiated by the business and ends the operating licence. It does not prevent the regulator from examining earlier conduct or pursuing further enforcement.

The Gambling Commission’s closure guidance says surrendering a licence does not remove a business’s responsibilities to customers. Operators must provide clear information, maintain complaint and alternative dispute resolution arrangements, settle liabilities where possible and make reasonable efforts to return customer funds.

The guidance also says a surrendered licence cannot simply be reinstated. A business seeking to return must apply for a new operating licence and satisfy the regulator’s requirements again.

A short run for Bet St George

Bet St George received its Great Britain operating permissions on 10 December 2025 and launched publicly on 4 March 2026. Its operating period lasted about six months before the suspension and subsequent surrender.

BresBet had held its own remote permissions since February 2025. The two businesses were connected through Nic Brereton, who founded BresBet and was associated with Bet St George’s leadership, according to industry reporting by SBC News.

Pressure on smaller operators

The closures have renewed scrutiny of the compliance burden facing smaller licensed bookmakers. The issue is not only whether a new operator can obtain a Great Britain licence. It is whether the business can maintain effective controls for customer protection, source-of-funds checks, suspicious activity monitoring and anti-money-laundering risks as it grows.

The regulator has not published final findings against either company. Any conclusion about the suspected failings must wait for the outcome of the Commission’s investigation or later enforcement action.

The case concerns Great Britain, which comprises England, Scotland and Wales. The Gambling Commission does not regulate ordinary gambling activity in Northern Ireland, which has a separate legal framework. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are also outside the Great Britain licensing system.

What happens next

Both companies remain responsible for handling customer complaints, outstanding bets and unclaimed balances. The Commission may also continue reviewing conduct that took place before the licences were surrendered.

For consumers, the public register remains the key check. A business listed as surrendered no longer holds an active Great Britain operating licence, even if its brand, website or advertising remains visible elsewhere.

Newcastle United has signed a new multi-year agreement with LeoVegas Group to retain BetMGM as its official UK and European betting partner. The deal was announced on September 10, 2026.

The agreement extends a commercial relationship that began in 2023. BetMGM branding will appear on LED advertising boards and media walls at St James’ Park. The partnership will also include fan activations and matchday events, according to Newcastle United. (Newcastle United)

What the renewal means

The agreement is a club sponsorship deal. It is not a new regulatory approval from the Gambling Commission.

The Gambling Commission’s public register lists LeoVegas Gaming PLC, account number 39198, against the domain betmgm.co.uk. Businesses offering online gambling to consumers in Great Britain must hold the relevant operating licence. (Gambling Commission)

This distinguishes the Newcastle arrangement from sponsorship deals involving operators without a Gambling Commission licence. The position does not automatically cover Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey or the Isle of Man, which have separate legal and regulatory systems.

Why football sponsorships face pressure

The Premier League’s voluntary ban on gambling companies appearing on the front of matchday shirts began at the end of the 2025/26 season. It does not remove all gambling advertising from stadiums, digital channels or other partnership categories. (Premier League)

The government is considering a separate measure. Its consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorships was published on July 15, 2026, and closed on September 9. The preferred option would introduce a fixed ban in August 2027, before the 2027/28 football season. No final legislation has been announced.

The proposed ban would cover physical sponsorship and advertising, including:

• kit and equipment deals;
• pitchside advertising;
• stadium infrastructure;
• tournament programmes; and
• the naming of events, leagues and venues.

The government said the proposal is intended to protect consumers from platforms that may not provide equivalent player safeguards. It also cited money-laundering risks and unfair competition for licensed operators.

The government estimated that about 40% of Premier League clubs had advertising or sponsorship deals with unlicensed gambling operators during the 2025/26 season. (UK Government)

A sharper commercial divide

Newcastle’s renewal gives a licensed operator continued visibility after the shirt-front change. Stadium advertising and official betting-partner status could become more valuable as clubs lose one of the most prominent spaces on match kits.

The arrangement also highlights the compliance burden for clubs and sports organisations. The Gambling Commission says they must ensure that sponsorship deals involving unlicensed brands are legal, related gambling services remain inaccessible in Great Britain, and the arrangement does not create a reputational risk. (Gambling Commission)

For Newcastle, the immediate position is that the BetMGM renewal is a private commercial partnership linked to a Gambling Commission-registered licensee for Great Britain. The wider issue is whether future rules will make that distinction a requirement for every gambling sponsorship in English football.

The case is increasing pressure on Great Britain’s licensed betting operators to show that politically sensitive markets are monitored effectively.

What happened in court

Anthony Lee pleaded guilty to two offences under section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. Laura Lee, formerly known as Laura Saunders, pleaded guilty to one offence under the same section.

The Gambling Commission said Anthony Lee had access to confidential discussions about the proposed election date through his role as the Conservative Party’s Director of Campaigning. It said he used the information to place bets and passed it to his wife.

Laura Lee was Head of International for the Conservative Party and stood as the party’s candidate in Bristol North-West at the 2024 General Election. The Commission said she placed bets after receiving confidential information from her husband.

The pair are due to be sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on 23 October 2026. The guilty pleas resolve the criminal cases on the admitted offences, but the court has not imposed sentence.

Why operators are under scrutiny

The case does not establish that any licensed operator breached its regulatory duties. It shows how betting markets can be exposed to confidential political information before it is made public.

The Gambling Commission said several operators offered markets on when the election would be held before then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the date on 22 May 2024. The election took place on 4 July 2024.

Great Britain’s Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice require betting licence holders to provide the Gambling Commission with information they know or suspect may relate to an offence under the Gambling Act. They must do so as soon as reasonably practicable.

Commission guidance also says operators should have systems to identify unusual or suspicious betting patterns. Known or suspected cheating must be reported under the relevant licence conditions.

• Operators must monitor unusual betting activity.
• They must preserve and provide relevant information to the regulator.
• They may need to suspend, investigate or void bets where the law or market rules allow.
• They must maintain controls that protect confidence in fair and open betting.

The guilty pleas concern the conduct of individuals. Operators must separately demonstrate that their controls complied with Great Britain’s licensing framework.

A case that has widened over time

The Commission began investigating the election markets in June 2024. In April 2025, it charged 15 people with alleged cheating offences connected to bets on the election date.

Craig Williams and Amy Hind pleaded guilty on 29 June 2026. The Commission said they had used confidential information about the proposed election date to place bets.

The trials of 10 other defendants are listed for September 2027 and January 2028. Their cases remain allegations and will be determined through the court process.

What happens next

The immediate regulatory question is whether the Commission identifies weaknesses in how operators accepted, priced or monitored election-related markets.

The regulator has not announced a financial penalty or licence action against an operator in connection with the guilty pleas announced on 10 September 2026.

Operators are likely to face closer questions about:

• Escalation procedures for political markets.
• Customer links to public institutions and campaign organisations.
• Betting patterns that emerge before public announcements.
• The speed of information sharing with the regulator.

The case therefore places both individual conduct and operator controls under scrutiny, but those issues remain legally distinct.

The FATF report is an international risk assessment, not UK legislation. It does not introduce new licence conditions or an immediate compliance deadline for British operators. Its practical effect is to give regulators and firms new risk indicators as they review existing controls.

What the FATF identified

The report covers casinos, online gambling platforms, payment channels and illegal operators. It says criminals may use gambling services to move money without meaningful gambling activity. They may also split transactions, use several accounts or payment methods, and exploit cross-border systems.

• Multiple accounts linked to different identities.
• Mismatches between customer details and payment information.
• Suspicious identity documents or ownership structures.
• Unusual betting or transaction patterns.
• Links between operators, cyber-enabled fraud and organised crime.

The FATF said illegal gambling is among the sector’s most significant risks. It also warned that e-wallets, mobile money and virtual assets can create additional exposure when controls fail or operators work across jurisdictions.

How Britain’s rules already apply

The Gambling Commission published its 2026 British money-laundering and terrorist-financing risk assessment on July 30, 2026. It rates both remote casino, betting and bingo activity and non-remote casinos as high risk compared with other gambling sectors.

The Commission’s assessment examined risks from April 1, 2023, to October 31, 2025. It identifies artificial intelligence and the growth of illegal gambling websites as emerging compliance challenges. It says illegal sites can expose licensed businesses to illicit financial flows through business-to-business relationships.

The assessment also provides a separate comparison. HM Treasury and the Home Office’s 2025 National Risk Assessment rates the casino sector as medium risk compared with other regulated sectors in the wider economy. The Gambling Commission uses a different method and compares individual gambling sub-sectors with one another.

What changes for operators

No new UK rule took effect on September 9, 2026. British operators must still comply with their existing licence obligations, including Licence Condition 12. The condition requires appropriate policies, procedures and controls to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing.

The Gambling Commission says its risk assessment informs licensing, compliance and enforcement priorities. The FATF findings are therefore likely to matter when operators update risk assessments, customer due-diligence systems, payment monitoring and controls over business partners.

The immediate issue is not whether the FATF report creates a new British offence. It is whether licensed operators can show that their existing controls detect the newer risks identified by international and domestic supervisors.

Illegal operators remain a central concern

The FATF report places illegal and unlicensed offshore operators at the centre of its warning. It says such businesses can present themselves as legitimate while offering anonymity and attracting consumers and criminal actors.

That concern aligns with the Gambling Commission’s British assessment, which says illegal gambling websites can affect licensed operators and the wider financial system. The pressure therefore extends beyond individual casino websites to payment providers, software businesses and other commercial partners.

The FATF report applies internationally. The Gambling Commission assessment applies to licensed gambling activity in Great Britain. Northern Ireland operates under a separate gambling framework and is not covered by the Commission’s British licence assessment.

Playtech reported adjusted EBITDA of €162.5 million for the six months ended 30 June 2026, up 77% from a year earlier.

The London-listed gambling technology group reported continuing-operations revenue of €425.1 million, compared with €387 million in the first half of 2025. It said it remains on track to deliver more than €270 million in adjusted EBITDA for the full year.

North America drives growth

Revenue from the United States and Canada rose 161% year on year to €56.9 million. Playtech linked the increase to its work with Hard Rock Bet in Florida and broader expansion across regulated North American markets.

That growth helped offset weaker performance in Britain. Playtech’s business-to-business revenue from the UK fell to €59 million from €64.2 million in the first half of 2025. On a constant-currency basis, the decline was 5%.

Higher duty weighs on UK performance

Remote Gaming Duty increased from 21% to 40% on 1 April 2026. The duty applies to profits from remote gaming with UK customers, rather than to a supplier’s total revenue.

Playtech said the UK result reflected the initial effect of the tax increase and customer-specific changes. One operator brought self-service betting terminals in-house. Contractual changes also affected another customer.

The company expects the higher duty to have a greater effect in the second half. It also expects second-half adjusted EBITDA to be lower than the first half as US revenue normalises, investment continues in Brazil and the UK tax change affects a full reporting period.

What the figures show

Playtech supplies gambling businesses. Its results do not provide a direct measure of consumer gambling activity. They show how a technology provider is responding to the commercial conditions facing British operators.

The UK decline also cannot be attributed entirely to the tax change. Playtech identified the duty as one factor, alongside customer decisions and contract changes. It did not publish a separate figure for revenue lost specifically because of the tax.

• Continuing-operations revenue: €425.1 million
• Adjusted EBITDA: €162.5 million
• US and Canada revenue: €56.9 million
• UK business-to-business revenue: €59 million
• Remote Gaming Duty rate: 40%, effective from 1 April 2026

Playtech holds remote and non-remote operating licences from the Gambling Commission for Great Britain. Those licences apply to the British regulatory framework. They do not establish a single licensing regime for Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

Further tax changes are scheduled

The 40% rate applies to Remote Gaming Duty from 1 April 2026. The government has also set a 25% remote rate within General Betting Duty from 1 April 2027. UK horse-racing bets are excluded from that change.

For suppliers serving British operators, Playtech’s results provide an early financial test of the new tax regime. International growth can protect earnings, but the UK figures show that the domestic market is already producing a different result.

Bunting discussed his past betting problems in an interview published by The Guardian on September 8, 2026. He said online fruit-machine play had left him with substantial debt. On September 9, SBC News reported criticism of his partnerships with Stealth Competitions and Diamond Draws Competitions.

**The central issue is whether voluntary safeguards can protect consumers as prize draw brands expand their reach through sport.**

Why the partnerships matter

Prize draws with a genuine free-entry route do not normally require a licence under the Gambling Act 2005 in Great Britain. They fall outside Gambling Commission licensing, but remain subject to consumer-protection, advertising and data-protection rules.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a voluntary code on November 20, 2025. It applies to prize draws and competitions in Great Britain, but not to Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

The code was due for full implementation by May 20, 2026. The department retains oversight and has warned that it may consider further action, including legislation, if the voluntary approach fails to improve standards.

Protections are voluntary

The code says operators should restrict participation to people aged 18 and over. It also calls for reasonable age verification, clear explanations of free-entry routes, and accurate information about draw mechanics and winning chances.

• Operators should explain how each draw works.
• Free-entry routes should be clear and accessible before purchase.
• Prize allocation should be fair and independently supervised or auditable.
• Operators should maintain complaints and dispute-resolution processes.
• Third-party marketers and affiliates should also be managed for compliance.

Neither Stealth Competitions nor Diamond Draws Competitions appears by name in the DCMS list of code signatories. That does not establish a breach. It means only that their absence from the published list cannot be treated as evidence that either brand participates in the voluntary scheme.

A market next to gambling

DCMS-commissioned research estimated that the UK prize draw market was worth £1.3 billion a year. It identified 7.4 million adult participants and more than 400 operators.

The research also found that 88% of prize draw participants had taken part in commercial gambling or lotteries during the previous 12 months. The figure was 60% among adults generally.

People experiencing gambling harm took part more often and spent more than the wider participant population, according to the research.

Those figures do not prove that prize draws cause gambling harm. They do show why the boundary between prize draws and licensed gambling has become a consumer-protection issue.

Sports audiences face a wider advertising test

Sports partnerships can place prize draw brands in front of highly engaged audiences. Darts also reaches families and younger viewers, making the presentation of paid entries, discounts and winning opportunities a sensitive issue.

The Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice regulate advertising for promotions and competitions. Their rules require clear terms, fair administration and accurate descriptions of prizes. Advertising must not mislead consumers about their chances of winning.

Gambling advertising follows a separate rulebook. The ASA says gambling marketing must not exploit vulnerable people or imply that gambling can solve financial problems.

The Gambling Commission’s licensing framework applies to licensed gambling products in Great Britain. It does not automatically apply to prize draw businesses using a free-entry model.

That distinction leaves a practical question for operators, sponsors and sports bodies: whether formal legality is enough when campaigns reach people who may already be vulnerable to gambling-related harm.

What happens next

DCMS updated the voluntary code on September 1, 2026. The update added new signatories and removed others, including several operators from the published list.

The scrutiny surrounding Bunting does not amount to a regulatory finding against the player or the companies involved. It does, however, increase pressure on the voluntary system to show whether its safeguards can keep pace with the sector’s marketing reach.

The company disclosed the action on September 8, one day before the Government’s consultation on unlicensed gambling sponsorships closed. The proposal remains under consideration and is not law.

The clubs named

SBC News reported that Entain contacted clubs linked to the following operators:

• Fulham, linked to SBOTOP
• Everton, linked to Stake
• Aston Villa, Chelsea, Ipswich Town, Newcastle United and Coventry City, linked to 8XBet
• Nottingham Forest, linked to FUN88
• Tottenham Hotspur, linked to VSBet
• Crystal Palace, linked to Chexx.bet

Entain has questioned whether sponsorships aimed at overseas audiences can remain separate from British consumers when club shirts, stadiums and digital channels reach large domestic audiences.

What the Government is proposing

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport opened its consultation on July 15, 2026. It proposes secondary legislation under the Gambling Act 2005 to prohibit advertising and sponsorship by operators that are not licensed by the Gambling Commission.

The proposed restriction would cover:

• Shirt and equipment agreements
• Perimeter advertising
• Venue infrastructure
• Match programmes and digital assets
• The naming of competitions and venues

The Government’s preferred start date is a fixed date in August 2027, before the 2027/28 football season.

Under the current framework, an unlicensed operator can enter a sponsorship agreement if its gambling services are not accessible to consumers in Great Britain. The Government says virtual private networks and other workarounds can weaken that separation.

The consultation is a proposal, not a final rule. Any ban would require further Government action and parliamentary approval.

Why the dispute matters

Great Britain’s licensing system covers gambling operators serving consumers in England, Scotland and Wales. Permission to operate in another market does not authorise an operator to offer gambling to customers in Great Britain.

The Gambling Commission says businesses must hold the relevant licence to provide gambling facilities to customers located in Great Britain. Its public register was updated on September 10, 2026, and records the status of licensed businesses and trading names.

The central issue is the gap between overseas-targeted sponsorship and domestic exposure. Clubs and operators may argue that a deal targets foreign audiences. British viewers can still see the brand on shirts, advertising boards and club websites.

Entain has called for an immediate voluntary ban before legislation takes effect. The company previously wrote to Premier League chief executive Richard Masters and urged football authorities to remove unlicensed operators from sponsorship and advertising arrangements.

What happens next

The Government will review consultation responses before deciding whether to lay legislation before Parliament. It plans to publish a formal response later in 2026.

Until then, the reported partnerships are not automatically unlawful solely because the operators lack Great Britain licences, provided the existing legal conditions are met.

The proposed ban would create a new criminal offence for continuing to advertise or sponsor gambling through an unlicensed operator after the rules take effect.

The immediate dispute is therefore commercial, not a confirmed enforcement action. Clubs face pressure to review their deals early while the Government weighs consumer protection, money-laundering risks, football funding and the boundary between international marketing and access to the British market.

The Gambling Commission’s public register lists Playbook Fusion as an active trading name of Fern Valley Limited, account number 65808. The register records no premises and no regulatory actions for the business.

The licence opens a route into the regulated supply chain, but it does not guarantee that Playbook Football will launch with British operators.

What the licence changes

A remote gambling software licence allows a business to manufacture, supply, install or adapt gambling software through remote communication. The Gambling Commission says suppliers whose software is used by operators serving customers in Great Britain must hold the relevant licence.

The licence does not automatically place Playbook Football on betting websites. Operators still need their own approval, technical integration and controls before offering the product to customers.

Playbook Fusion said operators with an existing Games Global remote gaming server integration are expected to receive first access. That may shorten the technical route to market for operators already connected to the platform. The company has not published a complete list of British launches linked to the licence.

A betting product built like a video game

Playbook Football allows users to build teams, compete in simulated matches, place bets and progress through divisions. Supplier information also describes player packs, in-game currency, rewards, leaderboards and recurring match cycles.

The format differs from a standard sportsbook because team-building activity sits alongside the betting transaction. The product page lists seven betting markets, including match-result and goalscorer markets.

The compliance test for operators

For British operators, the central question is how the game’s features interact with existing safer gambling duties. Operators remain responsible for customer checks, age and identity verification, financial crime controls, marketing compliance and interventions for customers showing signs of harm.

Reward systems and repeated seven-day competitions may require close review of the product design, customer journey and advertising. The supplier’s licence confirms access to the regulated supply chain, but operators remain responsible for how the product is presented and used.

Why Great Britain matters

The Gambling Commission regulates gambling for customers in:

• England
• Scotland
• Wales

Northern Ireland has a separate legal framework. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man operate under their own arrangements. The Playbook Fusion announcement concerns access to the Great Britain market only.

Playbook Fusion said the approval allows it to offer Playbook Football to UK-licensed operators for the first time. Its announcement describes the product as a meeting point between sports betting and mobile or video-game design.

The practical impact will depend on which operators launch the product, how they classify it within their gambling portfolios and whether its reward and progression mechanics pass internal compliance reviews.

The consultation closes on 16 October 2026. The draft policy would cover 2027 to 2030, but it is not final and must complete the council’s approval process.

What the draft covers

The proposed Statement of Principles would guide decisions on premises licences, permits, temporary notices and small society lottery registrations under the Gambling Act 2005.

The council also proposes a stronger public health focus. It says gambling-related harm can affect finances, housing, employment, relationships, and physical and mental health.

The draft links local licensing decisions to the protection of children and vulnerable people. It also refers to safeguarding, public health, crime reduction and local planning information.

Existing powers, not a new ban

The consultation would update how Northumberland uses its existing licensing powers. It would not give the council a general power to ban gambling premises or control most online gambling.

Local authorities can issue premises licences and permits, attach conditions, review licences and, in some cases, revoke them.

The Gambling Commission remains responsible for operating licences for bookmakers, casinos and online gambling businesses.

The draft retains the statutory “aim to permit” principle. Applications should generally be allowed when they comply with the Gambling Commission’s guidance and codes, the council’s policy and the three licensing objectives:

• Preventing gambling from causing or supporting crime and disorder.
• Ensuring gambling is conducted fairly and openly.
• Protecting children and vulnerable people from harm or exploitation.

Why the local test matters

The consultation shows how national gambling policy is applied through local licensing decisions in England. Northumberland must operate within the Gambling Act 2005, but it can decide how local evidence, safeguarding concerns and risk information are considered in premises cases.

The draft identifies clusters of gambling premises in parts of the North East. It points to Ashington and Blyth as areas where deprivation and the concentration of gambling premises require closer attention.

Those references provide policy context. They do not amount to a decision to reject a particular application.

The council says it worked with public health, children’s and adult services, planning officials and its Licensing Committee while preparing the draft.

The Licensing Committee is due to consider the initial proposals on 10 September 2026, following Cabinet consideration on 8 September.

What happens next

Residents, businesses, community groups and public bodies can respond during the consultation. The council will then assess the evidence before presenting a revised policy for formal approval.

The existing policy remains in force until that process is complete. The final impact will depend on the wording adopted, how decision-makers apply local risk evidence and whether future national changes alter councils’ powers.

The London-headquartered company announced the pricing on September 9, 2026. The notes carry a 4.875% coupon and were priced at 99.360% of nominal value. Settlement is expected on September 17, 2026, subject to customary closing conditions.

What changes for Brightstar

Brightstar said it will use the proceeds to repurchase its outstanding €500 million of 2.375% senior secured notes due in April 2028. The funds will also repay drawings under revolving credit facilities and cover transaction fees.

The September 8 tender offer and financing announcement said the transaction is intended to extend the weighted average maturity of Brightstar's debt. It is therefore a maturity-management exercise, not a confirmed reduction in total borrowings.

• New notes: €500 million due in 2032.
• New coupon: 4.875%.
• Issue price: 99.360% of nominal value.
• Expected gross proceeds at that price: about €496.8 million.
• Existing notes targeted for repurchase: €500 million due in 2028, with a 2.375% coupon.

If the full €500 million of older notes is replaced on a like-for-like basis, the stated annual coupon cost would rise by roughly €12.5 million. That estimate excludes fees, the issue discount, tax effects and other financing adjustments.

Brightstar is gaining more time before the targeted notes mature, but the refinancing increases the annual interest burden on the replaced debt.

Debt pressure follows Italian licence payment

Brightstar reported net debt of $3.8 billion at June 30, 2026, up from $2.7 billion at December 31, 2025. The company attributed the increase to the final payment for its Italian Lotto licence.

It reported net debt leverage of 3.24 times and total liquidity of $1.7 billion. That included about $600 million in unrestricted cash and $1.2 billion of undrawn borrowing capacity.

The second-quarter figures showed a mixed operating backdrop. Revenue fell 7% year on year to $584 million, while adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation rose 4% to $286 million.

Brightstar identified a UK service contract transition as a drag on both revenue and adjusted earnings. The refinancing therefore comes as the company manages higher debt following the Italian licence payment and an operational transition in the UK.

Why the UK connection matters

Companies House lists Brightstar Lottery PLC as an active public limited company registered in London. The record shows that it was incorporated on July 11, 2014, and previously traded as International Game Technology PLC until July 9, 2025.

Brightstar's UK exposure is primarily linked to lottery technology and service contracts. The company does not hold a single gambling licence covering the whole United Kingdom. Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man operate under different legal and regulatory arrangements.

For UK lottery operators, suppliers and public-sector stakeholders, the immediate issue is financial resilience. A refinancing can reduce near-term maturity risk, but a higher coupon increases the cost of servicing debt. Brightstar must also complete the transaction before the planned September 17 settlement date.

What to watch next

• Whether the tender offer removes the targeted 2028 notes in full.
• Whether the new financing repays all intended revolving-credit drawings.
• Brightstar's cash generation after the Italian licence payment.
• The financial effect of the UK service contract transition.
• Any changes to leverage, liquidity or shareholder distributions in the next results.

The refinancing gives Brightstar more time before major debt maturities fall due. The next test is whether its lottery technology contracts generate enough cash flow to cover the higher interest bill and support the wider balance sheet.

Prediction markets operating in Great Britain will need the relevant Gambling Commission licence. Approved platforms may be treated as betting intermediaries under the Gambling Act 2005, the Treasury said in a written parliamentary answer on September 8, 2026.

The government will monitor the sector and consider further action if necessary. It has not announced a separate regulatory framework, consultation or new legislation for prediction markets.

How the existing rules apply

A prediction market allows users to buy or sell positions linked to the outcome of an event. Under the government’s stated approach, a platform that facilitates bets between users could fall within the existing betting intermediary category.

Section 13 of the Gambling Act 2005 defines a betting intermediary as a service that facilitates the making or acceptance of bets between other people. The Act treats that activity as providing facilities for betting.

The Gambling Commission lists remote betting intermediary licences for online services that bring betting parties together without taking liability for their bets. Betting exchanges are the main example of this model.

No dedicated legislation announced

Treasury minister Lucy Rigby gave the parliamentary answer in response to a question from Conservative MP Bob Blackman. The question asked whether ministers planned to introduce legislation specifically for prediction markets.

The answer confirmed the existing licensing route. It did not announce a consultation, bill, licence condition or new enforcement policy.

The September 8 response sets out the government’s current position, not a new statutory framework. The position could change if ministers decide that the sector requires further intervention.

Operators seeking to serve customers in Great Britain would still face the Gambling Commission’s licensing process. The Commission says businesses providing remote gambling facilities to consumers in Great Britain require an operating licence.

Why the licence category matters

The licence category affects how a platform is assessed and which controls it must maintain. The Commission examines the operator’s role in setting terms, settling bets, handling money and managing risks linked to money laundering, betting integrity and social responsibility.

• Licensing: platforms would need the appropriate Gambling Commission operating licence before serving the British market.
• Market structure: a service that only brings users together could be treated differently from an operator that becomes a party to the bet.
• Compliance: operators would be subject to the licence conditions and regulatory duties that apply to licensed gambling businesses.

The Commission’s guidance says an operator that becomes a party to a bet may require a general betting operating licence instead. The final classification will depend on the platform’s contractual arrangements and business model.

Great Britain, not the whole United Kingdom

The government’s answer refers specifically to Great Britain, meaning England, Scotland and Wales. It does not announce a unified prediction market regime for every part of the United Kingdom.

The Gambling Commission distinguishes Great Britain from Northern Ireland in its territorial guidance. The Gambling Act 2005 applies to operators providing gambling facilities to consumers in Great Britain.

What happens next

The immediate regulatory position is unchanged. Any prediction market seeking to operate lawfully in Great Britain must assess its activity against the Gambling Act 2005 and seek the relevant Gambling Commission authorisation.

Ministers left open the possibility of further action if the sector’s impact changes. That could lead to additional guidance, legislative proposals or regulatory intervention, but none was announced in the September 8 answer.

The agreement covers Gaming Corps’ full portfolio. It includes casino slots, table games, multiplier games, mine games, Plinko games, Instant Blitz and the Smash4Cash series.

The agreement creates another potential route into Great Britain’s regulated online casino supply chain. It does not confirm that specific Gaming Corps games are already available to British players.

Two distribution routes

The Playtech agreement follows a separate deal with evoke, announced by Gaming Corps on 23 July 2026. That rollout was due to begin in the United Kingdom through brands including William Hill, 888 and Mr Green before expanding to other regulated markets.

The two agreements give Gaming Corps different routes to market. The evoke deal provides access to brands named by the company. Playtech offers distribution through a platform used by multiple operators.

Neither announcement guarantees deployment on every brand or the immediate availability of every game. Operators must decide which content to integrate and offer in each market.

• Playtech agreement announced: 8 September 2026
• Planned Playtech launch: later in 2026
• evoke agreement announced: 23 July 2026
• Planned evoke rollout: United Kingdom first

British compliance requirements remain

Distribution agreements do not replace regulatory checks in Great Britain. The Gambling Commission requires gambling software and remote operating licence holders to comply with its Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards. The standards include testing and security requirements, with guidance updates effective from 30 June 2026.

The Commission also requires gambling software supplied to British operators to come from a holder of a gambling software operating licence. The framework covers software supplied to consumers in Great Britain. It does not regulate Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

The Gambling Commission’s public register lists Gaming Corps Malta Limited under account number 63312. The entry shows active remote gambling software and casino game host licences from 5 February 2024.

What happens next

The next stage is operational rather than legislative. Playtech, Gaming Corps and participating operators must complete integration, testing and market-specific compliance work before games can be offered to customers in Great Britain.

For British players, the practical impact will depend on which games each licensed operator approves and makes available. The agreements illustrate how suppliers can enter regulated markets through both direct operator partnerships and platform distribution.

The ASA said the search suggested that the user might be seeking information, advice or support about gambling-related harm. It ruled that promoting casino websites, fast sign-ups and bonuses in response breached rule 1.3 of the CAP Code on responsible advertising.

A casino advert can breach advertising rules because of the user’s search intent, even when the advertiser is an affiliate rather than a gambling operator.

What the ASA found

• The advert promoted top10onlinecasinoreviews.co.uk, operated by Smart Gravity.
• Smart Gravity described itself as an affiliate comparison website, not a gambling operator.
• The campaign used exact, phrase and broad-match keywords through Microsoft Advertising.
• The ASA found that the negative keyword controls did not provide a strong enough safeguard.

The regulator said Smart Gravity must not serve the advert again after a search for “help with gambling”. It also required the business to ensure that its search advertising was responsibly targeted.

Why affiliates remain a compliance issue

The decision is an advertising ruling against the affiliate business. It is not a Gambling Commission licence suspension and does not establish a breach by any casino operator named or promoted on the comparison site.

However, the Gambling Commission says licensed operators must comply with UK advertising codes and manage risks linked to third parties. Its guidance states that licence holders remain responsible for relevant activities carried out by affiliates and other contracted partners.

What the ruling means for operators

The decision increases pressure on affiliate programmes to review search-term reports, exclusion lists and campaign settings. Broad-match advertising can expose operators and their marketing partners to searches that signal harm or a need for support, even when those words are absent from the original keyword plan.

For Great Britain, the regulatory distinction is important. The ASA applies the UK advertising codes. The Gambling Commission supervises licensed gambling businesses and their compliance with licence conditions and codes of practice. The two systems can lead to different enforcement consequences.

What may change next

• Affiliates may need stronger exclusions for searches linked to help, treatment, self-exclusion and gambling reduction.
• Operators may face closer scrutiny of controls used by third-party acquisition partners.
• Paid search campaigns may require documented monitoring, rather than relying only on pre-set keyword lists.

The ruling places the focus on the meaning of a search query, not only the wording of an advert. That creates a practical compliance issue for affiliates and licensed operators using automated or broad-match search campaigns.

Playtech said the report corroborates concerns about Evolution games being available in prohibited markets and about limited proactive monitoring of customer operators. It also said Spectrum could not confirm or refute some findings because Evolution did not provide requested information, including data from certain jurisdictions and revenue reports.

The report has renewed scrutiny of supplier controls, but it does not impose a penalty or alter Evolution’s UK licence.

What the report means for Great Britain

The British connection is direct but separate. On 23 July 2026, the Gambling Commission announced a £4.75 million settlement with Evolution Malta Holding Limited after its games appeared on six unlicensed websites accessible to consumers in Great Britain.

The regulator said large volumes of UK consumer visits reached those websites between December 2023 and November 2024. It identified weaknesses in Evolution’s money laundering and terrorist financing risk assessment, customer due diligence, and controls designed to prevent licensed games reaching unlicensed operators.

The Commission said the failings were serious enough for it to consider suspending Evolution’s licences. It also said Evolution took corrective action and that later testing found no further instances of concern.

• Settlement announced: 23 July 2026
• Websites involved: six unlicensed sites
• Consumer access period identified by the regulator: December 2023 to November 2024
• Settlement amount: £4.75 million

Two different legal issues

The Spectrum report does not itself impose a penalty or change Evolution’s Gambling Commission licence. Its findings form part of continuing US court proceedings and remain subject to legal argument.

Evolution has rejected the wider Black Cube allegations. In an October 2025 statement, the company called the earlier investigation false and said US regulators had closed their reviews without corrective action. Evolution’s position remains contested in the litigation.

The practical issue for British suppliers is the gap between contractual controls and real-world access. The Gambling Commission has made clear that licence holders must understand who receives their games, where those games are accessed, and whether their controls work in practice.

What happens next

• The US litigation will determine the legal weight of the competing allegations.
• Courts, regulators and industry stakeholders can examine the public Spectrum report.
• Evolution’s July 2026 British settlement remains separate from the court dispute.
• Suppliers serving Great Britain face continued scrutiny over customer monitoring, market controls and anti-money-laundering systems.

The case does not establish that Evolution knowingly supplied games to every prohibited market named in the dispute. It does show why British regulators are focusing on evidence that controls operate effectively after a supplier signs a contract.

The planned reduction represents about 3% of bet365’s workforce.

• About 300 roles are expected to be affected in Stoke-on-Trent.
• The company employs about 5,500 people there.
• About 40 roles are expected to be affected in Malta and Gibraltar.

Racing Post reported the figures.

What bet365 has said

Bet365 said it faces a highly competitive trading environment, along with increased regulatory and tax-related costs. It described the changes as a restructuring of some locations, rather than a final compulsory redundancy programme.

Bet365 said it was “exploring all avenues” to reduce the number of redundancies and would begin with voluntary departures.

The announcement does not establish that tax changes caused every planned job loss. It does show how a major operator is responding as Britain raises duties on online gambling.

Tax changes affecting the market

HM Revenue and Customs raised Remote Gaming Duty from 21% to 40% for accounting periods beginning on or after April 1, 2026. The duty applies to profits from remote gaming with UK customers, including online casino-style products and slots.

A separate 25% rate for remote betting is scheduled to begin on April 1, 2027. Remote bets on UK horseracing are excluded from that new rate and remain subject to the existing 15% rate. Bingo Duty was abolished on April 1, 2026.

The government said the package is expected to raise more than £1 billion a year. HM Revenue and Customs estimated that higher duty bills will affect:

• About 160 businesses providing remote betting.
• About 95 businesses providing remote gaming.
• About 55 businesses providing both services.

Why the Stoke-on-Trent cuts matter

Stoke-on-Trent is one of bet365’s main employment centres. The proposed reduction therefore extends beyond the company’s offshore hubs and affects a major employer in Britain’s gambling technology and operations sector.

The Betting and Gaming Council said in August that more than 540 betting shops had closed and about 4,500 jobs had been lost since the previous year’s Budget. The trade body said the wider regulated sector still supports about 109,000 jobs across Britain, but warned that higher taxes and costs could reduce investment.

Those figures include retail betting and are not directly comparable with bet365’s online workforce reduction. They do, however, frame the central policy question: whether higher public revenue will outweigh lower employment, weaker investment and pressure on licensed businesses.

Bet365 remains licensed for Great Britain

The Gambling Commission’s public register lists bet365 trading names under Hillside (Technology) Limited and Hillside (UK Gaming) ENC. The register shows active remote casino licensing for Hillside (UK Gaming) ENC. Hillside (Technology) Limited is recorded at bet365’s Stoke-on-Trent address.

The Great Britain licence framework does not automatically cover Malta, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man. Bet365’s staffing changes span separate locations and regulatory jurisdictions. The UK gambling duties described by HM Revenue and Customs apply to gambling supplied to UK customers under the place-of-consumption system.

The next test

The immediate test is whether voluntary redundancies can limit compulsory job losses. The wider test will come when operators report the effect of the 40% Remote Gaming Duty rate and prepare for the 25% remote betting rate in 2027.

Bet365’s decision is not evidence that Britain’s tax policy has reduced the size of the whole industry. It is an early, high-profile signal that higher duties are shaping decisions about staffing and the location of gambling operations.

The deadline does not create a new Great Britain licence condition. It applies under European Union law. However, it can affect businesses based in the United Kingdom when they place covered products on the European Union market.

What changes on 11 September

The European Commission says manufacturers must submit an early warning within 24 hours of becoming aware of an actively exploited vulnerability or severe incident. A fuller notification must follow within 72 hours.

Final reports are due within 14 days after a corrective measure becomes available for an exploited vulnerability. For a severe incident, the final report is due within one month.

Reports will be submitted through the Cyber Resilience Act Single Reporting Platform. Notifications go to the relevant Computer Security Incident Response Team and are made available to the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity, known as ENISA, unless exceptional circumstances justify a delay. The platform is scheduled to become operational on 11 September 2026.

The practical change is a separate European Union reporting track with deadlines measured in hours, not just the existing Great Britain compliance process.

Why gambling technology may be covered

A legal analysis published by DLA Piper on 18 August 2026 says the rules may cover downloadable casino and sportsbook clients, mobile gambling applications, gaming cabinets, self-service betting terminals, kiosks and player-account management platforms.

The analysis also identifies a potential risk for operators that heavily customise supplier technology. An operator that distributes an application under its own brand or substantially modifies a product may assume manufacturer responsibilities under the Act.

• Mobile casino and sportsbook applications may fall within the product rules.
• Self-service betting terminals and kiosks may be covered.
• Player-account platforms may require a formal assessment of responsibility.
• Customised supplier systems may create additional duties for the operator.

Separate duties in Great Britain

Gambling businesses serving consumers in England, Scotland and Wales must still meet the Gambling Commission’s licensing framework. Its remote gambling and software technical standards apply to licensed remote operators and gambling software providers.

The Commission also requires covered remote gambling operators to complete an annual independent security audit. Major non-conformities identified in an audit must be reported to the Commission without delay.

These Great Britain requirements operate separately from the European Union reporting deadline. They arise under the Gambling Act 2005 and the Gambling Commission’s licence framework.

The distinction matters for companies operating across several markets. Compliance with Great Britain’s technical standards will not, by itself, establish compliance with the Cyber Resilience Act.

What businesses need to clarify

Before 11 September, affected businesses need to establish who controls cyber decisions, which products are placed on the European Union market and which incident response team owns each notification.

They also need clear records covering:

• vulnerability detection and triage;
• incident escalation and decision-making;
• supplier and platform responsibilities;
• customer warnings and corrective measures;
• the time when the business became aware of an incident.

For UK-facing gambling technology, the main challenge is running both systems without confusing an European Union market access obligation with a Gambling Commission licence requirement. A supplier may need separate procedures for identifying the legal manufacturer, assessing market placement, escalating incidents and meeting the 24-hour and 72-hour reporting windows.

The report says operators use social media, search engines, affiliates, influencers, Telegram, WhatsApp and mirror websites to reach customers outside the protections required in the regulated market.

Fincord’s central warning is that self-exclusion protections can be bypassed when customers are redirected to operators outside the Gambling Commission’s licensing system.

Report estimate is not official market data

Fincord estimates that illegal online gambling generated about US$50 billion in gross revenue worldwide during 2025. That figure is a report estimate. It is not Gambling Commission data on the size of the Great Britain market.

The report also claims that about 5,000 operator structures used more than 15,000 websites and applications. It says mirror domains, virtual private networks and browser-based applications allow blocked services to return under new addresses.

Fincord identifies the promotion of so-called “Non-GAMSTOP” sites as a route to customers who have joined GAMSTOP. It says some services advertise limited or absent identity checks, financial checks and betting limits.

Pressure moves beyond website blocking

The report argues that action against individual websites alone will not stop the networks. It calls for measures targeting the wider infrastructure that supports illegal operators.

• Payment providers and financial intermediaries.
• Cryptocurrency services and other payment channels.
• Affiliate marketers and advertisers.
• Software suppliers and hosting companies.
• Social media and messaging platforms.

The Betting and Gaming Council said on September 7 that regulators, law enforcement agencies, payment companies and technology platforms should coordinate action against those networks.

The council made similar demands in an open letter dated June 16, 2026. It said illegal gambling operators were using technology platforms to reach self-excluded and vulnerable customers. The letter was an industry call for action, not an enforcement decision by a regulator.

What GAMSTOP covers

GAMSTOP allows a person to exclude themselves from online gambling businesses licensed by the Gambling Commission through one request. The scheme applies to licensed operators serving customers in Great Britain.

The Gambling Commission says online gambling companies serving British consumers must hold a licence. It also warns that illegal overseas websites may not provide the required protections. The commission says it tracks and takes action against such sites when they are identified.

A GAMSTOP self-exclusion does not give the Gambling Commission direct control over an offshore operator that does not hold a Great Britain licence. That gap is the main enforcement problem identified by the Fincord report.

Great Britain is not Northern Ireland

The report’s British-market claims concern Great Britain, meaning England, Scotland and Wales. The Gambling Commission regulates gambling under the Gambling Act 2005 in those three nations.

Northern Ireland has a separate framework under the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, as amended by the 2022 Act. The Department for Communities, district councils, courts and the Police Service of Northern Ireland have responsibilities under that system.

The Gambling Commission says it does not regulate gambling activity in Northern Ireland. It also says advertising unlicensed remote gambling there is an offence, while some Gambling Act provisions apply.

What happens next

The Fincord findings put the practical focus on companies that help illegal operators find customers, process deposits, promote websites and keep services online.

The report does not establish the size of the illegal Great Britain market. Its global revenue estimate should not be presented as settled official data.

The immediate policy question is whether payment firms, advertisers, technology platforms and regulators can block the wider infrastructure, rather than only individual domains.

Brillbet entered the market under UK Digital Bookmakers Ltd, a London-based operator with active remote licences from the Gambling Commission.

The regulator’s public register shows that the company’s licences became active on 15 June 2026. They cover remote casino services and real-event betting under the General Betting Standard category.

The brand was reported as launching on 7 September 2026. Its live registration pages offer account creation, identity checks, deposit limits, sportsbook services and casino products. The Gambling Commission register confirms the licence status but does not independently verify the commercial launch date.

What the licence covers

UK Digital Bookmakers Ltd is listed under account number 101570. The Gambling Commission records two active remote activities:

• Remote casino, licence 101570-R-342582-002.
• General Betting Standard, covering real-event remote betting under the same licence record.

The register also lists brillbet as an active trading name. It records the company’s head office at 124-128 City Road, London.

A competitive market with falling account numbers

Brillbet is entering a large and competitive market. Gambling Commission data for January to March 2026 recorded online Gross Gambling Yield of £1.55 billion among the largest operators, up 7% from a year earlier.

• Online real-event betting Gross Gambling Yield reached £600 million.
• The number of active betting accounts fell 5% year on year.
• The largest operators recorded 5.2 million customer interactions during the quarter.

Gross Gambling Yield measures gambling revenue after winnings are paid, not customer stakes, deposits or operator profit. The figures show the scale of regulated online activity, but do not establish how much market share a new brand can capture.

Higher taxes change the economics

Remote Gaming Duty rose to 40% for accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2026. A separate 25% duty rate for remote betting will apply from 1 April 2027.

Remote bets on UK horseracing remain subject to the existing treatment. The different timetables mean casino and sportsbook activity will face separate tax conditions as Brillbet develops its business.

The government expects the duty changes to raise more than £1 billion a year. It has also warned that operators could pass some of the additional cost to customers through lower odds or returns.

Registration controls under scrutiny

Brillbet’s registration material says customers can set deposit limits and may need to complete identity checks before making withdrawals. Its safer-gambling pages refer to deposit limits, loss limits and account monitoring.

These are statements made by the operator. They are not evidence of a Gambling Commission enforcement finding.

The Gambling Commission’s market data shows the scale of the compliance task. Most of the 5.2 million customer interactions recorded in the largest operators’ dataset were automated.

New remote licence holders must manage age and identity checks, financial-risk assessments and monitoring for signs of gambling harm. Brillbet’s next test is whether its live service can build sustained customer use while meeting Great Britain’s tax, safer-gambling and compliance requirements.