UK Licensed Online Casinos: UKGC Licence, Domain Scores &
Some of the same size requirements for Small 2005 Act casinos will apply for 1968 Act casinos, should they increase their entitlement to gaming machines to more than 20 (including one or more Category B machines). This will ensure that casinos continue to offer a variety of gaming and non-gaming activities for customers while at the same time allowing a greater number of machines to be sited on the premises. The sector views an increase to this ratio as essential in order to ensure these casinos’ long term viability by allowing them to site more gaming machines, and this conclusion was reflected in the white paper. It has also meant that none of these casinos are able in practice to satisfy the current conditions which would allow them to offer the maximum number of gaming machines due to the amount of space they take up.
Domain Score’s WHOIS transparency component looks at whether a casino domain’s registered ownership is publicly visible. One that doesn’t can drag down the Domain Scores of multiple seemingly unrelated casino brands. A proprietary casino platform gives the operator direct control over the technology stack, including SSL configuration, DNS management, and the security infrastructure that Domain Score assesses. A casino can have fully certified RNGs and simultaneously carry a poor Domain Score driven by weak SSL configuration. The licence authorises games of chance, which includes slots, table games like blackjack and roulette, and live dealer products delivered via video stream.
Players often find offshore numbers return as expired, belonging to another company, or not licensed. Look for a licence seal that links to the issuing regulator’s own validation tool, then run the number through it. A genuine UK-licensed site states in its footer that the named business is licensed and regulated in Great Britain by the Gambling Commission under an account number. If the brand does not appear, it is not licensed in Great Britain. You can look up a casino by business name, trading name, website domain or account number.
The government intends for operating and premises licence fees to be harmonised between 1968 Act casinos and Small 2005 Act casinos. This will help ensure that operators are operating within the regulations and enable licensing authorities to undertake appropriate licence checks. Currently, 1968 Act casinos are not required to have a table gaming area so the premises plan will need to be updated accordingly. It will not be possible for a licensee to rely on an ancillary remote betting licence, even where the SSBT offer is alongside a non-remote offer as the ancillary licence is bound to a betting premises licence.
Despite indications from operators that there would not be appetite to site more than 80 machines in a single location, we want to ensure that this is not a possibility, removing the risk that these casinos could site more machines than a Small or even Large 2005 Act casino. Gaming machines must also have suitable characteristics to mitigate against the risk of gambling-related harm, and these characteristics will be in place for any additional gaming machines. When asked about the likely impact of the proposed changes, if a new regime were to take effect with the proposed new maximum of 80 gaming machines, the majority of operators (88%) stated they would look to move onto this regime. We will allow direct debit card payments to be made on gaming machines, subject to the player protection measures outlined within this government response.
Which of the following best describes your interest in gambling policy (select up to two options)? What do you think are the potential impacts of raising licence fees on gambling companies? What do you think are the potential impacts of raising licence fees on licensing authorities? How much funding do you estimate is needed for administration and the enforcement of licences annually? We also require a better understanding of how licensing authorities will amend their fees in response to an increase in the maximum fee cap.
The Commission’s published Advice to Government recognised this area as a potential example whereby it would be appropriate for requirements to be placed in the Commission’s regulatory framework rather than within the 2005 Act or in regulations. We believe these measures strike an appropriate balance between regulation applicable to modern payment methods, consumer benefits and protection of the licensing objectives. To support the bingo club sector further we will consider exploring the use of primary legislation to provide a clear distinction between bingo clubs and arcade premises. Some operators will benefit from both.
According to data from Health Survey England from 2012 to 2018, 25.7% of those who played on slot (electronic gaming) machines were classified as at-risk gamblers. Should separate table gaming areas of 12.5% or more only be allowed to count towards the total table gaming area for 1968 Act casinos under the new regime? Which approach do you think should be taken in relation to the maximum gambling area for 1968 Act casinos? Should the minimum table gaming area for Small 2005 Act casinos be reduced to 250sqm?
(b)the converted casino premises licence is not varied under section 187 of the 2005 Act(4) so as to relate to premises to which it did not relate on that date. (3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to premises in which the floor area of the gambling area of the casino was 1,500m² or greater on 12th May 2025 provided that, after that date— (5) No gambling is permitted in the table gaming area of the premises other than gambling by way of table gaming. “(1) This paragraph applies to all premises in respect of which a converted casino premises licence has effect.”;
(b)lobby areas and toilet facilities may be taken into account in calculating the non-gambling area; but the non-gambling area must not consist exclusively of lobby areas and toilet facilities, Have a gambling area, the floor area of which is no less than 200m², and The UKGC carries out regular reviews, audits, and investigations to ensure that operators continue to meet all requirements. Misleading advertising has led to several high-profile fines for operators in recent years, and this shows just how seriously the UKGC takes this. They must actively monitor player behaviour to identify signs of problem gambling and intervene when necessary.
Many sites that block GAMSTOP carry a licence, just not a UK one. If you cannot find any company at all behind a casino, that absence is itself the answer. The licence attaches to a specific company and a specific set of activities, not to the group’s reputation in general. A group with a clean UK-licensed operating company behind one brand may run entirely separate, unlicensed offshore brands under different names. The brand on the screen is rarely the company that holds the licence.
Many of the responses from outside of industry were strongly in favour of staff alerts but argued that they needed to be complemented by staff training so that they can intervene in a meaningful way. Non-industry responses were supportive of staff alerts being mandated, while views were split across industry. The Behavioural Insights Team’s response to the consultation recommended that voluntary limits that are strongly encouraged are used over mandatory limits as the evidence of the impact of the latter is limited. However, what the mandatory limits should be and how long the cooling-off period should be once the limits are hit prompted a wide range of responses. The government’s preference is for a 30 second minimum cooling-off period, but we would be content with a longer minimum time period if evidence provided in response to the Gambling Commission’s consultation suggests that longer is needed in order to protect players. Other responses from outside of industry thought that the cooling-off period should be longer, with respondents stating either 60 or 120 seconds.
We would like to understand whether these types of protections are already available on these machines, or whether it would require investment in new machines or software. In addition, while customers could stake lower than the maximum on a multi-stake Category B machine, evidence suggests that on average players tend to stake more on Category B machines than Category C and D machines. These machines can also offer customers Category C or D content on the same device. For example, a customer could stake 50p on these machines which is also below the maximum stake permitted on Category C machines. Industry trade bodies have provided evidence which suggests that the removal of the 80/20 rule would result in a large-scale reduction of tablets and in-fill machines, although the extent to which tablets will be removed will vary by operator.
This will ensure that Category C and D machines made available by operators have genuine customer appeal and/or are genuinely available for use, as opposed to being used as a means to increase the number of Category B cabinets a venue can site. The Gambling Commission has raised concern that some of these machines appear to have been designed primarily to maximise the number of Category B cabinet machines which can be sited by an operator, rather than to provide a genuine lower stake gambling offer to customers. However, to mitigate against gambling-related harm, the reform of the rule also seeks to ensure that a genuine offer of lower staking Category C and D machines remain available for customers. Additionally, the reform seeks to allow operators to reduce their energy costs through the removal of unused but energy intensive Category C and D machines and/or increase GGY through increased numbers of higher yielding Category B machines. Some operators were keen to highlight the increasing cost burden for land-based casinos in other areas, but acknowledged the logic of applying consistency across regimes. However, we do not intend on changing any of the requirements placed on operators as we think that the current regulatory framework will ensure that licensing authorities and the Commission are notified when changes are proposed to premises under these circumstances.
In response to these challenges, the white paper committed to changing the 80/20 rule to 50/50 to better meet the needs of industry and demands of customers. We welcome further evidence on the unmet consumer demand in the consultation response. The main theme that emerged from industry was that the current rule does not allow operators to meet consumer demand. A number of premises, particularly those located in motorway service stations, chose to retain their existing entitlements. Please upload any further evidence or any other information that should be considered as part of this consultation relating to casino measures.
Consultation aims
Are there any functions that local authorities/ licensing boards do not exercise at present, but could if fees were increased (e.g. a more proactive enforcement policy)? (Optional response)Yes / No / I don’t know If you are a local authority/ licensing board, do you currently charge the maximum fees as set out in the Gambling Act 2005?
These regulations are strict because real casinos not on gamestop money is involved, and regulators want people to have access to secure platforms that offer fair conditions. This fee is non-refundable if you need to withdraw your UK casino license application. This applies to all types of gambling businesses, which we’ll explain in greater detail in the license types section. Their regulatory bodies are among the most respected in the gambling industry. That explains why several pioneers in the gambling space are based in the UK. Remote external lottery manager operating licence
- The majority of respondents agreed that premises should adopt voluntary test purchasing as a way to monitor under-18s activity on ‘cash-out’ Category D slot-style machines.
- By signing up to Gamstop, you are given the opportunity to prevent access to all participating UK licensed online casinos in the system for a period of time.
- For example, a customer could stake 50p on these machines which is also below the maximum stake permitted on Category C machines.
- This is in addition to a 9 percent increase in the overall number of B3 machines, representing approximately 900 machines across the total AGC estate.
Surrendering your licence, partial surrender and leaving the GB market
The first two matters are not, and cannot be, delegated to a licensing committee, and must be taken by the authority as a whole. 416.Under legislation repealed by this Act, it has been a requirement that the grant of certain gambling permissions should take account of whether there is unfulfilled demand for the facilities. The new licence for the track can only be granted at the same time as, or after, the original licence has been varied. 412.In Scotland, the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the form of the licence are to be carried out by the Scottish Ministers. It also provides prosecution powers for licensing authorities in relation to their licensing functions.
In England and Wales, the government sets a cap and licensing authorities have flexibility below that to set their fees. The maximum annual fee for an adult gaming centre (arcade) is £1,000 in England and Wales, and £700 in Scotland. For example, the maximum annual fee for a large casino is £10,000 in England and Wales, and £7,500 in Scotland. Licensing fees vary by premises type. Therefore, the proposals set out in this chapter will only apply to licensing authorities in England and Wales.
We explain the legal position in detail in our guide to whether non-GamStop casinos are legal in the UK. Common examples are licences issued in Curacao, Anjouan or other offshore jurisdictions. The single most reliable check is the UK Gambling Commission’s public register, which lists every business licensed to offer gambling to people in Great Britain. If you are worried that a casino is not properly licensed, you can usually find out in a few minutes.