Over the last five years, the UK Gambling Commission has quietly placed 38 betting companies into a confidential oversight process, known as special measures. This discreet approach allows these firms to avoid official penalties by agreeing to make voluntary donations—often the profits gained from regulatory breaches—to charitable causes.

Inside the “Protective Bubbles”

Since 2020, the total sum of these donations has reached approximately £2 million ($2.68 million). That’s a minuscule amount when compared to the UK’s overall gambling revenue, which hit £15.6 billion ($20.9 billion) by March 2024.

Critics argue that this hidden regulatory framework shields gambling firms from public accountability. They say it creates a “protective bubble” around companies that violate consumer protection standards. Notably, the Gambling Commission has not disclosed any details about which companies have been placed under special measures since December 2021. The most recent revelations only came to light through freedom of information requests filed by The Observer.

Transparency Under Fire

Liberal Democrat peer and chair of Peers for Gambling Reform, Don Foster, condemned the secrecy, stating, “It’s totally wrong to do these things behind closed doors. It’s not helping to protect gamblers and it’s unacceptable.”

The issue gained further attention following the case of Luke Ashton, who died by suicide in 2021 after a struggle with gambling addiction. A June 2023 inquest revealed that Betfair, a subsidiary of global betting firm Flutter, failed to identify Ashton as a problem gambler.

Only after the inquest did the Gambling Commission disclose that Betfair had been under special measures at the time of Ashton’s death. As part of its agreement with the Commission, the company had donated £635,123 ($851,633) to charity in lieu of facing stricter penalties.

Betfair has since stated that it has improved its responsible gambling protocols. However, Ashton’s widow, Annie, remains highly critical of both the company and the regulator.

She accused the Commission of prioritizing the reputation and growth of gambling operators over consumer safety. “These secret deals keep company reputations clean, yet no real lessons are learned—even when the harm is as devastating as a death,” she said. “Special measures should not mean special protection. There needs to be full transparency when companies fail to meet regulatory standards.”

Calls for Reform

Matt Zarb-Cousin, director of the campaign group Clean Up Gambling, echoed Annie Ashton’s call for greater openness. “The public has a right to know which gambling firms are falling short on consumer protection,” he said. “The Gambling Commission must publish the list of firms under special measures, so people can make informed decisions.”

In response, the Gambling Commission defended its confidential strategy. It argued that private enforcement interventions are common across regulatory bodies and that publishing such information does not significantly impact consumer behavior. The Commission also noted that formal enforcement actions are still made public, and that its chief executive, Andrew Rhodes, has personally engaged with affected families, including a meeting with Annie Ashton.

• SCCG Management. The Gambling Industry’s Global Connector. Access Here.
• Source: SCCGManagement.com