UK Gambling Commission Invites Evidence-Based Proposals to Address Disproportionate Regulatory Burdens
TL;DR — The UK Gambling Commission seeks industry proposals on regulations causing disproportionate pressure, backed by evidence that core licensing objectives remain protected. This is not a consultation, and white paper measures like the statutory levy are off-limits. Coordinated, specific responses are urged after a fractured Gambling Act Review.
SCCG Take — Operators and trade bodies must deliver rigorous, evidence-led proposals that separate ineffective process from essential safeguards, creating an inflection point for more proportionate UK regulation.
The UK Gambling Commission has invited the industry to identify where regulation creates disproportionate pressure and to support those views with evidence of changes that would not weaken its core licensing objectives. This comes as many operators feel their voices are ignored amid rising taxes and political pressures.
Remote Gaming Duty has risen from 21% to 40% of gross gambling yield, while a new 25% remote betting rate within general betting duty will apply from April 2027. Labour MP Alex Ballinger has argued for the 2005 Gambling Act to be reviewed in light of technological change, as detailed by iGaming Business. The market feels more restrictive to many, with gambling positioned as a political football.
What the Commission Has Actually Asked For
The Commission wants the industry to point to requirements or guidance overtaken by time or other regulatory change, including elements of its own Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice. White paper measures such as affordability checks, enhanced identification checks, the statutory levy and the online slots stake cap are off the table and will not be revisited absent strong evidence of adverse consequences.
This is explicitly not a consultation. Responses must distinguish regulation the industry dislikes from rules that no longer work as intended, while keeping statutory purposes in mind: keeping gambling free from crime, conducted fairly and openly, and protecting children and vulnerable people from harm.
The Opportunity for Evidence-Driven Collaboration
The strongest proposals will be specific, showing the problem, the cost, where duplication exists and how consumer protections would be maintained or improved with less friction. General frustration will not persuade. A workable alternative that delivers the same or better safeguards is more likely to gain attention.
The fractured response to the Gambling Act Review offers a lesson. Trade bodies like the Betting and Gaming Council should organise areas of focus so that the strongest arguments are backed by evidence from multiple operators. In a sector often marked by suspicion, this invitation is a chance to make the case for proportionate regulation that accounts for black market realities while preserving a stable licensed market.
Operators should treat this as a disciplined exercise in separating necessary safeguards from avoidable process. Well-crafted submissions that align with licensing objectives could reduce unnecessary burdens on time, money and management attention without compromising oversight.
Reporting: iGaming Business (iGB)
This is the industry's best chance in years to fix bad UK regulation — if it shows up with evidence, not emotion.
We've worked in every regulated market and seen what happens when industry fragments under pressure. The UK just cracked the door open for evidence-based relief. Operators who coordinate now — across trade bodies, with data, showing how to protect players better with less friction — can reshape the compliance landscape before the next levy hits.
- Commission wants proof regulations cause disproportionate harm without evidence-based alternatives that protect core objectives
- White paper measures — affordability checks, levy, stake caps — are off limits unless adverse impact proven
- Fractured responses won't work; coordinated, data-driven proposals from operators and trade bodies will
SCCG angle: SCCG has connected operators, regulators and advisors across 30-plus markets. We help clients build the evidence packages and cross-operator coalitions that actually move regulators — turning compliance pain points into coordinated proposals that protect players and margins alike.