As regular readers will recall, in our blog: Unlicensed gambling – growing threat or exaggerated myth? which was published in November 2023, we:

1. discussed the threat of unlicensed gambling in Great Britain, along with steps the Gambling Commission had – as at that date – been taking to disrupt illegal, unlicensed operators;
2. advised businesses on the steps to take if they discover their intellectual property is being used on illegal gambling sites; and
3. provided a helpful checklist of actions for licensees to take, if they receive communications from the Gambling Commission regarding illegal gambling activity.

In this next instalment, we explore recently published research regarding the extent of unlicensed gambling in Great Britain, discuss the different ways in which gambling is illegally being made available to consumers, and comment on some of the newer methods the Gambling Commission is using to tackle unlicensed gambling – pending the introduction of its new powers under the Criminal Justice Bill.

What do we mean by unlicensed gambling?

As noted in our previous blog, it is an offence to provide facilities for gambling to customers in Great Britain from anywhere in the world, without holding an operating licence from the Gambling Commission – unless a relevant exemption applies.

Gambling is defined in the Gambling Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) as including “gaming”, “betting” and “participating in a lottery”. Accordingly, anyone who provides facilities that allow British consumers to (a) take part in gaming (which typically includes casino products such as slots – but also extends to more novel and even free-to-play products if the player is “playing a game of a chance for a prize”), (b) bet (which includes peer-to-peer and pool betting, as well as fixed odds); or (c) enter a lottery, without holding the appropriate Gambling Commission licence / benefitting from an exemption, will commit an offence under the 2005 Act.

Is it really that bad?

A report published by the International Betting Integrity Association (“IBIA”) in March 2024, which considered the channelisation rate (i.e. the proportion of gambling taking place with licensed vs unlicensed operators) of sports betting, seems, at first blush, to indicate that black market gambling is less of a threat in Great Britain than elsewhere.

The study, which is entitled: The Availability of Sports Betting Products: An Economic and Integrity Analysis analysed channelisation rates in a range of jurisdictions:

• Great Britain, which permits a wide range of sports betting products (including in-play bets) had the highest channelisation rate across the surveyed jurisdictions, of 98% in 2022.
• Italy, which has minimal restrictions on pre-match and in-play betting, was a close second with a channelisation rate of 93%.
• By contrast, in markets such as Australia and Germany, where access to sports betting markets is more tightly controlled, the rates were 78% and 59%, respectively.

The IBIA study hypothesised that these statistics indicate a strong correlation between the wide availability of sports betting products and the proportion of consumers who place bets with onshore regulated sports betting operators. Citing Canada as a case in point; the authors noted that channelisation in Ontario, a province that introduced an online sports betting licensing system in 2022, is expected to reach 92% in 2024. This figure is a stark contrast to the channelisation rate for the rest of Canada combined, which continues to operate a limited monopoly model, and is forecast to have an onshore rate of 11% in 2024 and lose an estimated $2bn in taxable sports betting gross gambling revenue between 2024 and 2028.

So Great Britain must be doing something right when it comes to sports betting… but is this the whole story?

To work out the answer, it is important to remember that sports betting makes up only a fraction of licensed gambling in Great Britain. In fact, according to an interactive dashboard published by the Gambling Commission in February 2024, only 31.5% of GB gross gambling yield (“GGY”) during the 2022/2023 financial year derived from remote and non-remote betting (which also includes non-sports betting, for example, on politics) – with the lion’s share of the remaining proportion being derived from casino, bingo, lottery and licensed amusement arcades.

Putting non-remote gambling to one side, the Gambling Commission’s interactive dashboard reveals that the percentage of industry GGY from remote betting dips to 15.1% (or £2.29bn) – with the largest contribution to remote gambling actually deriving from online casino, which made up an impressive 26.7% (£4.04bn) – or just over one quarter of total industry GGY – during the 2022/2023 financial year.

Surely it follows, therefore, that a significant percentage of money staked by British customers in the unregulated black market, ought to be on online casino?

At the time of writing, we are unaware of any studies that have recently considered the channelisation rate for online casino only, in Great Britain. However, research in other jurisdictions has indicated that casino channelisation tends to be lower than for other verticals. For example: in Sweden, AB Trav och Galopp estimated that the channelisation rate for remote casino in Q3 2023 was 74% vs 82% for remote sports betting.

Applying this rationale in Great Britain suggests that 98% channelisation rates for sports betting are unlikely to also apply in respect of other verticals. Pending regulatory changes in Great Britain impacting the online casino market may also detrimentally impact the licensed sector – with reforms proposed in the Government’s White Paper: High stakes: gambling reform for the digital age (the “White Paper”) including lower stake limits (£5, with a lower £2 limit for young adults aged between 18 and 24), game design changes and financial vulnerability checks, all due to come into force in the near future. For further information please see our blogs: White Paper Series: DCMS announces online slots stake limits and Gambling Commission publishes Summer 2023 Consultation Response and Betting & Gaming Council announces New Industry Voluntary Code.

Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole?

Even when properly measured, traditional methods for calculating channelisation might not reveal the whole story.

A more modern phenomenon that must be considered in the round, is the growing popularity of pay-to-enter competitions that often incorporate a question and free entry route to mitigate the risk that they are an illegal lottery. These arrangements can, if properly structured, lawfully be operated in Great Britain without an operating licence. However, the Gambling Commission actively monitors these competitions – and has recently been increasing its enforcement action in relation to arrangements that cross the line and are, in fact, illegal lotteries.

Similarly, many other new and disruptive product types run the risk of constituting gambling (and may thus be illegal gambling) in Great Britain. These include mystery, or loot boxes, where participants pay for a chance to win a prize that is allocated to them at random; and even traditional prize competitions such as crosswords or sudoku, where the underlying activity is presented as involving an element of chance.

The bottom line is that if a new product falls within the statutory definitions of “gaming”, “betting”, or “participating in a lottery” under the 2005 Act then, unless the person offering it in Great Britain does so in reliance upon an operating licence or exemption under the 2005 Act, they may be conducting illegal gambling in Great Britain and could face enforcement action by the Gambling Commission.

In addition, it is less likely that lost revenue from such products will be considered in the calculation of channelisation rates in Great Britain, which has historically focused on more traditional product verticals.

What is the Government doing to curb unlicensed gambling?

Within the White Paper, the Government acknowledges that estimating the size of black market gambling is difficult. Unlicensed gambling sites can appear, disappear and change without warning and until recently, the Gambling Commission’s resources for responding to unlicensed gambling have been concentrated on acting on complaints and intelligence with a risk-based approach.

Accordingly, one of the solutions presented by the Government in the White Paper was to increase the Gambling Commission’s powers, with the aim of creating a safety net and versatility for the Gambling Commission to “apply to court as a last resort” if required. However, the relevant legislation remains pending: although the Home Office’s Criminal Justice Bill contains provisions to confer new powers on the Gambling Commission to apply to court for an application to suspend an IP address or domain name if it is being used for the purposes of serious crime connected with unlicensed gambling, the Bill is still at the Commons Report stage and certain onlookers have queried whether, as currently drafted, the Bill goes far enough. Particularly given that equivalent powers are not granted to the regulator and competition authority for UK communications industries, Ofcom, which could be well placed to work alongside the Gambling Commission in taking action against unlicensed gambling websites.  

We also note that, from a political perspective, Labour’s recent election has cast doubt over the timing of the Bill’s enactment, as newly elected members of Parliament will need time to get up-to-speed on the Bill and settle into their new roles. 

What can the Gambling Commission do in the meantime?

At the Westminster Media Forum on the future for the betting and gaming industry in the UK, which took place online on 13 May 2024, Ben Dean, director for Sport and Gambling at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport commented that tackling illegal gambling continues to be an arduous process, akin to a game of “whack-a-mole”. He attributed this in part to the flexible nature of unlicensed organisations in circumventing restrictions, but stressed that:

“Working with internet service providers and payment agencies is key.”

Indeed, Andrew Rhodes, Chief Executive Officer and Commissioner of the Gambling Commission, confirmed at the same event that whilst the Commission awaits its new powers, a significant portion of its work in this sphere has been with third parties such as Google, resulting in the removal of over 7,000 URLs from search results in the last six months.

In addition, Rhodes confirmed that the Gambling Commission has:

• in January 2024, issued 98 cease and desist and disruption notices with 39 successful disruption outcomes; and
• more than trebled the number of successful positive illegal website disruption outcomes – from 25 in FY21/22, to 79 in FY22/23.

Rhodes explained that the Gambling Commission is focussing on identifying and undertaking high impact interventions with a view to “making it difficult to provide illegal gambling at scale”. Notably, and in addition to the measures outlined in our November 2023 blog (e.g. the Gambling Commission’s work with web hosting companies, registrars, internet search providers, social media firms and payment providers – as well as international regulators and its own licensees), recent efforts have included:

• using intelligence and software programmes to identify those websites with the largest British footprint or profile and focus on those which pose the highest risk, especially websites and affiliates which target vulnerable consumers such as GAMSTOP self-excluded players;
• engaging with banks to raise awareness and identify consumer protection protocols to identify and stop payments to illegal websites;
• agreeing protocols with search engines to remove illegal websites from search results; and
• actively identifying UK-facing online advertorial articles and engaging strongly with publishers (for example, by threatening public prosecution) to get these articles, and the marketing affiliates that are posting them, removed.

Rhodes also confirmed that the Gambling Commission has been working in conjunction with other bodies and regulators, such as the National Crime Agency, Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”):

“For example, our work with HMRC where we have been tackling illegal Facebook lotteries has not only seen those lotteries shut down by the Gambling Commission, but the organisers have found themselves paying £600,000 in penalties to HMRC as well.”

Conclusion

Dean and Rhodes’ comments highlight the importance of and continued need for cooperation and unity in efforts to tackle illegal gambling, to maximise their effectiveness. Pending the introduction of the Gambling Commission’s new powers under the Criminal Justice Bill, there is still much that can be done to deter unlicensed operators from targeting customers in Great Britain – and ultimately protect the businesses (and revenue) of those that have invested the time, money and resources in obtaining, and complying with, operating licences issued by the Gambling Commission.

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions about the lawfulness of new gambling products in Great Britain, the process for obtaining a gambling operating licence from the Gambling Commission and/or if you require assistance with licensing and compliance matters generally.

With sincere thanks to Yue-Ting Fung for her invaluable co-authorship.