UK lawmakers challenge Gambling Commission on bettor checks
A parliamentary committee has demanded the Gambling Commission justify its new affordability checks by July 24, creating fresh regulatory uncertainty for bookmakers and the racing industry.
The House of Commons culture, media and sport committee (CMSC) has written to the Gambling Commission demanding answers on its planned financial risk assessments for bettors. The cross-party group has given the regulator until 24 July to publish the full dataset, evidence base and methodology behind its decision. This intervention comes just days after the commission announced a staged introduction of the checks, a move that appeared to end a five-and-a-half-year industry battle.
For listed bookmakers and the broader gambling sector, the committee’s questions signal that regulatory uncertainty is far from resolved. Operators have already faced rising compliance costs from conducting intrusive financial checks to meet existing legal obligations, often demanding payslips or bank statements from customers. The commission claims its new regime will be "frictionless" in almost all cases, but has so far withheld the evidence supporting this assertion.
Dame Caroline Dinenage MP, the committee chair, stressed the need to balance consumer protection with industry economics. “It is important that people at risk of gambling-related debt receive appropriate support. At the same time, any regulatory change must recognise the significant economic contribution made by the industry,” she said. “The Gambling Commission needs to be clear about how the assessments will work and should work closely with bookmakers to ensure new obligations do not impose undue burdens on responsible businesses.”
The horseracing industry, which relies heavily on betting turnover, has fiercely opposed the checks since they were first proposed in late 2020. Brant Dunshea, chief executive of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA), described the commission's decision as “unilateral” and “a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport [DCMS], which has failed to grip this process or properly consider the damaging consequences of the decision”.
Executives warn the policy could severely impact legal operators and state revenues. Dunshea argued the checks “will have the opposite effect [by] driving more customers to the illegal market – which puts them at much greater risk of gambling-related harm – and starving the Treasury of much needed tax revenue.” Dr James Noyes, an early proponent of the policy, has also joined calls for a pause to allow proper evaluation of a pilot scheme.
Questions remain about the technical viability of the checks. The BHA recently submitted a freedom of information request regarding the pilot scheme after reports emerged of significant issues reconciling data from different credit reference agencies. The commission dismissed that request as “vexatious”.
The commission cannot ignore the CMSC in the same manner. “We take engagement with Parliament and its select committees incredibly seriously,” a commission spokesperson said, confirming a response will be provided by the July deadline. Until those answers are published, gambling operators and their investors remain in the dark regarding their future compliance liabilities.
