Consultation outcome

The Tax Treatment of Remote Gambling: Summary of Responses and Government Response

Updated 26 November 2025

1. Foreword

At Budget, to support the public finances and as one part of a broader set of reforms to our tax system, we are implementing a package of gambling duty reforms which raise over £1bn per year. This package consists of:

First, an increase in the tax rate for remote gaming, where duty will increase from 21% to 40% from April 2026. Online casino games and slots are associated with some of the highest levels of gambling harm and this part of the gambling sector has grown rapidly in recent years. During the consultation, we heard clearly that stakeholders consider remote gaming more harmful than remote betting.

Second, a new 25% rate for remote betting from 1 April 2027, increasing the tax rate on remote betting from 15%. Online bets on UK horseracing will remain taxed at 15%, reflecting the fact that operators already pay a 10% statutory levy for bets on horseracing in addition to betting duties. This results in an effective 25% rate for operators – the same as the new rate for remote betting.

Third, we will maintain duties on land-based betting at its current level. This means that the rates for bets placed in licensed bookmaking premises remain unchanged, recognising that land-based betting generally has higher overhead costs and provides greater levels of employment.

Fourth, we will abolish bingo duty from 1 April 2026. Bingo is a lower risk gambling activity that supports communities across the UK. This government wants to support fun, social, in-person gambling and also thinks it is sensible to rationalise the tax system by removing this tax altogether.

Finally, while the UK currently has a small illegal market, we have heard concerns that modern technology is making it easier for unregulated firms to go after consumers. So we are providing £26m in new funding to the Gambling Commission over the next three years to tackle the illegal market and protect consumers.

I’d like to extend my thanks to everyone who responded to the consultation.

Dan Tomlinson MP

Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury

2. Executive Summary

Gambling is a significant part of the UK economy, generating an annual Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) of £15.6 billion. However, the industry has also evolved significantly in recent years, while the duty system has not changed at all since 2019. The tax system needs to be modernised to better reflect these recent developments and ensure the system is coherent, simple and taxes gambling appropriately.

Advances in technology have changed how people gamble, making remote gambling more accessible and increasing the variety of gambling products offered. Gambling has increasingly shifted online, with GGY for remote gambling having seen over 60% growth between 2015/16 and 2023/24, compared to land-based gambling’s decline of over 10%. To ensure the tax system kept pace with this change, at Autumn Budget 2024, the government announced its intention to consult on reforms to the tax treatment of remote gambling, aiming to modernise and simplify the tax system.

The consultation ran from 23 April to 21 July 2025. It sought views on introducing a single Remote Betting & Gaming Duty (RBGD) covering all remote betting and gaming activities, including online casinos, bingo, slots and sports betting.

The government has carefully considered all responses to the consultation as well as views shared by stakeholders during extensive engagement over the summer and in the lead up to the Budget. The government heard that stakeholders overwhelmingly disagreed with the proposal for a single RBGD. There were also representations that remote betting and remote gaming are different in terms of costs and harms, and should therefore be taxed at different rates. That is why the government is not creating a new single duty for all forms of remote gambling.

The government is asking everyone to contribute to support economic stability and protect the public services everyone uses. In this context, and given the move to remote betting and gaming in the gambling industry over recent years, the government believes it is reasonable for the gambling industry to contribute more.

The government is therefore proceeding with a package of rate rises for remote gambling, which now accounts for 60% of GGY, with a larger tax rise targeted at remote gaming. At the same time, the government has sought to limit the impact on the high street and protect activities that are lower risk. Altogether, the government will:

• Increase the Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) rate from 21% to 40% from April 2026.
• Create a new rate for remote betting within General Betting Duty (GBD) set at 25% from April 2027. Remote UK horseracing bets will not be subject to the new rate and will remain taxed at 15%.
• Support lower risk activities in bingo clubs by abolishing Bingo Duty from April 2026.

The larger increase in tax on remote gaming reflects views and evidence that it has lower operating costs and is more harmful than many other forms of gambling, including remote betting. The intention is to disincentivise gambling companies from pushing consumers towards those more harmful products.

On betting, the government has sought to balance evidence and views that remote betting is not as harmful as remote gaming, whilst also recognising the growth in online betting and its lower costs compared to retail operations. The government is therefore increasing taxes on remote betting, but at a lower rate than remote gaming, while keeping GBD at 15%. Remote bets on UK horseracing will remain taxed at 15%, in line with land-based betting, in recognition that operators contribute 10% towards the statutory Horserace Betting Levy, resulting in an existing de-facto 25% rate for bets on UK horse races.

To support lower-risk, community-based activities, the government will abolish Bingo Duty from April 2026.

Finally, while estimates suggest there is a small illegal market in the UK, the government recognises concerns that technology is making it easier for unregulated companies to target consumers. While the Gambling Commission have made significant progress in this space, the government is not complacent about the risks of a growing illegal market. That is why the government is allocating an additional £26m to the Gambling Commission over the next three years to allow them to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market.

3. Summary of Responses

This chapter summarises the contributions received in response to the government’s consultation The Tax Treatment of Remote Gambling Consultation on the proposed introduction of a single remote gambling tax, to be known as Remote Betting & Gaming Duty (RBGD). The consultation ran from April 2025 to July 2025 and received 143 responses. The government received written responses from 23 members of the industry, 10 trade bodies, 15 third sector organisations (such as charities) and 95 individuals.

The government held several meetings and roundtables with industry and third sector bodies over the summer as part of the engagement process. Additionally, the government engaged further with stakeholders to hear their views in the lead up to Budget over the Autumn.

A full list of businesses and organisations who responded is provided in Annex A.

The consultation sought views on the scope of the proposed new tax, covering all remote betting and gaming activities (such as online casinos, bingo, slots, sports betting, and horserace betting). As part of the consultation, respondents were also asked for views on the treatment of freeplays and prizes, and the application of sanctions.

The majority of respondents opposed the introduction of a single remote gambling tax on the basis that it would not achieve the government’s objectives of simplifying the system, reducing administrative burdens or ensuring the regime was appropriate to the industry. Most betting industry respondents were opposed to the proposals, but there was some qualified support from a small proportion of online gaming businesses. The summary of responses is broken down by the below themes:

• A Single Remote Betting & Gaming Duty: Views on differentiation and unintended consequences
• Gambling Harms
• Ancillary Remote Betting: Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs)
• Pool Betting and Spread Betting
• Treatment of Bonuses: Freebets, Freeplays and Prizes
• Sanctions
• Horseracing Industry Sustainability
• Illegal Market

A Single Remote Betting & Gaming Duty: Views on differentiation and unintended consequences

The government sought views on the principle of merging existing taxes to create a single RBGD and invited respondents to outline potential unintended consequences. While some respondents supported the proposal, the consensus was a preference to retain separate taxes for betting and gaming.

Most respondents argued that remote betting and remote gaming are fundamentally different activities and should not be taxed equally. Responses indicated that betting involves wagering on real-world events with variable odds, whereas remote gaming relies on a game of chance. These differences impact profit margins and harm risk profiles, so merging the taxes could disproportionately impact betting operators.

One operator highlighted that sports betting is “substantially more resource intensive, with costs being incurred throughout the end to end lifecycle of each sports market offered” and that online casino gaming “provides guaranteed returns without significant staff overheads or down-stream costs”.

Another respondent argued that harmonisation “will cause betting operators to favour the promotion of structurally cheaper online gaming products over domestic sports to protect and grow operating margins” and “push customers into riskier products”.

Industry representatives further explained how different activities incur different operating costs. Remote gaming was reported to have lower operational costs compared to betting, which can involve additional expenses such as media rights, sponsorship and exposure to real-life variables. For horseracing, operators must also pay a statutory levy of 10% to support the sustainability of the sport.

A minority of respondents argued that applying the same tax treatment to betting and remote gaming would simplify the system and reduce administrative burdens. They suggested that a unified approach would help consistency and support fairness in taxation.

In addition to sharing views on the principle of the proposal, industry respondents outlined the potential increased administrative burden of the proposed new tax.

Businesses referenced that there would be increased IT costs due to changes as well as additional legal costs. While these costs are likely to be one-off expenses some operators noted that the proposals would not reduce burdens they currently have such as providing data on different betting and gaming activities provided.

Businesses cited that they have made significant investments in systems to comply with the current legislation and do not want to have to change them and incur further costs.

Concerns were also raised that the proposals could result in some operators having to register for more duties and complete more returns than is currently the case, depending on the scope of their activities. Respondents also stated increased costs may result in less revenue being spent on advertising and sponsorship of the racing sector and other sports betting.

While the creation of a single remote gambling tax could reduce the number of registrations and returns overall, business respondents said that they did not find the current system burdensome or complex.

Gambling Harms

The consultation did not ask specific questions on gambling harms, however, the government received responses on the topic.

Some respondents argued that betting and remote gaming differ in risk profiles and player behaviour. Betting is event-based and generally less continuous, while remote gaming often involves rapid, repetitive play. It was suggested that treating them as identical for tax purposes could undermine targeted harm-reduction measures.

One third sector respondent brought attention to the Gambling Commission’s Gambling Survey for Great Britain (2024) that “found online slots were associated with a ‘problem gambling’ rate six times higher than other products”.

Based on an assumed higher tax rate many respondents felt the introduction of a single remote gambling tax would lead to unintended consequences including operators promoting more profitable gaming products which are often seen as more harmful. A number of third sector responses went into detail on gambling harms and supported using increased taxation of gambling to help tackle gambling harms.

One third sector respondent referred to NHS figures showing that over 40% of gamblers using online slots, bingo or casino games are considered ‘at risk’, whereas that applies to less than 15% of in-person betting on horseracing. The respondent added that online gaming products do not require the same staffing, infrastructure or operational costs as sports betting and so increased costs could drive operators into promoting online gaming products at the expense of betting, even though betting is generally considered a safer form of gambling.

Another third sector respondent referred to a recently concluded Gambling-Related Harms Scrutiny Enquiry in Southampton which concluded that gambling harm is a serious public health issue, with economic costs estimated in the range of £4.7 million and £7.9 million annually in Southampton alone. The enquiry found that up to 31,900 adults in Southampton are experiencing harmful gambling and 15,053 residents being negatively affected by some else’s gambling. Harms included risk of death by suicide, debt, family breakdown, criminal behaviour and reduced life opportunities.

Other comments from third sector respondents included views that higher harm products should be disincentivised by higher taxation, and if funding was increased for debt advice services and other areas linked to gambling harm such as addiction treatment, this could help create a sustainable gambling industry that brings social value. It was also suggested that increased collaboration between HMRC, the Gambling Commission and debt charities should take place in order to identify and disrupt illegal operators and deter unlicenced gambling.

Ancillary Remote Betting: Self-Service Betting Terminals

The government sought views on the scope of the proposed tax, including on whether ancillary remote gambling activities should be included. Gambling products using a form of remote communication alongside their main land-based offerings are required by the Gambling Commission to hold an ‘ancillary licence’ or ‘remote licence’. This is in addition to their main land-based licence.

One of the key recurring issues that arose for respondents was around the inclusion of Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs). An SSBT is an electronic kiosk based on a premise that allows customers to place bets independently without assistance from staff. These are often found in betting shops.

In the consultation, the government considered whether ancillary gambling activities such as SSBTs should be included in RBGD. Under the definition of ‘remote gambling’, all ancillary activities not already covered by Bingo Duty, Gaming Duty, or Machine Games Duty would fall within RBGD’s scope.

Industry respondents who did not welcome the proposals warned that including SSBTs in the definition of remote would add unnecessary complexity, raise compliance costs, and disproportionately impact small businesses. They argued that SSBTs are part of retail operations and should not face a different tax regime, as this could confuse customers and undermine simplification goals. Concerns included higher tax burdens leading to betting shop closures, job losses, and reduced funding for horseracing and media rights. Industry groups and operators stated that inclusion of SSBTs would increase costs and regulatory pressure, risking economic harm.

One  response stated that when customers bet on SSBTs within a betting shop they are “contracting with the same legal entity as operates the physical betting premises”.

Additionally, a betting operator responded: “any winnings from the SSBT placed bet needs to be collected in exactly the same way as for a bet placed over the counter” and that the proposals would be similar to “having a different VAT rate for using a self-checkout in the supermarket for buying the same product”.

Pool Betting and Spread Betting

Pool betting is a type of gambling where multiple participants place bets into a collective pool, and the winnings are shared amongst those who correctly predict the outcomes. The winnings are divided among the winners after deductions. The basis of profits is based on operators taking commission as opposed to profiting from losing bets. Pool betting is particularly popular for horse racing and football.

The consultation proposed to include pool betting as part of the wider proposal to merge all remote gambling activities into the single RBGD.

In the case of football pools, many players pay by Direct Debit over 12 months and have used the same selection every week for many years. It was mentioned in the responses that the method of participation is distinctly different, and less rapid, than other forms of betting. Respondents also noted that participation in football pools is largely done by telephone.

On the other hand, one respondent said that as pool betting was a competitor to fixed odds betting, and as such it should be treated the same. Nonetheless, other respondents who commented on pool betting agreed that it is different in nature from other betting and should be treated differently, noting that it can be a lower intensity form of betting.

The consultation also sought views on whether spread betting should be included in the new harmonised duty or whether alternative treatment of spread betting is required.

Spread betting is a form of gambling based on whether an outcome will be above or below a predicted range, with winnings or losses based on how far the result varies. Many stakeholders were unfamiliar with spread betting.

Leading financial spread betting firms disagreed with the proposal and made the case that they are different to traditional forms of gambling and more akin to financial services. They noted that they offer different products, cater to different customers and are regulated differently.

Financial spread betting uses different technology to traditional gambling and offers customers significantly different products. The financial spread betting market also has different competitors, and do not compete with operators offering traditional forms of gambling.

Respondents noted that financial spread bets are dictated by the market, operators do not have control of the odds and are exposed to underlying market movements. The products they offer are not gamified, they are platforms used for trading by investors and not considered to be a pass-time or entertainment.

Respondents also highlighted its distinct regulatory treatment by the Financial Conduct Authority.

One respondent noted: “Spread betting is significantly and qualitatively distinct from other forms of remote betting such that it ought not to be grouped with other activities captured by the proposed reform. This is already explicitly recognised through the exclusion of spread bets from the definition of “betting” within the Gambling Act 2005 and the fact that it is the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and not the Gambling Commission (GC) that regulates these activities.”

Treatment of Bonuses: Freebets, Freeplays and Prizes

The consultation sought industry input on reforming freeplay rules. Freeplays are promotional offers that let customers play games or wager bets without using their own money. The proposed introduction of RBGD provided an opportunity to review whether the re-wagering exemption still reflects the original policy intent of aligning the RGD treatment of freeplays with the GBD treatment of free bets, to give all freeplays a notional value as a gaming payment and include them in the duty calculation. The government asked for suggestions to improve the treatment of freeplays and prevent avoidance.

In the consultation, the government proposed aligning the tax treatment of prizes under RGD with GBD and Pool Betting Duty (PBD), so only prizes won as the direct result of a successful outcome of a single game round or bet may be deducted as winnings. The consultation also asked whether non-monetary prizes should be deductible for all remote gambling included in RBGD.

While some respondents supported reforms to simplify rules and ensure fairness across operators, the majority either lacked sufficient evidence to form a view or felt the current system was workable. There was limited consensus amongst respondents and limited suggestions on how freeplays could be reformed. Some respondents stated the Gambling Commission’s cap on re-wagering requirements will address some concerns. With effect from 19 January 2026 the cap means a maximum of up to 10 times re-wagering can be offered.

Predominately, businesses stated that whilst the rules for freeplays are complex, they are well understood, and industry are familiar with the relevant legislation.

A small number of respondents provided suggestions on how to reform freeplay rules, with limited consensus and few specific suggestions. While some respondents called for clearer HMRC guidance rather than legislative change, they noted there was no strong case for reform.

Most respondents were unsure of the consequences of making non-monetary prizes deductible for all remote gambling under RBGD. Supportive responses suggested it would better reflect promotional costs and lead to fairer tax calculations, describing the change as pragmatic and proportionate. However, some raised concerns about added compliance complexity, valuation challenges, and the need for clear guidance.

Prize rules for premises-based gambling were outside the scope of the consultation.

Sanctions

The consultation asked whether the existing sanctions regime is sufficient to support the new RBGD and invited suggestions for any additional sanctions that might be necessary, with reasons for their inclusion.

The government introduced the place of consumption reforms in 2014 whereby a sanction regime was put in place to ensure enforcement, as it was recognised that non-compliant operators create unfair competition for compliant businesses. The government believes these sanctions have provided the necessary tools to robustly tackle non-compliance.

Respondents considered existing penalties to be sufficient and well understood by licensed operators. The dominant theme was a call for stronger enforcement against unlicensed and offshore operators, who undermine UK tax revenues and consumer protections. Some suggested international cooperation and better use of existing powers to tackle non-compliance. There was limited support for harmonising sanctions across gambling types.

Horseracing Industry Sustainability

While the consultation did not seek views on specific betting activities, many respondents raised concerns around the impact of tax changes for the British horseracing industry.

Concerns were expressed about increased tax rates which would potentially reduce operator margins and in doing so lower contributions to British horseracing through the horserace betting levy (10%) and sponsorship. Industry bodies warned this could threaten jobs and funding for the sport, potentially undermining its long-term sustainability.

One respondent said: “Horseracing is subject to a 10% levy on GGY, effectively making the tax rate 25%.”

British horseracing was described as both culturally significant and economically important to rural and urban communities. It was noted that horseracing supports local economies and businesses including hospitality and transport sectors, hotels, the farriery, and veterinary sectors.

An industry response made the case for British racing to be taxed differently due to its “relationship with betting that is unlike any other sport or sector. The uniquely symbiotic nature of this relationship has not only been accepted by governments but also understood by other sectors”.

Many of the concerns on this issue were raised by participants during the round-table sessions.

Illegal Market

Respondents raised concerns that proposed changes could increase illegal market activity.

Respondents highlighted that illegal market operators do not pay gambling duties or levies and operate outside Gambling Commission regulations, exposing customers to greater risks of harm, fraud, and lack of consumer protections. Respondents made clear that the illegal market was a concern to industry in terms of revenue impacts, but also to consumers in terms of player protections. Some respondents highlighted that an increase in the illegal market could also result in reduced revenue for HMRC.

Respondents welcomed the current action being taken to tackle the illegal market, however, would welcome further action to tackle the growing illegal market.

4. Government Response

The government has carefully considered responses to the consultation as well as engagement with stakeholders over summer and in the lead up to the Budget. The government accepts that the introduction of a new remote duty covering betting, pool betting and gaming would not achieve the objectives of simplifying the system, reducing administrative burdens or ensuring the regime is appropriate to the industry. The government also accept the representations made by those during the consultation process that remote betting and remote gaming are different in terms of overheads and harms and should be taxed at different rates. That is why the government is not creating a new duty for remote gambling.

As the Budget set out, the government is taking the fair and necessary long-term decisions to secure the public finances and reform the tax system. In this context, and noting the shift towards remote gambling in recent years, the government believes it is reasonable to ask the gambling industry to contribute more from its remote gambling revenues.

While the government is not proceeding with the creation of a new single remote gambling duty, the tax system needs to keep pace with the developments and innovation that have seen the UK-facing remote gambling sector grow significantly in recent years as well as seeing a gradual decline in land-based gambling. Land-based gambling generally supports greater levels of employment while remote gaming has been shown to be more harmful than other types of gambling and considered to contribute less to local levels of employment.  Therefore, the changes the government will make focus on remote gambling. To do this, the government will:

• Increase the Remote Gaming Duty rate from 21% to 40% from April 2026.
• Create a new rate for remote betting within General Betting Duty set at 25% from April 2027. Remote horse racing bets will not be subject to the new rate and will remain taxed at 15%.
• Support lower risk activities and bingo clubs and simplify the system by abolishing Bingo Duty from April 2026.

Remote Gaming Duty

While many people in the UK enjoy gambling, for others it can be a source of harm and lead to negative effects through addiction and related problems such as loss of employment, debt, crime, breakdown of relationships and deterioration of physical and mental health. At its worst, gambling can contribute to loss of life through suicide.

Harms can be experienced by those who gamble themselves, but can also affect their children, partners, wider families and social networks, employers, communities and society as a whole. Gambling related harms evidence in the Health Survey for England (2021) by the NHS estimated that 0.3% of the adult population has a problem with gambling and 2.8% are gambling at at-risk levels^{[footnote 1]}. The Annual GB Treatment and Support Survey 2024 by GambleAware highlights that 8% of people self-reported as affected negatively by other people’s gambling, an increase from 7% in 2023^{[footnote 2]}. The Gambling-related harms evidence review estimates the cost to government and society of gambling related harms (England only) as being between £1.05 to £1.77 billion, with the true costs likely being higher but a lack of evidence meant it was not possible to cost all the impacts^{[footnote 3]}.

Reflecting growing evidence of harm, in December 2024 the NHS reported that referrals for gambling addiction had gone up almost 91%^{[footnote 4]} on the year before and NHS England had doubled the number of clinics for problem gambling^{[footnote 5]}.

Remote gaming is associated with one of the highest rates of harm of any gambling product. The Gambling Survey for Great Britian (October 2025) has shown that online slots have a higher-than-average proportion of people with a Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) score of 8 or more. A score of 8 or higher represents problem gambling by which a person will have experienced adverse consequences from their gambling and may have lost control of their behaviour. For online slots the proportion with a PGSI score above 8 was over 5 times more than the average for all people who had gambled in the last 12 months^{[footnote 6]}.

Stakeholders have also told us that remote gaming has lower operating costs and employs fewer people than other forms of gambling. This means that operators are incentivised to push gamblers towards online gaming. GGY from remote gaming has grown from £2.5bn in 2015-16 to £4.5bn in 2023-24^{[footnote 7]}.

To reflect the growth in this part of the sector, its lower operating costs and higher associated harm, the government is targeting the biggest tax increase on remote gaming, increasing the rate from 21% to 40% from April 2026. As well as raising revenue, the objective is to reduce the incentive for gambling operators to invest in and push people towards these more harmful forms of gambling, so fewer people play them or become addicted.

Remote General Betting Rate

The government has clearly heard representations about the differences between remote betting and remote gaming, and that they have different operating models and different risks of harm.  Therefore, the government agrees remote betting should be taxed differently from remote gaming.

It is clear though that betting is increasingly shifting online. The GGY from land-based betting was £3.3 billion in 2015-16 but decreased to £2.5 billion in 2023-24, while the GGY from remote betting increased from £1.7 billion to £2.4 billion. In that time the number of betting shops has fallen from around 9,000 to around 6,000 in 2024.

Remote and land-based products face different commercial pressures and opportunities. In practical terms, land-based betting opportunities are limited by shops’ opening times, and by the need for customers to visit the premises. Remote betting operators do not have these same restrictions, their customers are able to make bets whenever and wherever they wish. Where these betting operators are based overseas, they are not subject to UK corporation tax for remote gambling activities.

In recognition of these differences, the government is creating a new remote rate within GBD and setting it at 25%. This will not impact bets made in a betting shop and the GGY from those bets will remain taxed at 15%. This new rate will come into effect in April 2027. This approach will maintain a significant differential between the duty rates for remote gaming and remote betting, as well as a differential between rates for remote and land-based betting.

Horseracing

Horseracing is uniquely dependent on gambling, with operators providing up to a quarter of its revenue through the statutory Horse Race Betting Levy as well as sponsorship and media rights. Currently, the levy is charged at a rate of 10% on UK horserace bets in addition to 15% GBD, which means that horserace bets are subject to an effective 25% rate. In recognition of this, remote horserace bets will remain taxed at 15%. This means there will be no change in rates for UK horserace betting, whether in person or remote. On course bets on horseracing will remain duty free.

Self-Service Betting Terminals (SSBTs) and Spread Betting

In light of stakeholder views, the government recognises that SSBTs are an alternative way of betting in a physical shop so they will not be included in the new remote rate and will remain taxed at 15%, in line with bets place over the counter in betting shops.

The rates for spread betting will also remain unchanged at 3% for financial spread betting and 10% for sports spread betting.

Pool Betting Duty

Following careful consideration of feedback from operators and businesses about the different and less rapid nature of pool betting compared to other forms of betting, the government will not make any changes to the structure or rates of pool betting.

While this was not a point consulted on, the government can confirm there will also be no changes to lottery duty.

Bingo Duty

Land-based Bingo Duty is currently charged at 10% on GGY. Bingo halls are an important part of community life and cohesion, and make a valued contribution to the communities they serve. It is a relatively low risk gambling activity that supports local jobs. Therefore, to support lower-risk, community-based activities the government will abolish Bingo Duty from April 2026. This reduction in tax and simplification will help ensure bingo remains an enjoyable and sociable part of British community life.

Illegal Market

It is difficult to ascertain the exact size of the illegal gambling market in the UK. Current industry estimates of the stakes wagered on the illegal market annually vary, generally falling in the range of 2% to 9% of legal online market stakes. While it is difficult to be certain, the UK is generally thought to have one of the highest channelisation rates (the amount of gambling activity that takes place through legal, regulated platforms compared to illegal ones) in the world, which suggests the illegal market is small relative to the regulated market.

As the regulator for the industry, the Gambling Commission is responsible for tackling the illegal market. It does this in several ways, including issuing cease and desist and disruption notices to illegal operators, advertisers and affiliates and websites. They can also use their relationships with web-hosting and search engine companies to suspend or IP-block consumers in Great Britain from accessing websites and to prevent websites appearing on search engines or being hosted. They have successfully had 287,961 URLs removed since  April 2024  following referrals they have made. Between October 2024 and September 2025, they issued 806 cease and desist letters, and 314 websites were geo-blocked to the UK by unregulated operators. The Gambling Commission’s current resources have enabled them to target disruption and enforcement action, focusing predominantly on consistently targeting the top illegal websites with the highest GB footprint.

The government recognises that while the current illegal market may be small, modern technology is making it easier for unregulated websites with fewer or no player protections to target consumers and put them at higher risk of harm. The Gambling Commission has made significant progress in recent years to tackle illegal gambling, particularly online, but they have limited resources and the market is evolving. That is why the government is providing additional funding of £26m over the next 3 years for the Gambling Commission. This represents a significant increase in their budget and will allow them to expand the action they take against the illegal market. This funding will support the Gambling Commission to increase resources to prosecute illegal actors and disrupt the core elements which an illegal operator needs to offer gambling at scale to customers in Great Britain. This may include action to:

• increase intelligence and investigation capabilities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of disruption action to take down illegal websites and support prosecutions;
• scale up work to disrupt supply chains that enable the illegal market, for example with payment providers to disrupt the ability to process payments;
• pursue prosecutions relating to the provision and facilitation of illegal gambling;
• undertake further research into the illegal market and the effectiveness of different interventions to better understand how the illegal market operates, who is engaging with it, why, at what scale, and how it is best disrupted.

This significant additional funding will help to tackle the illegal market and to protect gamblers from being exploited by unregulated firms.

Freeplays

On freeplays, in response to the issues raised during the consultation HMRC will review and update its guidance to ensure it is clear and supports effective compliance. The government will continue to monitor developments on freeplays and will consider approaches to support compliance.

Next Steps

The government will introduce legislation for the new remote betting rate, implement the increase in RGD and abolish Bingo Duty in Finance Bill 25-26.

5. Annex A: Respondents to the consultation

The Government is grateful to the individuals, organisations and businesses who responded to the consultation (listed in alphabetical order below):

• Against The Odds Education & Awareness CIC
• All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Gambling Reform
• Annexio (Jersey) Ltd (trading as Lottogo.com)
• Arena Racing Company
• Bally’s Corporation
• BDO
• Bet365
• Betfred Group Limited and Subsidiaries (“Betfred”)
• Betting and Gaming Council (BGC)
• Britbet
• British Horseracing Authority
• BV Gaming Limited
• Campaign for Fairer Gambling
• Chartered Institute of Taxation
• CMC Markets UK PLC
• The Coalition to End Gambling Ads
• Derek Webb – Campaign for Fairer Gambling
• Digital Division Limited
• DragonBet Limited
• England & Wales Cricket Board
• Entain
• Evoke plc
• Flutter Entertainment
• Football Association (The FA)
• Football DataCo Ltd
• The Football Pools Limited
• Gambling with Lives
• Geoff Banks Online
• Gibraltar Betting and Gaming Association Limited
• IG Group
• The Jockey Club
• Kelso Races Ltd
• Money Advice Scotland
• PLMR
• Racecourse Association
• The Racing Post
• The Rank Group Plc
• Rugby Football League (RFL)
• Rugby Football Union (RFU)
• Social Market Foundation
• Southampton City Council
• Spreadex Ltd
• TDL Sports Ltd (trading as Wilsonbet)
• UK Tote Group
• West Suffolk Parliamentary Constituency
• William Price
• The World Tote Association (WoTA)

1. Gambling behaviour - NHS England Digital ↩

2. Annual GB Treatment and Support Survey 2024 ↩

3. Gambling-related harms evidence review: summary ↩

4. NHS Gambling Referrals Data - NHS England Digital ↩

5. NHS England » NHS tackles problem gambling amid growing demand ↩

6. Gambling Survey for Great Britain - Annual report (2024): Official statistics - Problem Gambling Severity Index ↩

7. Microsoft Power BI ↩