House of Lords Committee Calls for Comprehensive UK Gambling Advertising Ban

According to the committee’s official announcement, an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million adults in Great Britain experience problem gambling. The committee argues that advertising stimulates demand and that reducing exposure could lower participation and harm over time.

The report also says the industry spends more than £1 billion annually on advertising. It concludes that governments have been too passive as promotion has expanded across social platforms, influencer channels and creator-led content. That assessment comes while regulators are already developing automated monitoring of gambling advertising across search, social and display media.

Lord Foster of Bath said:

A ban on most gambling advertising would reduce gambling and therefore reduce problem gambling and the serious harm it causes.

The committee considers Britain a comparative outlier because other jurisdictions have introduced substantial restrictions despite Great Britain’s developed evidence base on advertising and harm.

Sport is a central part of the committee’s case. Recent research into gambling branding in Premier League coverage illustrates how exposure can continue through pitchside displays, shirt sleeves and digital highlights even when front-of-shirt sponsorship is removed.

The committee recommends prohibiting gambling advertising on sports kits, training wear and in or near sporting venues. It also asks the government to consider restrictions covering televised sporting events, including on-demand broadcasts, regardless of the existing watershed. Clubs below the Premier League and other sports could require a transition period lasting several years to replace commercial income.

The approach does not create a blanket racing exemption. The committee says on-course advertising at horseracing and greyhound racing should remain exempt, while government should assess whether off-course and online racing advertising should fall within a wider ban. Lottery advertising should be assessed according to its risk before ministers decide whether to include it.

The full follow-up report proposes a statutory alternative if the government rejects a comprehensive prohibition. All gambling advertising would be supervised by a single regulator with sufficient enforcement powers and digital expertise. The committee identifies the Gambling Commission as the most suitable body, provided it receives appropriate resources and specialist staff.

Further measures could restrict sports advertising, direct marketing, inducements, affiliate promotions and influencer-led content. The recommendations would move oversight away from a system that the committee considers too dependent on self-regulation, complaints and voluntary industry commitments.

Industry representatives have warned that reducing licensed advertising may give unlicensed operators more space to reach consumers. The issue is already shaping proposed restrictions on unlicensed gambling sponsors, particularly in British sport.

The committee accepts that the unauthorised market presents serious risks but says it received no strong evidence that advertising restrictions would materially displace customers from licensed operators. It therefore argues that illegal-market enforcement should be strengthened alongside action on harm linked to the regulated sector.

The next decision rests with the government. Its response will determine whether the debate moves towards comprehensive legislation, a phased package of targeted controls or continued reliance on the existing regulatory framework.