New data recovered by the UK Gambling Commission show that 4.31% of active betting accounts were restricted by operators in the previous fiscal year. The list includes account closures and stake limits. The findings are based on 15+ million player accounts and highlight the scale of risk management efforts applied by gambling platforms and their impact on winning consumers.
Gambling Commission Seeks Clarity on Commercial Betting Restrictions: An Overview
- Reports suggest that 4.31% of active consumer accounts, which equal 644,000 players, were subjected to at least one form of commercial gambling restriction in 2024. In some cases, multiple restrictions were applied to a single account.
- Around a third of the stake-restricted accounts were allowed to place between 1% and 9% of the maximum stake, while 22% were limited to 1% or less. Just 6% of restricted account holders were allowed to wager closer to the full amount.
- More than half of all restricted accounts (51.7%) fell in the commercial account closure category. The Commission found that this often occurred after a consumer had been subjected to stake restrictions.
Over 4% of Gambling Accounts Commercially Restricted in the UK
According to a new report by the Gambling Commission, 4.31% of active gambling accounts in the UK were subjected to at least one form of commercial restriction in the fiscal year 2024-25. This means over 644,000 people faced reduced stake limits, market exclusions, or complete account closure during the previous fiscal year.
Multiple account restrictions were also noticed in certain cases. This data comes courtesy of a request made in early 2025 to cross-examine betting operators in the UK. Even though the data constitutes a significant portion of legal gambling operators in the country, it does not paint a complete picture of operator policies, which often vary based on business model, customer profile, and risk appetite.
Stake restrictions were the most common betting limit enforced by operators. Affected bettors could only wager a portion of the stake available to unrestricted customers. This applied to 2.68% of active accounts, accounting for 62% of restricted accounts. However, not all affected accounts were restricted equally. For example, 36% of stake-restricted accounts were allowed to wager between 1% and 9% of the usual figure.
More than 22% stake-restricted accounts were limited to just 1% of the maximum stake, while just 6% of affected users were allowed to wager close to the maximum stake. These variations outline the difference in the overall experiences of bettors and highlight the impact of “stake factoring” in the UK.
The second most common type of commercial restriction was account closure. This affected nearly 2.23% of active account holders. According to the UKGC, bettors in this category were usually subjected to stake restrictions first. The Gambling Commission also found that a small percentage of operators applied a 0.00 stake factor, effectively blocking all wagers without banning the user.
Operators applied this restriction on approximately 0.83% of consumer accounts, impacting one in five restricted customers. On the other hand, just 0.25% of active accounts were restricted from accessing specific markets offered by sportsbook software providers, such as horse racing. Most operators said that they did not apply this option.
The Impact of Gambling Regulations and What it Means for Consumers
The UKGC requested data on lifetime profits and losses made by consumers from gambling operators. The accumulated data highlights one key point: 25.42% of all active accounts recorded lifetime profits, versus 47.78% of restricted accounts. On the other hand, 72.54% of active accounts were in lifetime losses, compared to 51.29% of restricted accounts.
This data suggests that consumers who win more frequently are more likely to have their accounts restricted, which begs the question: Do operators balance commercial viability with fairness? Andrew Rhodes, CEO of the Gambling Commission, was cautious to state that the Commission does not wish to interfere in the way operators manage their commercial risks.
Having said that, the Commission is concerned about the broader impact of these practices, especially the possibility of frustrated gamblers turning to illicit operators to meet their gaming needs or maintaining more than one gambling account to bypass the curbs.
The Commission’s regulatory oversight and consumer protection policies are undermined in both cases. Moving forward, the UKGC plans to work closely with operators to increase transparency around gambling restrictions. Rhodes emphasised:
“Licensed operators should be transparent with customers, both at the start of the relationship and throughout, about how, when and why an account might be restricted.”
The UKGC’s growing scrutiny over commercial restrictions comes at a time when the broader gambling industry is under increased fiscal pressure. In parallel, the UK government is contemplating increasing taxes on gambling operations to fill the void in the fiscal budget. With an estimated £30 billion shortfall, lawmakers are under pressure to compensate for the deficit before the next budget. Raising gambling taxes seems like the most viable solution until a more suitable alternative is available.