Introduction

Andrew Rhodes, Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, has offered an illuminating snapshot of how some of the largest online betting operators are using commercial account restrictions – that is, limits that operators apply to a customer’s account for purely commercial, as opposed to, for example, AML/safer gambling/prohibited activity, reasons.

Why the Commission looked at restrictions

As is acknowledged in the White Paper (see our tracker page here), operators are entitled to act in their own commercial interests and to manage their commercial liabilities. However, says Rhodes, the Commission still needs to understand the market it regulates and this includes understanding the nature and prevalence of commercial restrictions.

To this end, in early 2025, the Commission requested that a number of operators submit detailed account-level data covering the previous calendar year. With almost 15 million active accounts in scope, the data sample reflects the majority of the British market.

What the data shows

The headline finding was that just over 4% of the 15 million active accounts surveyed were restricted in some way last year, but practices vary markedly from one operator to the next.

Breaking that down into some of the key constituent data points:

• Prevalence: 643,779 accounts – 4.31% of the total surveyed – were restricted in at least one way.
• Most common account restriction tools:
  • Stake-factor reductions were the most common form of restriction, seen on 2.68% of all active accounts and 62.17% of restricted accounts. The reductions ranged widely from trimming a maximum stake by a token amount, through to effectively zeroing it.
  • Commercial account closures represented the next most common form of restriction, seen on 2.23% of all active accounts and 51.69% of restricted accounts. It was noted that many customers experience a stake-factor reduction before the account is permanently closed.
• Less common account restriction tools: Withdrawal of betting facilities without closure, including by applying a stake factor restriction of 0.00, were seen on 0.83% of active accounts and 19.15% of restricted accounts; and market-only limits, i.e., preventing customers from betting on certain markets but not across the entire sportsbook, were seen on just 0.25% of active accounts and 5.72% of restricted accounts.
• Profit and loss: While only 25.42% of all active accounts were in lifetime profit per the data provided, that figure jumped to nearly 46.78% among restricted accounts. The corollary is that the average restricted customer is more likely to be a winning bettor – although just over half still lose overall.

Rhodes stresses that the proportion of restricted accounts varies significantly between operators for a variety of reasons, including individual operator risk appetite and size, and customer base profile. Also, customers will have multiple active accounts across different operators, so account numbers should not be equated with the number of people impacted.

Regulatory boundaries and priorities

Rhodes emphasises that the data should not be seen as a change in the Commission’s position regarding the role of regulation in determining how businesses manage their commercial liabilities. He adds that (as noted in the White Paper) there is no universal service obligation applied to gambling – in other words, no right to bet – and operators may take commercial decisions so long as they do not discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics. Being a successful gambler is not a protected characteristic.

That said, there is a need, says Rhodes, for the Commission to understand what role commercial restrictions might be having in the context of (a) pushing customers to illegal gambling operators; and (b) driving problematic customer behaviours, including ‘multi-accounting’, which undermine controls designed to prevent crime, protect consumers and identify integrity threats.

Transparency is also a front-and-centre concern, with Rhodes reiterating operators’ obligation – noted in the White Paper – to be transparent with customers, both at the start of the relationship and throughout, about how, when and why an account might be restricted, and to ensure customers are aware of any restrictions prior to depositing funds or placing a bet.

Comment

Rhodes’ statement makes three things plain:

First, the practice of commercial restriction is widespread (albeit that it affects fewer than one in twenty online betting accounts) but practices vary wildly across the industry.

Second, the Commission has no stated plans to eliminate or limit commercial restrictions – for now, at least, that remains a commercial business decision that licensed operators are free to make provided they do so within the remit of their licence conditions and consumer protection laws. That news will no doubt be welcomed by the industry.

Third, and probably more controversially, the Commission intends to engage with operators to explore “scope for improvements in communication and transparency from operators to consumers about how, when and why an account might be restricted”.

This last point is likely to be the crux of the issue for operators – the when and why elements, especially. Rhodes stresses the Commission’s statutory responsibility to ensure that gambling is conducted in a fair and open manner, and that is of course something that all operators will be familiar with. “Fair” and “unfair” are words (and concepts) that are prevalent in the industry and they can sometimes feel nebulous in meaning and effect. However, they’re underpinned by clear statutory definitions. In the context of terms and conditions, unfair is when contrary to the requirement of good faith, [the term] causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. In the context of commercial practices – more relevant to this particular discussion – unfair is a misleading omission or action or an aggressive action (which expressions also carry very specific legal meanings), where this is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision that the consumer would not have taken otherwise.

With these parameters in mind, is it an “unfair” practice for an operator to impose commercial restrictions on a customer – who doesn’t have a right to bet – without telling them why those restrictions have been put in place, particularly if the operator has been clear that restrictions might be imposed? No doubt we’ll see much debate around this and the Commission’s view on it remains to be seen, but clearly there is a robust argument to be made that, no, it is not an unfair practice, it is merely an operator exercising its legitimate right to run its business in its own commercial interests. Absent any unfairness, there is no mandate for regulatory interference.

Perhaps all we can be certain of at this point is this: we will see significant industry push-back if operators are required to disclose their reasons for commercial restriction.