The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) is at the centre of a controversy after revelations of an opaque system allowing gambling operators to avoid public sanctions in exchange for donations to charity.
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC), the authority responsible for regulating gambling in the UK, is facing fierce criticism after revelations about a practice that is considered to be deeply opaque. Over the past five years, no fewer than 38 betting operators have allegedly been placed under a special regime of confidential measures enabling them to escape formal sanctions – on condition that they donate funds to charity.
Among the most shocking cases is that of Luke Ashton, a father who committed suicide because of his gambling addiction. This addiction went undetected by Betfair, which was under this protection regime at the time. While the Commission tries to justify itself, victims’ families, parliamentarians and associations are calling for urgent reform based on transparency and accountability.
These revelations, obtained by The Observer through a Freedom of Information request, call into question the effectiveness and transparency of the regulator.
2 million pounds in exchange for anonymity
Since 2020, the companies concerned have paid a total of around £2 million to associations working to reduce gambling-related harm. A paltry figure compared to the £15.6 billion in revenues generated over the same period by the UK gambling industry.
In practical terms, this special procedure meant that operators who admitted to regulatory breaches could avoid public disciplinary action by donating the profits concerned to charitable organisations. The names of the companies were kept confidential, which many observers believe undermines the very mission of the regulator.
Betfair, Flutter and the Luke Ashton tragedy
The most symbolic case of this system is that of Luke Ashton, a 40-year-old father who committed suicide in April 2021 after becoming addicted to gambling. At the inquest held in 2023, it was revealed that the operator Betfair, owned by the giant Flutter, had not identified Luke Ashton as a high-risk gambler. This was a serious failure, with dramatic consequences.
It was only after the investigation that the UKGC admitted that Betfair was under special measures at the time of the tragedy. The operator had avoided any formal sanction by donating £635,123 to charity under the confidential scheme.
Betfair has since claimed to have strengthened its player protection arrangements, but for the Ashton family, the damage has been done.
‘Special’ should not mean ‘protected’
Annie Ashton, Luke’s widow, strongly condemns the Gambling Commission’s attitude:
‘The Commission is clearly more concerned about the reputation and growth of gambling businesses than the protection of vulnerable people.’
She deplores the fact that the repetition of these secret agreements prevents operators from taking any real responsibility, even when the consequences are as tragic as the death of a player.
‘Special measures must not mean special protection. There must be full transparency.’
Mrs Ashton reveals that she met Andrew Rhodes, chief executive of the UKGC, after her husband’s death. At this meeting, held with other bereaved families, she says that Rhodes never mentioned that Betfair was under special measures at the time. This silence further fuelled suspicions of a cover-up.
Calls for transparency
Criticism is not limited to those close to the victims. Don Foster, Liberal Democrat peer and chairman of the Peers for Gambling Reform group, criticised the confidentiality of the measures:
‘It is totally unacceptable that such practices take place behind closed doors. This does not protect gamblers, quite the opposite.’
Matt Zarb-Cousin, director of Clean Up Gambling, agrees:
‘The public has a right to know which operators are not complying with consumer protection rules.’
He demands that the Commission publish the full list of companies placed under special measures, so that gamblers can make informed choices.
The UKGC defends itself but is not convincing
Faced with the media storm, the UKGC is trying to justify its policy. It claims that, like many regulatory authorities, it has a range of measures at its disposal, some of which are not systematically made public, particularly when the risk of harm to consumers is deemed to be low or non-existent.
It adds that regulatory history plays only a minor role in consumers’ gambling choices, and that public records of regulatory actions are always available. This defence is considered insufficient by many players, as the perception of preferential treatment remains strong.