Bookies Threaten Legal Action For Passing Gambling Commission Proficiency Checks

Britain’s biggest bookmakers are battling in the High Court and the Gambling Commission over a controversial new regime of so-called affordability checks, in a row that threatens to drag the regulator into another expensive court battle and reopen one of the UK’s biggest consumer-facing disputes.

Industry officials say the checks, which will prevent customers from re-betting once they exceed certain loss limits, contain “significant flaws” and risk squeezing hundreds of thousands of traders in the increasingly unregulated online black market. With the Gambling Commission expected to decide this week whether to impose regulations collectively, the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has put the regulator on formal notice that legal action is now on the table.

The transformation of the flagship under fire

Affordability checks – formally known as financial risk assessments (FRAs), sit at the heart of the biggest overhaul of Britain’s gambling laws in a generation, introduced under the previous Conservative government in 2023. The goal was straightforward: find high-spending customers who might be in financial trouble and intervene before the damage escalates. The accompanying political promise was equally clear – any such assessment would be “non-confrontational”, invisible to the average punter.

Under the proposed regime, an FRA would be triggered when a customer loses £1,000 or more in 24 hours, or £2,000 in 90 days. Operators failing to carry out risk assessments; customers who refuse to comply face being locked out of their accounts.

The commission relies heavily on the results of its tests, which ran from September 2024 to April 2025 and used nearly 800,000 historical points. According to the published findings, only 3 percent of gamblers would face a test, and 97 percent of those would be “no conflict” – meaning the customer wouldn’t have to lift a finger.

BGC disputes almost every aspect of that picture.

“Big mistakes” and 20% trouble.

In a letter dated April 21 to the acting chairman of the Gambling Commission, seen by the Sunday Times, the BGC raised “serious concerns about the wider implications” of the FRA’s proposals. The trade body says that once you strip out customers who spend less than £200 a year on bets – mainly regular punters who place the occasional flutter, the real proportion of regular customers whose checks are caught may be closer to 20 per cent, not 3 per cent.

It also flagged major inconsistencies in data taken from the three credit reference agencies involved in the assessment. In more than half of the cases, the BGC said, the danger flag was raised by only one of the three agencies, a finding that, if accurate, undermines the central claim that the system can reliably distinguish a customer at risk from convenience.

Grainne Hurst, chief executive of the BGC, did not mince his words: “Given the serious concerns expressed by staff, there is a real risk that the industry could ultimately be left without considering legal challenges if these proposals go ahead without further consideration.”

The Commission, the BGC told the Sunday Times newspaper, has yet to respond to the April letter.

One senior industry source put it bluntly: “It’s ridiculous that we’ve been forced to consider such a big step.

The speed of collecting the black market

The commercial background of the dispute is what makes it a matter for British business, not just a gambling establishment. The Commission’s own changes, initially unspecified by Business Matters, have already increased compliance costs for licensees and tightened the screws on bonus design, customer interaction and product design – a trend explored in detail in our analysis of the 2026 gambling changes.

The fear within the regulated industry is that affordability tests tip an already well-balanced figure in the wrong place. The BGC estimates that the offshore black market will more than triple in size by 2022 and that unlicensed operators could spend £1 billion a year on advertising by 2028, more than the entire UK regulated market combined. The trade body warns that up to £300 million in tax receipts could be lost as customers move to operators who don’t ask questions and don’t offer protection.

Critics argue that the industry is talking up the threat of black markets to protect incumbents. In any case, as our previous report on the British bookmaker business made clear, the licensed sector makes a significant contribution to the Exchequer, to racing fees and to high street hires – and few in Whitehall want to be seen to give market share to operators in areas outside British control.

“The evidence so far suggests that these proposals are not fit for purpose and risk driving people away from the regulated market towards the growing online black market, where there are no safeguards and no safeguards,” said Hurst.

Rear foot control

For the Gambling Commission, the prospect of another battle in the Supreme Court is not easy, to put it mildly. The regulator has been at the center of an unusually difficult case in recent months, including a bitter dispute with Richard Desmond, the billionaire former owner of the Daily Express, over the awarding of a multibillion-dollar National Lottery contract, and a secret lawsuit brought by executives at Entain, the parent company of Ladbrokes and Coral.

And it doesn’t have a rudder on top. Andrew Rhodes, the Commission’s chief executive, left unexpectedly earlier this month to join Hawkbridge, a new law firm from Harris Hagan – a firm that has worked for Britain’s biggest bookmakers. The departure view is not lost on users who are now thinking of suing each other.

In a statement, the Commission defended its approach: “A test pilot has been used to assess how consistent the Policy Paper policy is and has given us useful results on how it can be implemented. We have been carefully evaluating that work in detail throughout the test, drawing on a series of testimonies and opinions from aviation participants and advised by NatCen. The proposed approach has been subject to significant research during the process we have received and is already subject to significant research.”

What to watch this week

For the SME-heavy supply chain that depends on Britain’s regulated betting industry, from data providers and payment firms to marketing agencies and the racing industry, this week’s decision is significant. The green light without a factory buyout raises the prospect of months of legal uncertainty, stalled investment and contract disputes. A pause or redesign would buy time but widen the regulatory gray area that has already prompted operators to reduce exposure to the UK.

What is hard to argue with is that the Commission’s chances are getting smaller and smaller. With Supreme Court action looming, the chief executive gone and the black market growing in confidence, the regulator’s next move will be watched not just by bookies but by all consumer-facing businesses that depend on a stable, equitable licensing system.