Sarah Gardner, Acting Chief Executive of the Gambling Commission, has sharpened her rhetoric against critics of the regulator's affordability check regime, accusing some detractors of deploying delay tactics rather than substantive objections. Speaking at the International Association of Gaming Regulators Conference, Gardner said the growing intensity of debate around gambling regulation in Great Britain risks turning every policy decision into contested terrain, diverting staff and resources away from productive work.
Financial Risk Assessments under fire
At the centre of the dispute are Financial Risk Assessments, commonly referred to as affordability checks, which the Commission confirmed in July. The checks are designed to flag customers who may be gambling beyond their means, using data to identify financial difficulty before it escalates. Critics within the industry argue the checks risk introducing friction for ordinary bettors and could push some consumers toward unregulated markets. Gardner rejected this framing, insisting the checks will remain largely invisible for most customers and should actually reduce the burden on high-spending consumers who are not in financial distress, since operators would no longer need to request financial documents from them directly.
The Commission has opted to use credit rating agencies to carry out these assessments, a choice that has drawn scrutiny after a pilot scheme revealed inconsistencies between different agencies' methodologies. Gardner acknowledged the imperfections but argued the alternative is worse: operator-led affordability checks currently vary widely in the data sources used and how that data is interpreted. In her view, a flawed but standardised approach using credit data outperforms a patchwork of inconsistent in-house checks. The full consultation on FRAs is now expected in autumn, delayed from July to allow deeper engagement with operators before publication.
A regulator stretched thin on illegal gambling
Beyond affordability checks, Gardner addressed the Commission's long-running struggle against the illegal gambling market. Despite receiving an additional £26 million over three years following last year's Autumn budget, she conceded that the scale of enforcement activity remains far smaller than the scale of the problem. The Commission has had to ration its resources, prioritising cases with the greatest potential impact rather than pursuing every lead.
She cited the FutGalaxy case, in which two men were convicted in 2017 for running a platform allowing users to wager virtual currency from FIFA Ultimate Team, as an example of how resource-intensive prosecutions can be. A single case of that nature can consume a disproportionate share of the regulator's capacity over an extended period, limiting how many parallel investigations the Commission can realistically pursue.
- Illegal gambling enforcement competes directly with licensing and compliance work for limited staff time
- Complex prosecutions can span years and absorb significant regulatory resource
- Additional government funding has helped but has not closed the gap between ambition and capacity
Pressure building on platforms and advertisers
Gardner also pointed to progress in relations with major technology companies, including Meta and Google, which had previously been criticised for allowing illegal gambling operators to advertise on their platforms. She described a "step change" in cooperation since those criticisms were made public, though she stopped short of suggesting the problem has been resolved. The Commission continues to push for proactive policies that prevent paid promotion of unlicensed gambling sites.
Her comments extended to the broader advertising and affiliate ecosystem, which she urged to act as "better global citizens" by avoiding the promotion of illegal operators alongside licensed ones. This reflects a wider regulatory trend across digital markets, where platforms, advertisers and payment providers are increasingly expected to take responsibility for the legality and safety of what they carry, rather than treating enforcement as solely the regulator's job.