UKGC Hides Omaze Lobbying Info

Article Content

UKGC Cites Law Enforcement to Withhold Omaze Information

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to confirm or deny whether it has received communications from lobbyists regarding the prize draw company Omaze. In a response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 7 August 2025, the regulator invoked a law enforcement exemption, indicating a high level of sensitivity around the topic.

Context: A Question of Regulation

The FOI request sought to uncover whether representatives from the lobbying firm Hanbury Strategy and Communications had emailed or met with UKGC officials to discuss Omaze between April and June 2025. Omaze, known for its multi-million-pound house giveaways, operates in a space that borders gambling but is not currently regulated by the UKGC.

In its response, the Commission reiterated its official position that Omaze is categorised as a prize competition or free draw. Under the Gambling Act 2005, operations with a sufficient free entry route fall outside the Commission's regulatory remit. This distinction is crucial for consumers, as it means operators like Omaze are not subject to the same stringent licensing conditions and consumer protection measures as licensed gambling companies.

The Details: A “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” Response

Rather than simply stating whether the requested documents exist, the UKGC issued a "neither confirm nor deny" response. To justify this, it cited Section 31(3) of the Freedom of Information Act, an exemption related to law enforcement.

The Commission argued that confirming or denying the existence of such correspondence could prejudice its regulatory functions. It stated that disclosure could:

• Alert individuals to a potential investigation (or lack thereof), allowing them to "alter their behaviours or evade detection."
• Impact the willingness of other stakeholders to share sensitive information with the regulator.
• Prejudice the outcome of any future investigation by the Commission or another body.

While acknowledging a public interest in transparency, the UKGC concluded that the need to protect the integrity of its regulatory and investigative processes was greater.

Significance: What This Means for Consumers

The use of a law enforcement exemption is a significant step that goes beyond a simple refusal. It suggests that any information the UKGC may or may not hold on this matter is considered critical to its strategic aims of protecting consumers and potentially disrupting non-compliant activity.

For consumers, this response highlights the complex and often opaque boundary between prize draws and regulated gambling. While the UKGC has publicly stated Omaze is not under its remit, this FOI response indicates that the topic of its status and potential lobbying efforts around it is one the regulator is treating with extreme caution. It signals that discussions or monitoring related to the prize competition sector may be active and sensitive, even if they do not result in public enforcement action under current laws.