UKGC Redacts Details of LSE Gambling Research
FOI reveals collaboration on new study design but withholds information on "commercial interests," citing potential prejudice.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed a research partnership between the UK Gambling Commission and the London School of Economics. While the collaboration focuses on key industry data, the regulator has redacted information about companies involved, citing commercial sensitivity.
Article Content
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed an ongoing research partnership between the Gambling Commission (UKGC) and the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE), but the regulator has withheld key details, citing commercial sensitivity.
The response, published on the UKGC's website, confirms correspondence between the two organisations over a 12-month period leading up to 6 November 2025. While some documents were released, significant redactions were made to protect what the Commission deems commercially sensitive information.
What the Data Reveals
The FOI request sought all correspondence between the regulator and the university. The documents released by the UKGC, though partially redacted, point to a close working relationship focused on the methodology behind the UK's official gambling statistics.
Key documents attached to the FOI response include:
- A "Study design protocol" dated February 2025.
- A presentation for the "GSGB Stats User group."
- A large (7.8 MB) but redacted file of emails.
These files indicate that the LSE is collaborating with the UKGC on the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB). The GSGB is the regulator's primary tool for measuring gambling participation and rates of harm across the country. The data it produces is fundamental, forming the evidence base for future regulatory policies, including controversial measures like affordability checks.
The Missing Information
While the existence of the collaboration is now public, the specifics remain unclear. The UKGC has heavily redacted the documents, citing two exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act.
First, it used Section 40 to remove personal data, such as the names and opinions of individual staff members. This is a standard and expected practice.
More significantly, the Commission invoked Section 43, which protects information that could prejudice the "commercial interests of any person." In its justification, the UKGC stated that revealing "this level of detail about individual companies" would be harmful. It argued that businesses interacting with the Commission expect confidentiality and that disclosing this information does not help consumers choose a gambling operator.
After conducting a public interest test, the Commission concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the interest in disclosure.
Why This Matters for Consumers
The integrity of the data used to shape gambling regulation is of paramount importance for consumer protection. The involvement of a world-renowned academic institution like the LSE could enhance the quality and credibility of the UKGC's research.
However, the decision to withhold the identities of "individual companies" involved in this foundational research raises questions about transparency. Without this information, it is impossible for the public to know which commercial entities may be involved in shaping the very surveys that measure the harms their industry can cause.
For consumers, the data gathered by the GSGB directly influences the safeguards they are offered. The redaction of commercial involvement means the public is left in the dark about potential influences on the data that underpins the entire regulatory framework.