UKGC Won't Say if Merkur Faces Special Measures
Regulator uses law enforcement exemption to withhold information on the high street operator's compliance status, citing risk to investigations.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused to confirm or deny if land-based operator Merkur is under special measures, citing a law enforcement exemption. The regulator argued that disclosure could prejudice its ability to conduct investigations, leaving consumers in the dark about the operator's current compliance status.
Article Content
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to confirm or deny whether major land-based operator Merkur is under “special measures,” a tool used for operators requiring significant improvements.
In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 13 June 2025, the regulator stated that revealing this information could prejudice its law enforcement functions. The decision was upheld after an internal review.
What are Special Measures?
The UKGC describes special measures as a tool it uses “to ensure operators who need to make key improvements are swiftly compliant.” An operator being placed under such measures indicates the regulator has identified significant concerns that require close supervision and rapid correction.
For consumers, knowing whether an operator is under special measures provides crucial insight into its compliance record and commitment to player safety. The FOI request was made specifically for “public information and safety.”
The UKGC's Refusal
Instead of answering the request, the UKGC issued a “neither confirm nor deny” (NCND) response. It invoked Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, an exemption related to law enforcement.
The regulator argued that confirming or denying the existence of special measures for Merkur could:
- Prejudice Investigations: Harm any ongoing or future regulatory inquiries.
- Undermine Trust: Damage the “free and frank exchange of information” between the Commission and gambling operators, making them less likely to cooperate voluntarily.
- Hinder Regulation: Ultimately harm the UKGC's ability to protect consumers if its regulatory processes are compromised.
In its internal review, the Commission stated there was a greater than 50% chance that prejudice would be caused by confirming or denying the information. It concluded that the public interest was better served by withholding the information to protect the integrity of its regulatory work.
What This Means for Consumers
This response highlights a key tension in UK gambling regulation: the balance between immediate public transparency and the confidentiality required for effective enforcement.
The UKGC’s position is that transparency comes after an investigation is complete. The regulator noted that “once or if a formal regulatory decision has been made… the Commission will ordinarily publish all such decisions in full.”
However, until such a decision is published, consumers are left without information regarding the current regulatory standing of a major high street operator. The UKGC's refusal means that while it prioritises the integrity of its enforcement process, the public remains uninformed about potential compliance issues at Merkur while any such process may be underway.