UKGC Shields Merkur Fine Details
FOI response redacts key information on the timing and triggers of the investigation into the high-street slots operator.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed the UK Gambling Commission is withholding key details about its investigation into Merkur Slots. While confirming a site visit and meeting, the regulator has redacted the date it launched formal action, citing law enforcement exemptions.
Article Content
UKGC Cites Law Enforcement Exemption to Withhold Investigation Details
A Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure has revealed that the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) is withholding key details surrounding its investigation into Merkur Slots UK Limited, which resulted in a £95,450 fine for social responsibility failures.
The response, stemming from a request dated 19 May 2025, confirms some regulatory activity but redacts crucial information, citing exemptions designed to protect law enforcement functions. This leaves consumers with an incomplete picture of how the regulator acted on what it called a "clear cut" failure to protect a vulnerable customer.
What the FOI Response Reveals
The request sought specific details about the regulatory process leading to the fine against Merkur Slots. The Commission confirmed two key facts:
- Site Visit: A UKGC official physically visited the Merkur Slots branch on Princes Street, Stockport, where the failings occurred.
- Meeting: A meeting between Gambling Commission staff and Merkur Slots took place on 19 April 2024.
However, the regulator refused to provide any further information on the substance of that meeting or, critically, the date it decided to launch formal action against the operator. It also did not answer whether the investigation was triggered by the original complaint or by subsequent media interest.
Why Was Information Withheld?
The UKGC invoked Section 31(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information Act, a law enforcement exemption. It argued that disclosing the timeline and details of its decision-making process would prejudice its ability to regulate the industry effectively.
According to the Commission, releasing such information would:
- Reveal its investigation techniques, which could be exploited by operators in future cases.
- Undermine the trust and cooperation it needs from licensees during compliance assessments.
- Impair its ability to ascertain whether an operator is fit to hold a licence.
In its public interest test, the UKGC acknowledged the need for transparency but concluded that the public interest was better served by protecting its regulatory processes to ensure consumer safety, rather than disclosing information about those processes.
Significance for Consumers
This partial disclosure highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory transparency and operational secrecy. While the UKGC confirmed it took action, its refusal to provide a timeline leaves important consumer questions unanswered. Without knowing when the formal investigation began, it is impossible for the public to assess the regulator's proactivity or determine if media coverage influenced its decision to act.
When asked for specifics on what constitutes "excessive" play or what triggers a mandatory customer interaction, the Commission directed the requester to the general rules outlined in the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP), specifically Social Responsibility Code 3.4. It also pointed to its public 'Statement of principles for determining financial penalties' regarding the fine calculation.
For consumers, this means that even when a fine is issued and publicised, the specific internal triggers, timelines, and detailed reasoning behind the regulatory action often remain shielded from public scrutiny.