UKGC Cites Law Enforcement in BoyleSports Bet Dispute
Regulator refuses to confirm or deny investigation into a football match after a customer's funds were withheld.
The UK Gambling Commission has used a law enforcement exemption to avoid confirming or denying an investigation related to a BoyleSports customer's bet on a specific football match. The response highlights the confidential nature of betting integrity probes and the limited information available to consumers with withheld funds.
Article Content
UKGC Withholds Information on BoyleSports Bet Integrity Case
A Freedom of Information (FOI) response from the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has revealed the regulator's refusal to confirm or deny holding information about a specific football match that led to a customer's funds being withheld by BoyleSports (UK) Limited.
The request, dated 3 July 2025, was submitted by a customer whose winnings were suspended after betting on the Villa San Carlos v San Martín De Burzaco match. The customer asked the UKGC for all communications from BoyleSports regarding the match and for details on any ongoing investigation.
Why the Information Was Withheld
The UKGC invoked Section 31(3) of the Freedom of Information Act, a law enforcement exemption. This allows a public body to “neither confirm nor deny” whether it holds the requested information if doing so would likely prejudice law enforcement activities. These activities include the UKGC's own regulatory investigations into potential breaches of the Gambling Act 2005, such as ensuring gambling is conducted fairly and is not associated with crime.
In its response, the Commission stated that confirming or denying the existence of an investigation could alert individuals involved, potentially allowing them to “alter their behaviours or evade detection.” The regulator argued that protecting the integrity of its investigatory process outweighed the public interest in disclosure for this specific case.
This response highlights a critical point for consumers: when a bet is suspended due to integrity concerns (such as suspected match-fixing), the regulator will not provide a running commentary or even confirm its involvement. This is done to avoid compromising a potentially sensitive investigation.
What This Means for Consumers
For the individual customer, this outcome means they remain without a clear timeline for the release of their withheld funds. The UKGC's response demonstrates that the priority is placed on the integrity of the overall investigation rather than the transparency of a single case.
The regulator’s public interest test acknowledged the importance of being open and honest but concluded that maintaining the exemption was necessary. The UKGC reasoned that disclosure could “prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work” and impact the willingness of stakeholders to share sensitive information with them.
The response also noted that the part of the request concerning the customer's personal bets was exempt under Section 40(1) (Personal Information), directing the individual to pursue a Subject Access Request for their own data.
Ultimately, this FOI disclosure shows the opaque and often lengthy process consumers face when their wagers are caught in a betting integrity probe. While frustrating for the affected punter, the UKGC maintains this confidentiality is essential to its function of preventing crime in gambling.