UKGC Withholds Compliance Data Field Details
Regulator cites excessive cost to fulfil a Freedom of Information request for a list of data points used in operator assessments.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused to release a list of data fields it uses to assess operators, citing excessive costs. This decision limits public insight into the specific metrics the regulator uses to ensure compliance with licence conditions.
Article Content
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to release a detailed list of the data it collects when assessing gambling operators for compliance, citing the cost of fulfilling the request.
The decision, made in response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 10 July 2025, limits public and consumer insight into the specific metrics the regulator uses to scrutinise the industry.
The Request for Transparency
The FOI request asked the Commission for a complete list of all current and historical "data fields" used in its compliance activities, dating back to the 2014/15 financial year. A data field is a specific piece of information the UKGC records, such as 'Number of customer complaints' or 'Self-exclusion rate'. The request also sought the list of possible values for each field and an explanation of their meaning.
This information is crucial for understanding the depth and focus of the UKGC's regulatory oversight. For consumers, it would reveal exactly what aspects of an operator's business—from player protection measures to anti-money laundering controls—are being measured and monitored.
The Commission's Refusal
The UKGC denied the request, invoking Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. This section permits a public authority to refuse a request if the cost of locating, retrieving, and extracting the information would exceed a set limit of £450, which is equivalent to 18 hours of staff work.
In its response, the Commission stated: "We estimate that it would take in excess of 18 hours to determine appropriate material and retrieve and extract any relevant information in reference to your request, specifically for a list of all previous and current data fields and the list of values within those fields."
The regulator advised that the requester could submit a more refined, narrower request, which would be treated as a new submission.
Why This Matters for Consumers
While the UKGC's refusal is permitted under the FOIA, the decision has significant implications for regulatory transparency. Without a clear, public list of the data points the Commission uses to hold operators accountable, it is more difficult for consumers and watchdog organisations to assess the effectiveness of its compliance regime.
The response suggests that the data on how the UKGC tracks operator compliance is not stored in a way that is easily accessible or reportable, even for internal purposes. This raises questions about the efficiency of the Commission's data management and its ability to analyse long-term trends in operator behaviour.
For consumers, this lack of transparency means it remains unclear what specific benchmarks operators are being judged against during compliance assessments, making it harder to gauge the true level of scrutiny applied to the gambling firms they use.