UKGC Withholds Flutter Meeting Details, Cites Investigation Risk

Article Content

Regulator Blocks Release of Flutter Meeting Information

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has withheld all substantive information about its meetings with gambling giant Flutter Entertainment, the parent company of brands like Paddy Power, Betfair, and Sky Bet. In response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 2 July 2025, the regulator confirmed it holds information on meetings held within the last three years but refused to disclose any details, citing risks to its regulatory functions.

This refusal limits public insight into the frequency and nature of interactions between the UK's most powerful gambling regulator and its largest licensee.

The Request and The Refusal

The FOI request asked the Commission to provide a list of meetings with Flutter and Betfair over the past three years, including the purpose of the meetings and a list of attendees from both sides.

While the UKGC confirmed that such meetings took place and that it holds the requested information, it invoked two key exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to justify withholding the details.

Why Was the Information Withheld?

The primary reason given was Section 31 of the FOIA, which protects information that could prejudice a public authority's ability to carry out its duties. The UKGC specified that releasing the information would likely harm its ability to:

• Ascertain if a person or company is responsible for improper conduct.
• Determine if circumstances exist that would justify regulatory action.
• Assess an operator's fitness and competence to hold a licence.

In its response, the Commission argued that disclosure would reveal its assessment techniques and could "severely hamper the effectiveness" of its investigatory processes in future cases. It also stated that releasing the information could undermine the trust it has with operators, potentially making them less cooperative during compliance and enforcement activities.

Additionally, the names of individuals who attended the meetings were withheld under Section 40(2), which protects personal data.

Balancing Transparency and Regulation

The UKGC's response included a public interest test, where it weighed the arguments for and against disclosure. It acknowledged the public interest in holding the Commission accountable and ensuring it is regulating the industry effectively.

However, it concluded that the public interest was better served by withholding the information. The regulator's view is that protecting the integrity of its confidential assessment and investigation processes is paramount to its core mission of protecting consumers.

"We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole," the Commission stated.

What This Means for Consumers

This decision highlights the inherent tension between the public's right to know and a regulator's need to maintain confidentiality to function effectively. While the refusal prevents public scrutiny of the UKGC's direct engagement with the industry's biggest player, the regulator maintains this secrecy is essential for its ability to police the industry and protect the public from harm.

The specific exemptions cited—relating to improper conduct and fitness to operate—indicate that the withheld information is directly tied to the Commission's most critical compliance and enforcement functions.