UKGC Hides Merkur Probe Scope
Regulator refuses to confirm or deny if its investigation into the high street operator extended beyond a single site, citing law enforcement exemptions.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused to reveal the full scope of its investigation into Merkur Slots UK Limited, which led to a £95,450 fine. Citing law enforcement protections, the regulator would not confirm or deny if multiple venues were reviewed, leaving the extent of the operator's failings unclear.
Article Content
UKGC Cites Enforcement Powers to Withhold Merkur Investigation Details
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to disclose whether its investigation into Merkur Slots UK Limited, which resulted in a £95,450 fine, was a targeted review of a single site or a broader look at the operator's estate.
In a response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 7 June 2025, the regulator invoked a powerful exemption to avoid confirming or denying if it holds the requested information. This leaves consumers and the public in the dark about the full extent of the compliance failures that led to the financial penalty.
Context: The Merkur Fine and the Public's Question
The FOI request directly referenced a UKGC announcement regarding a £95,450 fine issued to Merkur Slots UK Limited. The requester sought to understand if the investigation was a "one-off" or if "other Merkur sites were reviewed to make the entire investigation worthwhile."
This question is significant for consumers as it addresses whether the identified failings were an isolated incident at one venue or potentially indicative of systemic issues across the operator's wider business.
The 'Neither Confirm Nor Deny' Response
Instead of providing the information or stating it did not hold it, the UKGC issued a "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) response. This is a specific provision within the Freedom of Information Act used in sensitive cases.
The Commission based its refusal on Section 31(3) of the Act, an exemption related to Law Enforcement. The UKGC argued that confirming or denying the existence of a wider investigation could compromise its regulatory work.
In its official response, the regulator explained its reasoning:
"Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals, events or lines of enquiry identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t engaging in specific conversations; providing an opportunity for individuals to alter their behaviours or evade detection."
Essentially, the UKGC believes that revealing its investigative methods—even for a concluded case—could tip off other operators, prejudice future investigations, and make it harder to enforce the rules designed to protect the public.
Significance: Transparency vs. Enforcement
The UKGC's decision highlights a fundamental tension between its duty to be a transparent public body and its function as an effective enforcement agency.
While the Commission acknowledged the public interest in openness and accountability, it concluded that the potential damage to its ability to regulate the industry outweighed the benefits of disclosure in this instance.
For consumers, this response means key questions remain unanswered:
- Was the fine for an isolated issue or a widespread problem?
- Are other venues operated by the same company potentially exhibiting similar failings?
The regulator's stance is that protecting its ability to conduct covert or unannounced checks is paramount to upholding its core objectives: preventing crime in gambling, ensuring fairness, and protecting vulnerable people. By refusing to reveal its hand, the UKGC believes it is better positioned to protect the public in the long run, even if it means less transparency on specific cases.