UKGC Hides Names of Firms in 'Special Measures'
Regulator refuses to identify operators under intense scrutiny for suspected licence breaches, citing risks to investigations.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused a Freedom of Information request to identify operators placed under 'special measures' for suspected failings. The regulator argued that disclosure would harm its ability to conduct investigations, leaving consumers unaware of which firms are under intense scrutiny.
Article Content
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to name the gambling operators it has placed under “special measures” for suspected licence condition breaches, a Freedom of Information (FOI) response has revealed.
The decision limits transparency for consumers, who remain unaware of which firms are facing intense regulatory scrutiny for potential failings in areas like consumer protection and anti-money laundering.
The Request for Transparency
A request submitted on 3 October 2025 asked the regulator to provide a list of all firms placed into special measures between 2021 and 2025. The request sought the names of the operators, the dates they entered and exited the process, the specific licence conditions they were suspected of breaching, and the value of any voluntary divestments agreed.
"Special measures" is a supervisory tool used by the UKGC when it has serious concerns about an operator. It allows the regulator to closely monitor a licensee that has reached the threshold for a formal licence review under Section 116 of the Gambling Act 2005. It represents a critical stage before any formal enforcement action, which can include fines or licence suspension.
The Commission's Refusal
The UKGC confirmed that it holds the requested information but would not release it, citing Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act. This exemption allows public authorities to withhold information if its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise of their functions—in this case, regulating the gambling industry.
In its response, the Commission argued that disclosing the names of operators in special measures could:
- Alert firms under investigation, giving them an opportunity to alter behaviour or conceal evidence.
- Undermine cooperation, as operators might be less willing to share information voluntarily if they fear premature public disclosure.
- Prejudice future investigations and unfairly associate operators with unproven allegations.
Balancing Transparency and Regulation
The UKGC acknowledged the public interest in transparency and accountability. However, it concluded that this was outweighed by the need to protect the integrity of its regulatory processes. The Commission stated that its primary goal is to bring operators into compliance as quickly as possible to protect consumers, and that premature disclosure could hinder this.
Formal regulatory decisions and settlement details are published by the UKGC after investigations are concluded. However, this refusal means there is a significant information gap for consumers. A firm can be under intense scrutiny for serious potential failings for a prolonged period without any public knowledge.
While the Commission has withheld the specific names, its response pointed to a separate disclosure containing aggregate data. This other release contains the total number of operators placed into special measures and the total value of voluntary divestments over the last five years, offering a high-level view of the scale of the issue without identifying individual firms.