UKGC Withholds Lottery Applicant Data
Regulator cites need to protect assessment integrity in refusal to release intelligence reports on a former National Lottery licence bidder.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused a Freedom of Information request for intelligence reports on a former National Lottery licence applicant. The regulator cited exemptions related to law enforcement, arguing disclosure would undermine its ability to vet future applicants effectively.
Article Content
UKGC Cites Regulatory Integrity in Refusal to Release Lottery Bidder Intelligence
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has withheld intelligence reports and internal assessments relating to a company that participated in the fourth National Lottery licence competition, according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) response published by the regulator.
The request, dated 16 September 2025, sought detailed information on 'The New Lottery Company Ltd', a bidder in the high-stakes competition ultimately won by Allwyn.
Context: Scrutinising the National Lottery Bidding Process
The National Lottery is one of the UK's most significant institutions, and the process for awarding its operating licence is subject to intense scrutiny. The UKGC is responsible for ensuring any applicant meets strict criteria for propriety, player protection, and maximising returns to good causes. This FOI request aimed to shed light on the depth of the due diligence performed by the UKGC's Intelligence Unit on one of the applicants.
For consumers, understanding the rigour of this vetting process is crucial for trusting that the National Lottery is run fairly and by a suitable operator.
Details of the Request and Refusal
The information requested included:
- Intelligence Unit reports on The New Lottery Company Ltd.
- Enhanced intelligence checks and a specific report from 16 April 2021.
- Correspondence between the UKGC and the company.
- Recommendations made regarding the company's suitability to run the National Lottery.
In its response, the UKGC confirmed that it holds the requested information but would not release it. The Commission cited section 31(1)(g) of the Freedom of Information Act, an exemption related to 'law enforcement'.
The regulator argued that disclosure would likely prejudice its ability to perform its functions, specifically:
- Ascertaining if a person has failed to comply with the law.
- Determining if a person is responsible for improper conduct.
- Assessing a company's fitness and competence.
Significance: Transparency vs. Procedural Integrity
The UKGC's decision highlights a fundamental tension between public transparency and regulatory effectiveness. In its public interest test, the Commission acknowledged the argument for accountability but concluded that the need to protect its assessment processes was greater.
The regulator stated that applicants provide sensitive information with the understanding it will remain confidential. Releasing it, the UKGC argued, could deter future applicants from being fully transparent. More significantly, the Commission expressed concern that disclosing its specific assessment methods could allow future applicants to "modify their behaviour, or the information they provide... in order to avoid proper scrutiny."
For the public, this outcome means that while the UKGC asserts its vetting processes are robust, the specifics of those checks on unsuccessful applicants remain confidential. The regulator's position is that this confidentiality is essential to maintain the integrity of the licensing system, which in turn protects players and the public interest.