UKGC Withholds Game Audit Data

Article Content

UKGC Blocks Release of Game Testing Data, Citing Regulatory Risk

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to release audit and testing data for a specific online casino game, according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) response published by the regulator. The decision highlights the ongoing tension between public transparency and the methods used to ensure game fairness.

On 19 January 2026, a request was made for all evidence, annual audits, and pre-release testing data related to an online game from software provider Pragmatic Play, identified as "blackjackx28".

In its response, the Commission confirmed that it holds some information within the scope of the request but has withheld it entirely, citing Section 31 of the FOIA, which relates to law enforcement.

The Regulatory Process Explained

For consumers, the fairness of online casino games is paramount. The UKGC does not test games itself. Instead, it mandates a strict process under its Remote Technical Standards (RTS). Licence holders, such as Pragmatic Play, must have their games rigorously checked by an independent, Commission-approved test house before they can be offered to UK players.

These test houses verify that the game complies with standards for fairness, security, and randomness. The operator then submits the game and its corresponding test report to the Commission prior to release. This system is designed to ensure that all games meet a minimum standard of integrity before they reach the public.

Why Was the Information Withheld?

The UKGC's refusal to release the data centres on protecting its regulatory methods. The Commission argued that disclosing detailed assessments, audits, and testing information would reveal the specific techniques it uses to scrutinise operators.

According to the response, releasing such information could have a serious impact on its assessment process. The UKGC stated that it could lead to "potentially non-compliant licensees altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes."

In essence, the regulator fears that if operators know exactly what is being looked for and how, they could learn to 'game the system' without embracing a genuine culture of compliance. This, the UKGC argues, would ultimately harm consumer protection.

The Public Interest Balance

The Commission acknowledged the public interest in transparency and accountability. However, it concluded that the public interest is better served by protecting the integrity of its compliance processes. The UKGC's position is that maintaining the effectiveness of its assessments provides a greater overall benefit to consumers than releasing specific details about one game.

This decision means that while players can be assured that a regulatory process exists, they cannot independently scrutinise the raw data that proves a game's fairness. Instead, they must place their trust in the system of approved test houses and the Commission's oversight. The refusal underscores the limits of public access to information when a regulator believes it could compromise its ability to police the industry effectively.