UKGC Withholds 'Special Measures' Operator List
Regulator cites risk to investigations in refusal to name firms under intense supervision, leaving consumers in the dark.
The UK Gambling Commission has refused a Freedom of Information request to identify which gambling operators have been placed in 'special measures'. The regulator argued that releasing the names could compromise its investigations. This decision means consumers remain unaware of which firms are under heightened scrutiny for compliance failures.
Article Content
UKGC Refuses to Name Gambling Firms in 'Special Measures'
The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) has refused to disclose which gambling operators it has placed under “special measures” for compliance failings. The decision, revealed in a response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request dated 18 March 2025, means consumers remain unaware of which companies are subject to this heightened level of regulatory scrutiny.
Saferwager can report that the request asked for a list of all companies placed into special measures between January 2022 and March 2025. It also sought the reasons for the action and the dates the measures were applied and lifted.
A Wall of Silence
The UKGC confirmed it holds the requested information but has withheld it entirely. In its response, the regulator cited Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, which provides an exemption for information that could prejudice law enforcement and regulatory functions.
The Commission described special measures as one of the tools it uses “to ensure operators who need to make key improvements are swiftly compliant.” However, it argued that disclosing the names of these operators would be counterproductive.
According to the UKGC, releasing the information could:
- Alert operators to investigations, allowing them to “alter their behaviours or evade detection.”
- Discourage operators from voluntarily and proactively sharing information with the regulator.
- Prejudice the outcome of future investigations and undermine the Commission’s ability to uphold its licensing objectives.
The Public Interest Debate
The UKGC acknowledged a public interest in transparency and accountability. However, it concluded that this was outweighed by the potential damage to its regulatory activities. The Commission stated, “disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.”
It argued that the public interest in transparency is already met by the publication of final enforcement actions and regulatory settlements on its website.
What This Means for Consumers
The Commission’s refusal creates a significant information gap for consumers. While the regulator’s aim is to bring failing operators into compliance as quickly as possible, this decision means the public is not informed about which companies are under scrutiny until after an investigation is complete and a formal decision is made.
During this period of non-disclosure, consumers may continue to use an operator that the UKGC has identified as having significant failings requiring intensive supervision. The refusal prevents customers from making fully informed choices based on an operator's current regulatory standing.