UK Gambling Commission Research Maps Consumer Pathways to Illegal Gambling

Summary

The Gambling Commission published new research on 20 October 2026 examining why some consumers in Great Britain use illegal online gambling websites.

The findings highlight different motivations and routes into the illegal market, including searches associated with bypassing self-exclusion, expectations of fewer checks and recommendations circulating online. For businesses and regulators, the central implication is that illegal-market prevention needs to address both consumer behaviour and the digital pathways connecting consumers with unlicensed services.

The publication introduces no new licensing, AML or responsible-gambling requirement.

What changed

The publication is Phase 3 of the Commission’s Consumer Voice research into illegal online gambling. It develops earlier work by examining how consumers’ attitudes, experiences and frustrations relate to their use of illegal websites.

The research combines digital intelligence, a survey of 4,007 people who had gambled online in the previous four weeks, and qualitative focus groups. Survey fieldwork took place from 1 to 15 May 2026; the focus groups followed in July.

One important finding concerns searches using “not on GamStop”. The Commission says this language is no longer used exclusively by people seeking to bypass self-exclusion. Some consumers also use it as shorthand for perceived features such as fewer identity checks, faster withdrawals and alternative payment methods.

The research identifies access-related factors and a preference for providing less personal information as particularly strong associations with illegal-site use. However, motivations differ between consumer groups. Distrust of institutions matters for some; convenience and peer recommendations matter more for others.

These findings require careful interpretation. Online discussions do not verify actual gambling behaviour, and the survey and qualitative work rely on self-reported information. The publication should not be treated as a definitive estimate of illegal-market size or proof that a particular policy caused migration.

Who is affected

The findings are relevant to licensed B2C operators reviewing customer verification, withdrawals, account restrictions and communication.

B2B suppliers supporting onboarding, payments, customer support and monitoring can use the research to identify where clearer processes may help operators maintain compliant customer journeys.

For governments, regulators and associations, the research provides an example of combining consumer evidence with digital monitoring. Banks, PSPs and investors can also use it to inform risk assessment, but it does not create new screening duties or justify decisions about individual customers without supporting evidence.

Our Take

The practical distinction is between necessary safeguards and avoidable operational friction.

KYC, AML and self-exclusion controls should not be weakened to compete with illegal operators. Businesses can nevertheless examine whether repeated document requests, unclear explanations or preventable withdrawal delays create frustration beyond what compliance requires.

Monitoring also needs to look beyond the destination website. Search results, affiliate pages, social content and recommendations can form a connected acquisition route. Recording those connections may help authorities identify opportunities for disruption that a domain list alone would miss.

Consumer communication should reflect different motivations. Explaining how to verify a licence may help someone who unintentionally encounters an illegal service. The same message may have limited effect on someone deliberately seeking to evade an exclusion.

For other jurisdictions, the transferable lesson is methodological rather than numerical: combine evidence sources, distinguish association from causation and test whether interventions change behaviour. British findings should not be assumed to describe another country’s consumers.