Why Your "Casino" Account Got Restricted, And What the Gambling Commission Plans Next

_{The Gambling Commission says most restrictions involve stake limits, but calls for clarity on when and why they’re applied. (Image: Gambling Commission)}

The CEO of the Gambling Commission, Andrew Rhodes has said that restrictions may risk driving users to the black market and warned that a lack of transparency could undermine regulatory goals.

The UK Gambling Commission has released data showing that more than 640,000 online betting accounts were commercially restricted in 202, representing 4.31% of all active accounts reviewed. Chief Executive Andrew Rhodes says the findings raise concerns about market transparency and consumer behaviour.

While operators have the right to manage financial risks, the widespread use of restrictions, including stake limits and account closures, has drawn scrutiny. The Commission sought new data in early 2025 to understand the scale of the practice and assess its implications for players and market integrity.

New Data, Old Concerns

The data request, which targeted major online sportsbooks, covered nearly 15 million customer accounts. The Commission found that 643,779 accounts had restrictions in place. These restrictions varied widely by operator, due to differing customer profiles, business models, and risk appetites.

“It is not possible to get a full picture of how and why individual operators apply restrictions from a uniform data request,” Rhodes said. 

“We will therefore be engaging further with the industry and others.”

Most commonly, operators imposed what the Commission calls a “stake factor reduction”, limiting the amount a user can wager compared to unrestricted customers. Of all accounts, 2.68% had this form of limit, representing 62.17% of all restricted accounts.

The next most common restriction was full account closure, affecting 2.23% of accounts overall, or 51.69% of all restricted accounts. However, some operators do not use account closures for commercial purposes at all.

Restrictions may also be more subtle. Operators sometimes prevent users from betting on specific markets, such as horse racing, without closing the account. But these “market limits” were rare, found in just 0.25% of active accounts.

Stake Limits: How Much Is Too Much?

Not all stake limits are created equal. The Commission broke down how much a customer’s betting power was reduced:
   •    6.04% were allowed to stake 90%–99% of the normal maximum
   •    7.50% were capped at 50%–89%
   •    29.43% were limited to 10%–49%
   •    36.22% were cut to 1%–9%
   •    22.41% had less than 1% of the normal maximum

This variation means two players may both be “stake factored” but have vastly different betting experiences.

Winners Targeted?

The Commission also looked at whether profitable bettors are more likely to be restricted. The data suggests they are.

Among all active accounts, 25.42% showed a net profit over their lifetime. But that figure rose to 46.78% among restricted accounts. Conversely, 72.54% of all users lost money, compared to just 51.29% of restricted users.

These figures reinforce a long-held suspicion among bettors that profitable players are more likely to face limits. Still, Rhodes warned against oversimplifying the findings.

“Being a successful bettor is not a protected characteristic in discrimination law,” he said. “But we do need to understand the role that commercial restrictions may be playing in pushing customers to illegal gambling operators.”

Commission Flags Potential Risks

The Commission stopped short of recommending regulatory intervention but emphasized the need for transparency. Unclear policies on restrictions, Rhodes said, may lead consumers to open multiple accounts or migrate to unlicensed sites, undermining efforts to combat fraud and protect vulnerable users.

“Whilst managing their commercial liabilities is important,” Rhodes said, “the licensed industry will share our concern about these risks and want to avoid these outcomes.”

The regulator plans further industry engagement and will assess how restrictions are communicated to customers. Rhodes made it clear that operators should be upfront with users, both before and after account restrictions are applied.

“As noted in the White Paper, licensed operators should be transparent with customers, both at the start of the relationship and throughout,” he said.