The UK Gambling Commission��s data strategy is facing renewed scrutiny after a leading trade body urged the regulator to work more collaboratively with external statistics providers. The Institute of Licensing (IoL), responding to the latest findings from the Gambling Survey of Great Britain (GSGB), has called for a more open, robust, and responsive approach to data use across the sector.
The GSGB, now entering its second year, was designed to offer the most comprehensive picture to date of how people in Britain engage with gambling. But while the survey��s ambition is clear, the IoL believes it is not yet meeting its full potential.
Their message is direct: for evidence-led regulation to succeed, the Gambling Commission��s data strategy must not only publish the numbers but also deepen the conversation about where those numbers come from, how they are validated, and what context surrounds them. The Commission welcoming the Office for Statistics Regulation��s review of the GSGB, reaffirming its commitment to transparent, high-quality data practices.
What the Commission��s data strategy reveals and what it misses
The Gambling Survey of Great Britain began in 2023 as part of the post-White Paper reform era. Its goal is to offer a richer evidence base to shape regulation, industry standards, and public health responses. Year Two results confirm familiar trends: scratchcards, sports betting, and online instant-win games remain the most commonly used non-lottery products. Participation among young adult males, particularly those aged 18 to 24, has increased significantly, with nearly half of this group engaging in some form of gambling outside the lottery.
The figures may speak volumes, but the IoL is asking whether anyone is really listening, especially when clarity, usability, and trust seem to be lost in translation. A full improvement plan is now expected from the Commission, covering quality assurance, a concrete user engagement model, and cross-validated methods that can stand up to scrutiny. These concerns highlight a deeper issue within the Gambling Commission��s data strategy: whether it genuinely prioritises end users.
SiGMA News previously reported on the Gambling Commission��s support for key methodological reforms in the GSGB, including its shift to a continuous survey model. That context helps explain why expectations for the Commission��s data strategy are rising.
Whoever shapes the stats shapes the story
One of the biggest challenges for the Gambling Commission��s data strategy is ensuring it fits within the wider health and social data landscape rather than floating outside it. The IoL is urging the Commission to connect the GSGB with national datasets, such as the Health Survey for England and the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, to provide a more comprehensive evidence base. The aim isn��t to muddy the data. It is to enrich it. To bring clarity to where gambling risk overlaps with mental health and social pressure.
Scratch the surface of this recommendation, and you hit something deeper: a long-simmering debate about who gambling harms and who decides what to do about it. Experts see framing gambling as a public health issue, rather than a commercial or compliance issue, as key to building smarter, more coherent policy. This approach allows for earlier detection of harm patterns, more targeted responses, and better integration of treatment pathways.
The Commission has publicly backed better use of data across the industry, encouraging licensees to strengthen internal monitoring tools. Its expanded financial risk checks pilot is one such example, but critics argue that internal data strategy must develop at the same pace. If the Commission expects operators to sharpen their metrics, it must hold itself to the same standard.
Differing views on scope and responsibility
Some say the GSGB is already doing enough. Broaden the scope too far, and you risk turning clarity into clutter or, worse, politics into paternalism. Not everyone��s ready to trade economic models for health narratives, no matter how well-meaning they sound. There are also concerns that framing gambling harms within a health context might lead to overly paternalistic policy decisions.
Still, the risk of not acting may be greater. When SiGMA News put these questions directly to the UK Gambling Commission, it confirmed that it would be ��looking at comparisons with forthcoming datasets from the Health Survey for England and the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, due later in 2025.�� While that��s a welcome sign, it falls short of a clear plan for data integration, let alone a timeline. For now, it remains a consideration, not a commitment.
The Commission responded to the Institute of Licensing��s call for a formal user engagement and validation framework with a similar tone. The Commission informed SiGMA News that it is ��reviewing user engagement frameworks in line with the OSR��s recommendations�� and is collaborating with other official statistics producers, including Ofcom, the Money and Pensions Service, and devolved governments. These discussions, it noted, are being shaped by guidance from the Office for Statistics Regulation.
Again, the Commission offers a constructive approach in principle, but it has not published a roadmap or confirmed any mechanism to build public confidence in how it gathers and uses GSGB data.
Big decisions, blurry foundations
When asked whether the GSGB is robust enough to underpin major decisions, such as reforms to machine entitlements, a topic currently under the spotlight as operators warn that proposed machine reforms could disproportionately impact small venues and seaside arcades, or the introduction of financial risk checks, the Commission emphasised that it ��does not rely on any one source of evidence.��
The Commission also clarified that it is not proposing so-called ��affordability checks,�� preferring the term financial risk checks to describe what it calls a more targeted measure. That distinction is important, but the wider question remains unanswered: how much weight does the GSGB carry when regulatory decisions are on the table?
We also asked whether the Commission holds its own data strategy to the same standard it expects from operators. The response was brief: ��Our corporate strategy sets out clearly our intention to make more effective use of data.�� While that may be true in principle, there was no reference to specific mechanisms, internal audits, or structural upgrades. As regulators demand real-time risk modelling from operators, they must match that pace of change themselves.
Finally, we asked a question that emerged directly from the GSGB itself: the data shows that young males are the most active group in non-lottery gambling. Would the Commission create a targeted risk strategy for this group? Their response pointed to Chapter 8 of its published advice to the government, which addresses protections for young adults. That chapter mentions the need for safeguards but stops short of outlining a specific plan for one of the most active and arguably at-risk demographic groups.
Building trust through better data
At its core, the Gambling Commission��s data strategy will only succeed if it reflects the lived realities it��s trying to regulate. That means connecting numbers to context and policy to people. The Institute of Licensing is not criticising the GSGB��s intent. It��s asking for a system that speaks more clearly, listens more widely, and builds confidence from the ground up.
Trust doesn��t arrive with a press release. It builds through visible frameworks and shared ownership.
The numbers are clear. We know who��s at risk, and the recommendations are right there waiting. But clarity without commitment is just inertia dressed as intent. And while the Commission reviews, consults, and revises, the reality of gambling harm continues to outpace the policy meant to contain it.
