Hills: UK Operators Must Back Regulatory Burden Claims with Evidence
2026-08-06
Lee Hills of SolutionsHub urges UK gambling operators to use the Gambling Commission's regulatory burden exercise to submit specific, evidence-based proposals, while recognising that white paper measures are settled. He calls for a more collaborative industry response, coordinated by trade bodies, to overcome scepticism and past disunity.
Lee Hills, CEO of SolutionsHub, argues the UK gambling industry should treat the Gambling Commission's invitation to feed in ideas on regulatory burden as an opportunity, not a formality. The call arrives at a time when many operators feel their concerns are going unheard, with white paper measures already in force, higher gambling taxes and Labour MP Alex Ballinger calling for the 2005 Gambling Act to be reviewed in light of technological change.
A strained climate
The financial pressure is difficult to overstate. Remote Gaming Duty has risen from 21% to 40% of gross gambling yield, and a further 25% remote betting rate within general betting duty is scheduled to apply from April 2027. Hills says gambling has become a political football, with MPs chasing short-term wins in an unstable environment and outside organisations often appearing to have a louder voice than operators. That context helps explain the scepticism with which the Commission's latest engagement has been met.
What the Commission is asking
The Commission is not running a consultation, Hills notes. It is asking the industry to point to areas where regulation creates disproportionate pressure and to support those claims with evidence that the licensing objectives would still be protected. The scope includes requirements and guidance overtaken by time or by other regulatory change, and covers the Commission's own Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice, though proposals can go further.
White paper measures are settled for this exercise, meaning the affordability checks, enhanced identification checks, statutory levy and online slots stake cap are not open to reopening. Live policy areas are also unlikely to be revisited unless strong evidence of adverse consequences emerges.
Making a credible case
Hills draws a distinction between regulation operators simply dislike and regulation that no longer works as intended. Some burdens are necessary: a licensed market needs anti-money-laundering controls, safer-gambling checks and fair terms. Others, he argues, absorb time, money and management attention without producing a clear improvement in consumer protection or regulatory oversight.
To be heard, operators need to be specific. A credible proposal should set out the problem, the cost, any duplication and how the licensing objectives would still be protected. General frustration will not persuade the Commission; evidence and a workable alternative will. The statutory purpose remains keeping gambling free from crime, conducted fairly and openly, and protecting children and vulnerable people from harm.
Hills also warns against repeating the fractured response to the Gambling Act Review, where too many misaligned voices left decision makers with little coherent material. He sees a role for trade bodies such as the Betting and Gaming Council in organising areas of focus and encouraging collaboration, so that the strongest arguments are backed by evidence from more than one operator. In his view, the sector has been offered a chance to make the case for proportionate regulation, and it cannot afford to waste it.