

Compliance Updates
Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain
The guidance set out here is designed to help anyone who wishes to use data from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain (GSGB) to ensure it is reported correctly, this could include policy makers, academics, the gambling industry, the media, members of the public and any other interested users. It is produced in accordance with the Code of Practice for Statistics, Value 3.4 Clarity and Insight.
We have published this guidance because the official statistics from the GSGB are new and they are collected using a different methodology than previous official statistics. The guidance takes on board the recommendations from Professor Sturgis’s independent review of the GSGB and his analysis of the impact of the change in methodology.
We are aware that official statistics on gambling have previously been used in ways that they were not intended and, in some cases, the data was misused. Therefore it is important that users understand how the new official statistics from the GSGB can be used, what they should not be used for and where some caution should be applied. There are slightly different approaches for statistics relating to gambling participation and the consequences of gambling because of the smaller base sizes and greater margins of error for the statistics relating to the consequences of gambling.
Gambling participation
The GSGB can be used:
- to look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups
- to assess future trends and changes in gambling participation, measuring changes against the 2024 baseline
- to compare patterns in gambling participation for England, Scotland and Wales and regionally where sample sizes allow.
The GSGB can be used with some caution (until further work is completed):
- to provide estimates of gambling participation amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain
- to gross up gambling participation estimates for the whole population.
The GSGB should not be used to provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys.
Consequences of gambling
The GSGB can be used:
- to look at patterns within the data amongst different demographic groups
- to assess future trends and changes in consequences of gambling, measuring changes against the 2024 baseline
- to compare patterns in consequences of gambling for England, Scotland and Wales and regionally where sample sizes allow
- to describe the range of consequences that someone may experience as a result of someone’s own gambling and as a result of someone else’s gambling.
The GSGB can be used with some caution (until further work is completed):
- to provide estimates of Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) scores amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain
- to provide estimates of the prevalence of consequences of gambling amongst adults (aged 18 and over) in Great Britain.
The GSGB should not be used:
- to provide direct comparisons with results from prior gambling or health surveys
- as a measure of addiction to gambling
- to calculate an overall rate of gambling-related harm in Great Britain
- to gross up the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling to whole population (until further work is completed).
Comparability with previous surveys
Direct comparisons between the GSGB and previous surveys should not be used to assess trends over time
Due to differences in the way data for the GSGB is collected in comparison to prior gambling or health surveys, the GSGB is not directly comparable with results from previous surveys and direct comparisons should not be used to assess trends over time.
That said, some limited comparisons are useful to assess differences between study methodologies. All surveys are subject to a range of potential biases which may affect results. The GSGB, the prior health surveys and gambling surveys are no different.
The changes that have been made to the GSGB are outlined in the following table and include:
- collection mode
- questionnaire content
- age coverage.
Factor | Gambling Survey for Great Britain | Health Survey for England (HSE) | Quarterly Telephone Survey |
---|---|---|---|
Collection mode | Self completion: Push-to-web survey with paper-based alternative | Interviewer led with self completion elements: Face-to-face (gambling questions asked in a self completion module but with interviewer and other household members present) | Interviewer led: Telephone |
Questionnaire content | Gambling | Health | Gambling |
Age coverage | Adults aged 18 and over | Adults aged 16 and over | Adults aged 16 and over |
Sample size | 10,000 (Year 1) 20,000 (Year 2 onwards) |
7,100 (HSE 2018) | 4,000 per annum |
Response rate | 19% (Year 1) | 59% (HSE 2018) 36% (HSE 2022) |
Data currently unavailable |
Geographic breakdown | England, Wales and Scotland | England | England, Wales and Scotland |
The annual GSGB report will be published 25 July 2024 and will represent the first year of a new baseline, against which future annual data from the GSGB can be compared. Smaller and more frequent publications will be available on a quarterly basis based on the data collected in the previous wave only. These ‘wave specific’ publications can be used to compare wave on wave trends throughout the year.
Impact of new methodology
There is a risk that the GSGB may overstate some gambling behaviours and therefore estimates should be used with some caution.
Further investigation of the possible reasons for this is needed to better quantify the scale and direction of impact upon the GSGB estimates and until this is completed, the statistics relating to the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling should not be grossed up to whole population.
Whilst the move to a push-to-web survey was endorsed by Professor Patrick Sturgis in his independent review of the GSGB methodological approach and will enable to better detection and understanding of patterns and trends in gambling behaviour, he also urges due caution with the new statistics, “being mindful of the fact that there is a non-negligible risk that they substantially over state the true level of gambling and gambling harm in the population”.
There are several potential reasons for this increase in PGSI estimates as outlined by Sturgis in his review. This may relate to the lower response rates that the push-to-web design achieves. People who gamble, and those who gamble more heavily, may be more likely to complete the GSGB than those who do not gamble. As PSGI scores are higher for those with more gambling engagement, a lower response rate, potentially over representing those who gamble, would serve to increase reported PGSI scores.
Alternatively, prior surveys may have under-estimated PGSI scores and/or underestimated online gambling behaviours as a result of socially desirable responding. Sturgis noted that “there [were] good grounds to suggest the presence of an interviewer (as used by the [British Gambling Prevalence Survey (BGPS)] BGPS and [Health Survey] HS series) induces a downward bias on estimates of the prevalence of gambling harm”.
It may also be that PGSI scores have actually increased in the population over time. Online gambling is strongly associated with elevated PGSI scores and gross gambling yield from online gambling has increased substantially since 2018. These changes in the gambling market could affect the PSGI scores estimated in the survey. All these things could be true, either alone or in combination.
In summary, as Sturgis notes, the two studies which have investigated possible factors for these changes in estimates were unable to come to a definitive estimate about the magnitude of the errors, and therefore uncertainty remains around which estimates (the GSGB or prior studies) are closer to the truth. Further investigation of the possible reasons for this is needed to better quantify the scale and direction of impact upon the GSGB estimates and until this is completed, the statistics relating to the prevalence of problem gambling or the consequences of gambling should not be grossed up to whole population.
Be careful reporting base numbers
Correctly reference whether statistics are based on all participants, or whether they are a subset of all participants such as people who have gambled in the last 12 months or participants who completed the online version of the survey.
The GSGB asks a range of questions some of which are applicable to all participants and some which are only applicable to people who have gambled.
Care should be taken when reporting statistics, particularly those relating to the PGSI to make sure you are correctly stating if the results are based on the views of all participants, or if they are based on people who have gambled. This is an area where we have previously seen misreporting.
This distinction is important as the first group includes people who have not gambled on any activity in the past year whereas the second group is based only on people who have gambled in the 12 months. In the report we have also included a third group which excludes people who have only taken part in lottery draws. This is because lotteries are so much more popular than any other form of gambling, so it can mask patterns of what’s going on with other types of gambling. For this reason, in the report we sometimes present findings excluding the people who have only taken part in a lottery draw and not taken part in any other type of gambling.
Through our stakeholder engagement we know that stakeholders are interested in multiple ways of presenting the data, for example at a population level including people who do not gamble and based on people who have gambled.
It is also worth noting that new questions in the GSGB about the wider consequences of gambling are all presented as a proportion of participants who have gambled in the past 12 months or as a proportion of participants who know someone close to them who gambles, so should be reported in this way. This is an example of how you should report the data:
“Of those who know someone close to them who gambles, x percent had experienced relationship breakdown because of someone else’s gambling.”
To ensure we can include all of the relevant content within the GSGB, core questions are asked on both the online and paper version of the survey whereas some topical or modular questions are only asked on the online version of the survey. The Commission will clearly label any statistics which are based on online responses only, and users should do the same.
Survey estimates
All surveys produce estimates rather than precise figures, users should be aware of confidence intervals.
The GSGB, in common with other surveys, collects information from a sample of the population. Consequently, statistics based on the survey are estimates, rather than precise figures, and are subject to a margin of error, also known as a 95 percent confidence interval. It would be expected that the true value of the statistic in the population would be within the range given by the 95 percent confidence interval in 95 cases out of 100. Confidence intervals are affected by the size of the sample on which the estimate is based. Generally, the larger the sample, the smaller the confidence interval, which results in a more precise estimate.
Confidence intervals should be taken into consideration by users, this is particularly true for PGSI estimates where base sizes can be small. We have provided confidence intervals for PGSI estimates within the data tables. Where differences are commented on in the annual report, these reflect the same degree of certainty that these differences are real, and not just within the margins of sampling error. These differences can be described as statistically significant.
Annual versus wave specific data
In a typical year there will be four wave specific publications from the GSGB plus an annual publication. Where possible, the annual data should be used as the priority with wave specific data being used when you want to look at patterns of gambling participation within a year, or where modular questions have only been asked in certain waves.
The GSGB collects data continuously throughout the year. Survey data will be available:
- on a quarterly basis via wave specific publications
- annually where data for the calendar year will be combined to provide a more detailed breakdown.
Annual datasets will be published to UK Data Service (opens new tab).
We recommend using annual data as the default as this will be based on a large sample size (10,000 in Year 1 and 20,000 from Year 2 onwards) and will allow for more analysis at sub population level. This is also how we will track trends over time. Annual publications will include findings on the consequences of gambling.
Wave specific data should be used if you need data for a specific time period, and to track trends or patterns within a calendar year. These publications will focus predominately on participation in gambling in that time period.
Language
Use a person centric approach when reporting statistics about gambling.
Do not stigmatise or victimise those people experiencing adverse consequences from gambling.
Do not describe PGSI as a measure of gambling addiction.
The language we use matters. People who gamble are defined by more than their actions when they gamble. That is why we recommend a “person-centric” or “person first” approach. Whilst taking this new approach may use more words, it is important in lowering stigma and barriers to people seeking help for gambling addiction.
For example, instead of writing “x percent of gamblers…”, you can write “x percent of people who gamble…”.
The Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI) consists of nine questions which measure both behavioural symptoms of gambling disorder and certain adverse consequences from gambling. The PGSI should not be confused with a measure of gambling addiction. More information on how the PGSI is measured can be found here.
Wider evidence base
The GSGB is one source of data in the Commission’s wider evidence base.
The Gambling Commission uses a range of data, research and insights to inform the decisions that we make and provide advice to the Government about gambling behaviour and the gambling market. To be the most effective regulator possible, we require a robust evidence base. The GSGB forms one source of evidence for our evidence base and should be considered alongside a wealth of other evidence and information which we use to fill our evidence gaps and priorities 2023 to 2026.
If statistics are used incorrectly
We encourage people to use our statistics to support understanding of important issues related to gambling.
We expect that anyone using our official statistics should present the data accurately and in accordance with the guidelines presented here. This includes ensuring that the data is not taken out of context, manipulated, or presented in a way that could materially mislead others.
The post Guidance on using statistics from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain appeared first on European Gaming Industry News.
Compliance Updates
Cyprus National Betting Authority Warns Public About Illegal Online Gambling and Misinformation

The National Betting Authority (NBA) has urged the public to exercise caution and to verify the legitimacy of betting service providers exclusively through the official website: www.nba.gov.cy.
In recent weeks, the NBA has observed a rise in misinformation and the spread of false claims regarding the legality of certain websites offering online gambling services. Of particular concern is the sharp increase in advertisements for illegal online casinos on popular social media platforms. These operators have not obtained a licence to operate within the Republic of Cyprus. Equally troubling is the unauthorised use of images and videos of well-known individuals in such advertisements, without their consent.
The public is reminded that, under Cyprus’ gambling legislation, the operation of online casinos is strictly prohibited. Participation in these illegal activities poses serious risks, including threats to personal and banking data security, as well as potential harm to players’ financial stability and mental well-being.
According to Article 79 of the Betting Law 37(I)/2019:
• Players participating in illegal gambling or online casinos face up to 1 year in prison and/or a fine of up to €50,000.
• Individuals or companies providing illegal gambling services face up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine of up to €300,000.
The NBA urges the public to verify information received through websites, apps, social media posts, or other advertisements before engaging with any gambling services. The official list of licensed online betting providers is available on the NBA’s website.
The post Cyprus National Betting Authority Warns Public About Illegal Online Gambling and Misinformation appeared first on European Gaming Industry News.
Compliance Updates
CT Interactive Expands Presence with MGA-certified Game Portfolio

CT Interactive has announced the certification of 20 new games under the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) regulatory framework, marking an important step in its ongoing expansion across regulated European markets. This certification empowers CT Interactive to offer its premium gaming portfolio to licensed operators throughout Malta and beyond.
The newly certified titles include several standout Buy Bonus games such as Doctor Winstein Buy Bonus, Duck of Luck Buy Bonus, Fruits & Sweets Buy Bonus, Hyper Cuber Buy Bonus, Nanook the White Ghost Buy Bonus, 100x Crypto Magic, 100x Fresh and 100x Coffee Hot. These games have demonstrated strong performance internationally and now bring their dynamic bonus features to an even wider audience.
A highlight of the new portfolio is Lucky Clover 10, a refreshed edition of CT Interactive’s most popular slot, Lucky Clover. Featuring vintage-inspired graphics and nostalgic gameplay elements, Lucky Clover 10 delivers a captivating experience that combines classic charm with modern vision.
“Providing new game titles certified under the MGA framework marks a key step in our regional growth strategy. This market demands high-quality, fully compliant content. Our portfolio of Buy Bonus games and refreshed classics like Lucky Clover 10 are ideally suited to meet the local preferences and deliver premium gaming experiences,” said Martin Ivanov, COO of CT Interactive.
This certification reinforces CT Interactive’s position as a trusted provider of regulation-ready gaming content, enabling operators to offer a diverse and engaging portfolio fully aligned with MGA requirements.
The post CT Interactive Expands Presence with MGA-certified Game Portfolio appeared first on European Gaming Industry News.
Arizona Department of Gaming
Arizona Department of Gaming Launches First-Ever Statewide Campaign to Empower and Protect Consumers

The Arizona Department of Gaming has launched its first-ever statewide Public Education Campaign focused on protecting consumers, promoting public awareness, and reducing the harms associated with unregulated gambling. This is a significant milestone in the Department’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers and ensure a safe and responsible gaming environment.
Arizona offers a variety of legal, regulated gaming options throughout the state, including tribal casinos, event wagering, fantasy sports, and parimutuel wagering. For 30 years, ADG has safeguarded the integrity of Arizona’s gaming industry through rigorous oversight, licensing, and enforcement in accordance with the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts. This new campaign expands on that mission by educating Arizonans on how to avoid illegal gambling and access support services when needed.
The campaign is designed to inform and empower the public by emphasizing the risks of engaging with unlicensed operators and providing them with tools to identify legal, regulated options. It aims to reduce consumer vulnerability, prevent exploitation, and help individuals make informed decisions if they choose to participate in gaming activities.
The campaign kicks off with a series of Public Service Announcements (PSAs), developed in collaboration with the Arizona Media Association, which will be aired across TV, radio, print, and digital platforms. Available in both English and Spanish, the PSAs will:
• Educate the public on how to identify legal, regulated gaming operators in Arizona
• Emphasize consumer protection and the safeguards provided by regulated gaming environments
• Highlight the role regulated gaming plays in supporting Arizona communities and essential services
• Promote the 1-800-NEXT STEP helpline, which connects individuals to confidential, 24/7 support for problem gambling.
To complement the PSAs, ADG has launched the Check Your Bet webpage, which serves as a centralized resource to verify regulated gaming and access consumer protection tools. The webpage includes:
• A searchable list and interactive map of authorized Tribal Casinos in Arizona
• A searchable list and interactive map of licensed Event Wagering and Fantasy Sports Operators and their retail locations
• Information on Advanced Deposit Wagering Providers (ADWPs), Off-Track Betting (OTB) locations, and permitted horse racing tracks in Arizona
• How to access the Division of Problem Gambling’s Helpline, a confidential Problem Gambling Self-Screening Quiz, and additional supportive resources
• How to request Self-Exclusion, a voluntary program to prohibit oneself from Tribal Casinos and Event Wagering and Fantasy Sports Contests
• Guidance on submitting tips about suspected illegal gambling to the Department and filing consumer complaints with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
“We are proud to celebrate 30 years of providing world-class gaming regulation and consumer protection. This campaign is about empowering Arizonans who choose to participate in gaming with the knowledge to make informed, responsible decisions. As illegal and unregulated options on the market increase, the Check Your Bet webpage serves as a key resource for the public to verify licensed operators and access support. By directing viewers from our PSAs to this tool, we’re helping ensure people not only play safely, but also know where to turn if they or a loved one are struggling with problem gambling,” said Jackie Johnson, Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming.
Since its founding in 1995, the Department has worked tirelessly to ensure that Arizona’s gaming industry operates with transparency, integrity, and responsibility. The campaign will run through the end of March 2026 and reflects ADG’s commitment to a safe, transparent, and well-regulated gaming landscape in Arizona.
The post Arizona Department of Gaming Launches First-Ever Statewide Campaign to Empower and Protect Consumers appeared first on Gaming and Gambling Industry in the Americas.
-
gaming3 years ago
ODIN by 4Players: Immersive, state-of-the-art in-game audio launches into the next generation of gaming
-
EEG iGaming Directory8 years ago
iSoftBet continues to grow with new release Forest Mania
-
News7 years ago
Softbroke collaborates with Asia Live Tech for the expansion of the service line in the igaming market
-
News7 years ago
Super Bowl LIII: NFL Fans Can Bet on the #1 Sportsbook Review Site Betting-Super-Bowl.com, Providing Free Unbiased and Trusted News, Picks and Predictions
-
iGaming Industry8 years ago
Rick Meitzler appointed to the Indian Gaming Magazine Advisory Board for 2018
-
News7 years ago
REVEALED: Top eSports players set to earn $3.2 million in 2019
-
iGaming Industry8 years ago
French Senator raises Loot Boxes to France’s Gambling Regulator
-
News7 years ago
Exclusive Interview with Miklos Handa (Founder of the email marketing solutions, “MailMike.net”), speaker at Vienna International Gaming Expo 2018