Recipient

Gambling Commission

First report 12 Jul 2023•Latest report 14 Jan 2026

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Gambling regulator. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 2
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 5
Stated actions: 19

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found

19stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Gambling Commission linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

14 Jan2026
East Sussex
Concerns raised5
1. Failure of consumers to check gambling-site licensing before access
2. Failure of the self-exclusion scheme to cover overseas unlicensed gambling sites
3. Lack of consumer awareness when accessing unlicensed gambling sites
1. Lack of adequate public health information and warnings about unlicensed gambling-site risks
2. Absence of gambling-harm protection features on unlicensed sites
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Public health information campaigns fall outside the Commission’s remit, so it cannot implement the proposed action.
  Outside remit
1. Position
  Responsibility for developing and deciding whether to run unlicensed-gambling risk campaigns rests with the relevant Government department.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Oliver Anderson Long · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Oliver Anderson Long, known as Ollie, was found dead on 23 February 2024 after travelling to East Sussex and leaving notes indicating an intention to take his own life from cliffs. He had a history including gambling disorder and, despite self-exclusion from licensed online gambling, was able to access unlicensed gambling sites. The principal concern was that unlicensed sites are outside the protections of regulated gambling and that there is inadequate public health information and warning about their risks.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of consumers to check gambling-site licensing before access
Wider context from the report
“Consumers are unlikely to check that a site is licenced prior to accessing it, particularly if the advert for the site is in a trusted space, such as on social media. The result is that people who are at risk of gambling-related harm in accessing these sites are not protected by features such as limit setting and slowing down of gains, and they may not be aware that these features are unlikely to be present on the site they are using. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of the self-exclusion scheme to cover overseas unlicensed gambling sites
Wider context from the report
“I heard evidence from Ollie's family and the Gambling Commission in respect of the efficacy of the UK self-exclusion scheme, GamStop, which allows customers to bar themselves from all forms of legal and licenced online betting. This scheme, however, does not capture overseas unlicensed sites and people who have self-excluded (as Ollie did) may be able to access these sites or are being deliberately targeted by them. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of consumer awareness when accessing unlicensed gambling sites
Wider context from the report
“Additionally, I heard evidence that consumers may not be aware that they have accessed an unlicensed site and in doing so have moved outside of the realm of the regulated area. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of adequate public health information and warnings about unlicensed gambling-site risks
Wider context from the report
“There is, in my view, a lack of adequate public health information and warning relating to the risks posed by unlicenced gambling sites. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Absence of gambling-harm protection features on unlicensed sites
Wider context from the report
“Consumers are unlikely to check that a site is licenced prior to accessing it, particularly if the advert for the site is in a trusted space, such as on social media. The result is that people who are at risk of gambling-related harm in accessing these sites are not protected by features such as limit setting and slowing down of gains, and they may not be aware that these features are unlikely to be present on the site they are using. ”
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Public health information campaigns fall outside the Commission’s remit, so it cannot implement the proposed action.

Verbatim wording from the response
“9. We agree that it is important for consumers to understand the risks that could be posed by sites, often based overseas, that are not licensed here in Britain. Such sites do not meet the same consumer protection standards that are required by domestic gambling operators licensed by the Commission. While this is important area, the Commission is not a public health body and does not have the statutory powers to design or deliver public health information or awareness campaigns. It is our view that responsibility for such action rests with the other recipients of the Report.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 21 January 2026
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Responsibility for developing and deciding whether to run unlicensed-gambling risk campaigns rests with the relevant Government department.

Verbatim wording from the response
“12. Any decision to run a campaign, and its content, would need to be informed by an assessment of both the nature and scale of the risk posed by unlicensed sites, and whether, on balance, the benefits favour proceeding. By way of illustration, some consumers who access unlicensed sites do so deliberately because they are unlicensed and do not have the protections afforded by licensed sites. A public information campaign could have the unintended consequence of giving publicity to the existence of gambling sites which consumers who are self-excluded can access, and so may exacerbate the very problem it is designed to solve. These are matters which would need to be carefully weighed by the Government department responsible for the campaign.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 3 · response
Published 21 January 2026
Open published response
12 Jul2023
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised3
1. Reliance on industry regulatory standards rather than current good or best practice for gambling-customer protection
2. Failure of the gambling-monitoring algorithm to flag problem gamblers
3. Inadequacy of player protection tools to provide meaningful interaction or intervention for worsening problem gamblers
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 8
1. Action
  Publish information from regulatory casework to share lessons learned and inform good practice across the gambling industry.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Challenge the online gambling industry to develop a cross-operator Single Customer View of customers’ gambling-harm risk.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Consult on measures addressing financial vulnerability, unaffordable gambling, direct-marketing choice, premises age verification and remote game design.
  Stated in progress
1. Action
  Continue improving and refining licensing requirements, remote technical standards and associated guidance using regulatory evidence and research.
  Stated in progress
2. Action
  Introduce and maintain stronger requirements requiring remote operators to identify, interact with and act on risks of gambling harm.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Conduct a further winter consultation on player-centric controls, deposit limits and responsible inducements or bonus offers.
  Stated planned
4. Action
  Publish customer-interaction guidance supporting operators to identify vulnerability and gambling harm, take early action and escalate suicide risk.
  Stated completed
5. Action
  Assess through compliance activity whether strengthened identification and intervention requirements improve outcomes and reduce harm.
  Stated in progress
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  No regulatory action was considered appropriate regarding the matters identified in the review of the individual case.
  No action considered necessary
1. Position
  Betfair is primarily responsible for taking forward good or best practice, limiting the regulator’s ability to respond to this concern.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Luke Anthony Ashton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Luke Anthony Ashton, a 40-year-old man, was discovered deceased at Carnegie House, Swinton, on 22 April 2021, and his death was confirmed at the scene. The inquest found that he had a longstanding gambling disorder and that his gambling activity, deposits and losses were most intensive in the 10 weeks before his death. Concerns included the adequacy of player protection tools, Betfair’s failure to identify his worsening gambling through its monitoring algorithm, and the lack of meaningful intervention or interaction.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Reliance on industry regulatory standards rather than current good or best practice for gambling-customer protection
Wider context from the report
“3) I remain concerned that, as was apparent through the evidence of a senior employee witness during the course of the inquest, the operator Betfair appears to judge the extent of its responsibilities to gambling customers solely with regard to industry (regulatory) standards, rather than current good or best practice in order to prevent further harming problem gamblers, or those who, as a result of their changing practices and patterns are likely to become problem gamblers. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure of the gambling-monitoring algorithm to flag problem gamblers
Wider context from the report
“2) I remain concerned that the algorithm devised and operated by Betfair, to assist its staff in, amongst other things, observing and monitoring the gambling patterns and practices of its customers, failed to flag up Mr. Ashton as a problem gambler, despite the increases in his time online (gambling) the value of his deposits and the size of his losses, in part because his gambling practices, even in the last 10-12 weeks of his life, were deemed not to be exceptional, when averaged among gambling customers, generally. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Gambling Commission; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequacy of player protection tools to provide meaningful interaction or intervention for worsening problem gamblers
Wider context from the report
“1) I remain concerned that the player protection tools, as mentioned above, were and are inadequate to protect a person such as Mr. Ashton, who was a problem gambler with a worsening problem, specifically that such tools do not amount to any or any meaningful interaction with the gambler, or any intervention into the practices of the gambler. ”
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Publish information from regulatory casework to share lessons learned and inform good practice across the gambling industry.

Verbatim wording from the response
“73. The Commission hopes that the Coroner can therefore be assured that, as the regulator of gambling in the Great Britain, the Commission expects operators to comply with both the letter and the spirit of their licences and the regulations and requirements surrounding them. The Commission continues to improve and refine the regulatory framework of requirements, including LCCP requirements and remote technical standards. We also review and update associated guidance to support the sharing of good practice, as well as publishing information following regulatory casework to share lessons learned and further inform good practice across the industry.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 23 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Challenge the online gambling industry to develop a cross-operator Single Customer View of customers’ gambling-harm risk.

Verbatim wording from the response
“86. In February 2020 the Commission challenged the online gambling industry, represented by the industry trade association, Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), to develop a ‘Single Customer View’ (SCV) solution which could enable a holistic view of a customer’s risk of harm from online gambling behaviour to help reduce gambling harms.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 26 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Consult on measures addressing financial vulnerability, unaffordable gambling, direct-marketing choice, premises age verification and remote game design.

Verbatim wording from the response
“35. As part of this programme of work connected with the Gambling Act Review, the Commission is also seeking to consult on a significant package of measures to strengthen player protection in the context of online gambling (to include identification of financially vulnerable customers and to tackle significant unaffordable binges and significant unaffordable gambling losses over time, alongside increased protections for young adults) and restrictions on bonus offers.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 11 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue improving and refining licensing requirements, remote technical standards and associated guidance using regulatory evidence and research.

Verbatim wording from the response
“71. The Commission can, however, confirm that the framework of gambling regulation is designed to be outcomes focussed. While there are prescriptive requirements within the LCCP, it isn’t possible to regulate for every individual circumstance. That is why operators are expected to conduct their gambling operations in a way that does not put the licensing objectives at risk and the Commission will hold an operator’s senior operational staff and directors accountable for regulatory compliance and the protection of the licensing objectives (see paragraph 3.12 and 4.1 of the Commission’s Statement of Principles). Further, the Commission expects licence holders to, amongst other things ‘…comply with both the letter and spirit of their licence and associated Commission regulations…’”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 22 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Introduce and maintain stronger requirements requiring remote operators to identify, interact with and act on risks of gambling harm.

Verbatim wording from the response
“46. In November 2020 the Commission consulted26 on the introduction of stronger LCCP requirements to help ensure remote gambling operators do more to identify consumers who may be harmed by gambling and to interact and take action sufficiently early and effectively to prevent harm. Following consultation, in September 2022 we introduced the majority of strengthened customer interaction requirements for remote operators. The applicable provision became SR Code 3.4.3 and is set out below:”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 15 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Conduct a further winter consultation on player-centric controls, deposit limits and responsible inducements or bonus offers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“38. The Commission is intending to continue this programme of work with a consultation this winter on proposals relating to the role of player-centric controls, in particular the role of”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 12 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Publish customer-interaction guidance supporting operators to identify vulnerability and gambling harm, take early action and escalate suicide risk.

Verbatim wording from the response
“66. To support the strengthened requirements, we published associated guidance in August 2023[29], which will come into effect on 31 October 2023. The guidance repeats the individual requirements in LCCP and for each one:”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 21 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Assess through compliance activity whether strengthened identification and intervention requirements improve outcomes and reduce harm.

Verbatim wording from the response
“64. In order to strengthen the requirements on licensees in relation to identifying customers at risk of harm, the Commission has introduced additional requirements directed at this issue and is consulting on further changes to contribute to improved and more effective customer interaction processes, which includes algorithms.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 20 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
No regulatory action was considered appropriate regarding the matters identified in the review of the individual case.

Verbatim wording from the response
“55. The date of activity on Mr Ashton’s account was prior to the completion of the special measures process (during which Betfair implemented controls to remedy the concerns that had been identified by the Commission in December 2020) and our follow-up assessment in May 2021 which concluded that Betfair had made sufficient progress on their implementation of updated safer gambling controls. Having considered the information relating to Mr Ashton’s gambling activities and the actions of Betfair, in November 2021 the Commission decided that it would not be appropriate to take regulatory action in respect of the matters identified during the review of Mr Ashton’s case.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 18 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Betfair is primarily responsible for taking forward good or best practice, limiting the regulator’s ability to respond to this concern.

Verbatim wording from the response
“70. While the Commission is committing to responding as fully as possible to the Coroner’s concerns, it appears that this concern relates primarily to Betfair and how Betfair itself takes forward good or best practice. As such, the Commission’s ability to respond is necessarily limited.”

Source location
Response from Gambling Commission
Page 22 · response
Published 18 July 2023
Open published response

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised5

Failure of consumers to check gambling-site licensing before access

Failure of the self-exclusion scheme to cover overseas unlicensed gambling sites

Lack of consumer awareness when accessing unlicensed gambling sites

Lack of adequate public health information and warnings about unlicensed gambling-site risks

Absence of gambling-harm protection features on unlicensed sites

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised3

Reliance on industry regulatory standards rather than current good or best practice for gambling-customer protection

Failure of the gambling-monitoring algorithm to flag problem gamblers

Inadequacy of player protection tools to provide meaningful interaction or intervention for worsening problem gamblers

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.8

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Respondent positions 2

Actions described in response 8

Respondent positions 2