House of Lords Committee Calls for Gambling Advertising Ban in Great Britain

The House of Lords Liaison Committee has recommended a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising in Great Britain, alongside targeted measures on sponsorship, inducements, direct marketing, affiliates and under-25s. The report is advisory, and the Government has not formally responded.

Elie Bizimana
By
Elie Bizimana Founder & iGaming Analyst
Published: September 19, 2026  •  Updated: September 19, 2026
House of Lords Committee Calls for Gambling Advertising Ban in Great Britain

The House of Lords Liaison Committee has recommended that the Government implement a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising in Great Britain as soon as practicable, with a transition period and exemptions.

The recommendation forms part of Gambling Harm—Time for Action: Follow-up report (HL Paper 52), published on Thursday 17 September 2026. The committee also set out targeted measures covering sports sponsorship, inducements, direct marketing, affiliates and advertising exposure among under-25s, particularly if a comprehensive ban is not adopted or during a transition period.

The report is not legislation and does not itself change gambling advertising rules. The Government has not yet published a formal response. The recommendations concern Great Britain, where the Gambling Act 2005 applies; gambling regulation in Northern Ireland is devolved. The Government's most recently stated position, given in evidence before the report was published, is that it did not have plans to legislate on advertising at that time.

What the House of Lords Liaison Committee Recommended

The committee concluded that a comprehensive ban represents the most effective long-term policy option for reducing gambling harm, and that it would form part of a public health approach. That is the committee's policy judgment rather than an established finding of fact, and the report's wording is narrower than a ban on all gambling advertising.

Recommendation 64 says the Government should ensure it has the powers to introduce a ban if it chooses, and should evaluate how one might be implemented. The committee said a ban would need a transition period. It proposed these exemptions and open questions:

  • On-course advertising for horseracing and greyhound racing would remain exempt.
  • The Government is asked to consider how off-course and online racing advertising should be treated.
  • The Government is asked to assess the risk of lottery advertising before deciding whether lotteries are covered. The committee took no evidence on lotteries.

The report says a ban on all social media gambling advertising should form part of the package. It does not otherwise define which media a ban would cover. Lord Foster of Bath, acting former chair of the earlier Gambling Industry Committee, described the proposal in Parliament's press release as a ban on most gambling advertising.

The committee acknowledged that a ban would shrink the sector. It also recommended that the Government abandon its objective of facilitating growth of the gambling industry.

Sponsorship, Inducements and Direct Marketing

Recommendation 65 says that, in the absence of a commitment to a comprehensive ban or during a transition, the Government should develop more targeted policies. Some individual recommendations state that condition expressly, including those on affiliate licensing and influencers. Others, such as those on inducements and direct marketing, are worded without it. The measures below should be read in that light.

Sponsorship. The committee recommended implementing the 2020 Gambling Industry Committee's proposal. Operators would not advertise on team shirts or any other part of kit, and gambling advertising would be barred in or near sports grounds and venues, including sports programmes. The committee would extend this to training kit and asked the Government to consider circumvention such as alibi branding. It proposed consulting on a transition of several years for clubs below the Premier League and for other sports. It also asked the Government to consider restricting gambling advertising in televised sport, inside or outside the watershed, including on demand. Existing arrangements are voluntary, including the Premier League's front-of-shirt withdrawal from 2026/27. This is separate from the Government's consultation on banning sponsorship by unlicensed operators.

Inducements. The committee recommended a comprehensive ban on inducements covering the full range of promotional offers. It also recommended that CAP revise its code to prohibit the term "free bet" and related formulations. Current rules are narrower. Since 19 January 2026 the Gambling Commission has barred mixing product types within incentives and capped wagering requirements at 10x. The committee noted that no full evaluation of these rules has yet taken place.

Direct marketing. The committee recommended a comprehensive ban on direct marketing by operators and third-party affiliates. Operators could still send essential non-marketing messages, such as account information, independently assessed non-promotional safer gambling messages and interventions responding to harm indicators. The report speaks of direct marketing generally and does not separately address email, SMS, app notifications or post. Since 1 May 2025, remote operators must offer opt-in on a per-product and per-channel basis. If the Government did not go further, the committee suggested a mandatory reporting requirement on operators' direct marketing.

Affiliate Marketing Comes Under Scrutiny

The committee's affiliate licensing proposal is expressly conditional. Recommendation 154 says that, in the absence of a comprehensive ban, the Gambling Commission should establish and administer a licensing regime for affiliates. Licensed affiliates could promote only licensed operators and would be identifiable to social media companies. A consumer-facing kitemark of licensed status could be considered. The Government is asked to consider holding both affiliate and operator accountable for an affiliate's breach of licence conditions, and to share the costs of the regime across the advertising chain.

The report uses the ASA's definition of affiliate marketing: performance-based promotion in which an affiliate is rewarded per new customer, usually by commission. It separately recommends that the Government consider prohibiting influencers and content creators from promoting licensed operators. If that is not part of a full ban, they should not be granted affiliate licences. The report suggests defining influencer advertising by a commercial or relevant personal relationship with an operator, so unpaid promotion would fall outside licensing scope. It suggests that definition should cover individuals, including celebrities, while excluding less personalised affiliate services run by companies. The direct marketing ban would also extend to third-party affiliates.

The recommendation therefore covers both licensing and restrictions on specific activities. What the report establishes is the licensing model, the ASA-based definition and the influencer proposals. It does not name comparison sites, review sites or editorial publishers, and it does not say which other affiliate activities would need a licence. Whether any particular type of publisher would be in scope is a matter of interpretation, not something the report states.

Responsible Affiliates in Gambling told the committee that further advertising restrictions without an affiliate licensing regime would risk growing the illegal market. It also said restrictions could make current practices unviable for responsible affiliates.

Focus on Advertising Exposure Among Under-25s

Recommendation 168 says the Government should introduce a mandatory restriction on serving gambling advertising to under-25s. It also says the CAP and BCAP codes, or regulations under a new statutory framework, should be updated so the "strong appeal" test covers under-25s rather than only under-18s.

This concerns advertising exposure, not participation. The report does not propose raising the minimum gambling age. The recommendation sits in the report's social media chapter, but its wording is not limited to social media, and the report does not frame it as a sports-audience measure. Related recommendations include banning ad placement next to youth-oriented online content, considering opt-in consent for paid gambling ads on social media, and considering a statutory duty on social media companies to protect under-18s.

On evidence, the committee described the influence of advertising on under-18 participation as plausible but not entirely clear. It said it has no doubt that advertising contributes to normalising gambling as part of enjoying sport, and it expressed concern about exposure among under-18s and 18–24s. It also said the 18–24 group is not adequately protected by platform algorithms, voluntary industry measures or the existing under-18 "strong appeal" test. The Government's 2023 White Paper acknowledged that some online advertising strongly appeals to under-18s and 18–24s.

Why the Committee Wants Changes

The report draws on 18 written submissions and one oral evidence session on 17 June 2026. It distinguishes several kinds of material:

  • Research. The committee cited estimates that 1.0 to 1.5 million adults in Great Britain experience problem gambling. It also heard evidence on a 2026 Australian randomised field experiment by Rockloff and colleagues, submitted by the UKRI Gambling Harms Research UK Evidence Centre. Bettors who opted out of operator direct marketing placed fewer bets and reported fewer short-term harms.
  • Committee interpretation. It concluded that a very substantial weight of evidence links advertising to participation, and that the evidence on direct marketing is particularly strong. It said the Government's emphasis on proving causality sets an unattainable standard.
  • Stakeholder evidence. The Coalition to End Gambling Ads argued for a comprehensive ban. The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), Bacta and the ASA said the existing framework works. Industry witnesses warned that restrictions could push customers to unlicensed operators. The committee said it received no clear evidence supporting that claim, though it said the concern should be considered. The Gambling Commission told the committee its data showed no sustained growth in consumer engagement with the illegal market.
  • Economic claims. A study led by Sheffield researchers, cited by campaigners and the committee, estimated that a 10% cut in gambling spend could raise GVA. The committee separately judged a negative net economic impact on the sector highly likely, while arguing that wider economic benefits could result from reducing gambling harms.

After publication, trade press reported that the BGC rejected the report, arguing that a ban could benefit the illegal market, which would remain free to advertise.

What the Government Has Said

The Government has not formally responded to the report at the time of writing. The committee said it expects a comprehensive response within the usual two-month deadline.

The Government's most recent stated position comes from the evidence session on 17 June 2026, before the report was published. Baroness Twycross, giving evidence as Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling, said "we do not have plans to legislate at this time on advertising". She also said the Government wanted the regulated, licensed sector to grow, would consider further action if the current system was not working, and was concerned about displacement to the illegal market. In written evidence, the Government said it had no plans to use its Gambling Act 2005 advertising powers against licensed operators.

The Government's 2023 White Paper did not adopt the 2020 committee's recommendations on gambling advertising, though it introduced reforms to incentives and other measures. The Government's consultation on banning unlicensed gambling sponsorship, published on 15 July 2026, is a separate track. It proposes secondary legislation to ban physical advertising and sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators, while online advertising and sponsorship would require primary legislation.

Would a Gambling Advertising Ban Change the Law?

Not by itself. A committee report is not legislation, and the Government is not bound to accept its recommendations. Existing gambling advertising rules remain in force until changed through the appropriate process.

Which process applies depends on the measure. Section 328 of the Gambling Act 2005 lets the Secretary of State make regulations controlling gambling advertising. The Government told the committee that section 333(6) prevents those regulations from applying to remote advertising by service providers established in the EEA, and that removing the limit requires primary legislation. The committee urged the Government to find a legislative vehicle for that change. The consultation on unlicensed sponsorship makes the same point: it proposes using section 328 for the sponsorship ban, and says extending it to online advertising would need primary legislation. Other measures could be implemented through Gambling Commission licence conditions or CAP and BCAP code changes. The report does not specify a legislative route for affiliate licensing. This is not legal advice.

How This Fits Into Britain's Existing Gambling Rules

The Gambling Act 2005 liberalised gambling advertising, and licensed operators have been able to advertise across media in Great Britain since 2007. Operators need a Gambling Commission licence to advertise to consumers in Great Britain. The Commission's Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice require compliance with the CAP and BCAP advertising codes, and breaches can lead to sanctions up to licence revocation.

CAP writes the non-broadcast code and BCAP the broadcast code. The ASA is an independent, non-statutory body that enforces both, with Ofcom contracting it for day-to-day broadcast regulation. It can publish rulings and require ads to be removed or amended, but it cannot fine advertisers. It refers serious or repeated breaches to the Commission or, for broadcasters, to Ofcom. DCMS holds government policy responsibility for gambling. Existing codes already bar gambling ads with strong appeal to under-18s and restrict featuring people who are or appear to be under 25.

The ASA told the committee it considers the current system effective, and the BGC and Bacta made similar arguments. The committee reached the opposite assessment. It called the largely self-regulatory model fundamentally unsuitable for the public health risks involved, and recommended that, absent a ban or during a transition, a single statutory regulator oversee all gambling advertising, with the Gambling Commission the most suitable body.

What It Could Mean for the Gambling Industry

If implemented, the report's proposals could affect several areas.

  • Operators, sportsbooks and online casinos. A ban would potentially remove major customer-acquisition channels. The report also proposes that, absent a ban, advertising restrictions be tiered by product risk, with stronger limits for higher-risk products such as high-speed, continuous-play online gaming.
  • Broadcasters and sport. The report proposes considering restrictions on gambling ads in televised sport and a watershed prohibition on broadcast ads. The committee acknowledged the EFL's concerns about the financial viability of smaller clubs, and it proposes a multi-year transition for clubs outside the Premier League.
  • Affiliates. A licensing regime could apply, subject to the scope questions above, and a direct marketing ban would extend to third-party affiliates.
  • Direct and digital marketing. The report proposes bans on direct marketing and on operators' own content marketing, along with opt-in consent for paid social media gambling ads.

Where Things Stand

The House of Lords Liaison Committee has recommended a comprehensive gambling advertising ban in Great Britain, with exemptions and a transition, and has set out fallback measures on affiliates, sponsorship, inducements, direct marketing and under-25s. None of this is law. The Government's most recently stated position, given before the report was published, was that it did not have plans to legislate on advertising, and it has not formally responded to the report. The next expected step is a Government response, which the committee has said it looks forward to receiving within the usual two-month deadline.

Sources

Tags

Related Articles