TLDR
- The UK Gambling Commission confirmed no final decision has been made on Financial Risk Assessments, delaying the expected rollout of affordability measures
- The Commission’s board met on May 21 but said it has not finished reviewing the “extensive evidence” submitted by industry groups and stakeholders
- The Betting and Gaming Council welcomed the delay and had previously warned it would pursue legal action if full implementation went ahead
- FRAs were first proposed in the April 2023 Gambling Act review White Paper and would apply when customers lose large sums in short periods
- Critics including Nigel Farage, several MPs, and industry figures have pushed back against the measures, with a letter sent to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy calling for the plans to be scrapped
The UK Gambling Commission has delayed its decision on whether to move forward with Financial Risk Assessments, leaving the gambling industry and bettors in limbo. The regulator’s board met on May 21 but said it needs more time to review the evidence before making a call.
The meeting had been widely expected to bring clarity on the future of FRAs. Industry groups and policymakers had treated the date as a deadline and had been lobbying hard in the days leading up to it.
What Are Financial Risk Assessments?
FRAs were first introduced as a concept in the Gambling Act review White Paper published in April 2023. They are designed to kick in when customers lose large amounts of money over a short period.
They represent a stricter measure compared to Financial Vulnerability Checks, which have already been in effect since February 2025. Those checks initially applied at a threshold of £500 in net deposits over 30 days.
That threshold was later lowered to £150 in August 2025. The tightening showed the direction regulators were heading in before this latest pause.
A spokesperson for the Gambling Commission said the board “was presented with an extensive evidence base but has not yet fully completed its assessment of that evidence.” The regulator added it would “communicate further in due course.”
The Commission has been clear that FRAs are not the same as affordability checks. Ian Angus, the Commission’s Director of Policy, addressed this point directly at the Clarion Payments Providers event.
Angus said the thresholds set for assessments do not cap or restrict how much a customer can spend. He stated that “Financial Risk Assessments are not affordability checks by another name.”
He added that the proposed thresholds for an assessment would not limit or cap customer spending.
The regulator also said that neither the current Vulnerability Checks nor the proposed FRAs would affect most bettors.
Industry Pushback and Legal Threats
Despite those assurances, the proposals have drawn strong criticism. Opponents in the betting industry, horse racing, and politics have pushed back against the plans.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, broadcaster Matt Chapman, gambling reform advocate James Noyes, and several MPs have all spoken out against FRAs. A group of lawmakers sent a letter to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy asking for the plans to be stopped.
The Betting and Gaming Council, which represents major gambling operators, welcomed the Commission’s decision to take more time. The BGC called it “an important and constructive step in the process.”
The group said the move showed “recognition that the evidence provided by industry, stakeholders and experts deserves careful consideration.”
Earlier in the week, the BGC had warned it was “left with little choice” but to prepare a legal challenge if the Commission pushed ahead with full implementation. That threat now appears to be on hold along with the decision itself.
Critics in the industry have often referred to FRAs simply as affordability checks, a framing the Commission has rejected.
The debate has become one of the most heated issues in UK gambling regulation in recent years. Both sides claim to be acting in the interest of consumers.
For now, the timeline for any rollout remains unclear. The Commission has not set a new date for its next update on the matter.
The regulator maintains that the measures are designed to protect consumers who are at financial risk, while insisting they will not affect the majority of people who gamble.
