New Gambling Sites UK Withdrawal Terms

New gambling sites in the UK are usefully split into two kinds: those holding a Gambling Commission licence, where the scheme GamStop applies and most payouts clear automatically, and offshore sites holding no British licence, where the exclusion scheme does not reach and a withdrawal can wait on paperwork. The licence, not the design, decides which one you meet.

The launch page of a new casino is a piece of theatre. There is a countdown, a wheel, a welcome offer with an asterisk the size of a full stop. What it will not show you, unless you go digging, is the one thing that decides whether the experience was worth having: how the money gets back out, and how quickly a new gambling site in the UK actually pays.

I have covered this trade long enough to know that the interesting question is never whether a site looks modern. Lots of them look modern. The question is whether the operator's payout behaviour is constrained by anyone with teeth — and for British players that constraint has one name, the Gambling Commission licence.

A licence is not a badge. It is a set of rules about how fast a withdrawal must be considered, what an operator may and may not do with your deposit balance, how bonuses must be built in 2026, and what happens if you have asked not to be sold to. Strip the licence away and none of it applies.

This page is written from that angle: how fast and how reliably money comes back out. As of 13.11.2026, the rules are unusually clear on paper. The interesting work is in comparing what operators do with them.

Two warnings belong at the top, before any table. An offshore site holds no licence from the Gambling Commission, so British protections do not apply to it — not the fair-terms regime, not the complaints route to an approved alternative dispute resolution provider, not the self-exclusion scheme. And if gambling has stopped being a pastime, the National Gambling Helpline is free on 0808 8020 133, 24 hours a day, run by GamCare, alongside GambleAware, GamFam, Gamblers Anonymous and NHS gambling treatment services. Those are the bodies that help; a website with a Maltese or Caribbean seal is not among them.

New UK Gambling Sites, and What the Register Says About Them

The phrase "new gambling sites" covers three quite different things, and the differences matter more than the launch date. There are new brands run by established British licensees; there are brands that were once British-licensed and have since left the market; and there are offshore operations that have never held a Commission licence and market to British players anyway. All three may call themselves new UK gambling sites. Only the first is one.

The check takes ninety seconds. The Commission publishes a public register of licensed businesses and the domain names they may use. Its own advice to consumers is to look the business up there and confirm that the site's activities and its domain names match the entry. If the brand is not on the register, or the register entry lists different domains, that is the whole answer — everything else on the page is decoration.

There is a wrinkle worth knowing. The Commission said in May 2025 that one operator, TGP Europe, was leaving the British market after an investigation, and that the sites it ran were now unlicensed and might not provide protections against criminality or gambling-related harm. So a site can lose its licence without closing. A domain that was fine in 2024 can be unlicensed in 2026. Checking the register is not a one-off.

The second check is about the operator behind the brand. New casino front ends are cheap; licences are not. A B2C application to the Malta Gaming Authority costs a one-time non-refundable €5,000, with a fixed annual licence fee of €25,000 and gaming tax at 5% of gaming revenue, and minimum paid-up share capital of €100,000 for Type 1 and Type 2 licences. Those are requirements for a licence that does not even permit British-facing operation. The Gambling Commission route is stricter still.

The Benchmark Withdrawal Figures, and Who They Were Measured On

I dislike percentage claims that arrive without a denominator, so here is one with a source and a period. Gambling Commission data covering June to September 2024, cited in a speech delivered on 6 November 2025, records 44.2 million withdrawals by customers of large online operators. Of those, 96.3% cleared automatically, 3.5% cleared within 24 hours, and 0.1% took up to 48 hours.

Read that as what it is: a measurement of the biggest, best-resourced British-licensed operators over a four-month window. It is not a promise about a site that launched last month, and it says nothing at all about an operator outside the Commission's reach, because those withdrawals are not in the dataset. It gives a working standard, not a guarantee.

There is a useful comparison from roughly a year earlier: Commission data covering some of the largest gambling companies showed those firms approving, processing and fulfilling around 99% of withdrawal requests within 24 to 48 hours. Same caveat, smaller sample, older period. And the consumer side of the ledger is less flattering: research published in July 2026 found 49% of people who had gambled in the past 12 months agreed that "it is quick and easy to withdraw and collect my winnings", with 33% neutral and 18% disagreeing. Half the room nodding, roughly one in five shaking its head.

The complaints data tells the same story from the other end. Problems with withdrawals from accounts were the number one topic raised by consumers calling the Commission's Contact Centre — around 2,000 complaints a year about withdrawal delays as of July 2024, still the top subject. Complaints coded "Withdrawals and/or financial transactions" fell from 2,416 in the year to December 2022 to 1,791 in the year to December 2025. Falling, but a long way from zero.

New Online Gambling Sites UK Payout Methods

A withdrawal is not one event. It is a queue: the operator's own review, then the payment rail, then your bank or wallet. The rail is often the slower half, and the rail is where a comparison is actually possible. Figures below are the published, current ones for each method or provider.

Two readings of that table matter. First, the method a player chooses can move the finish line by a factor of a hundred — 30 minutes or an hour, versus seconds. Second, only the wallet routes charge a percentage, and 2.80% on a £2,000 withdrawal is £56 before any currency conversion, which is a great deal more than a bank transfer costs.

Which is why the honest summary of a payout decision is: the operator decides when to release, the rail decides how fast it arrives, and the fee schedule decides what you keep. A £1 million Faster Payments ceiling is not an entitlement — individual banks set their own per-payment limits, and the scheme itself publishes bank-by-bank figures. Faster Payments limits apply per transaction, not per day, so a large sum can be split across several payments.

For crypto rails, the timing published by the networks themselves is the only reliable guide. Bitcoin targets a 10-minute average interval between blocks and re-targets difficulty every 2,016 blocks, roughly every two weeks. But a block is not guaranteed within 10 minutes: the probability of a block inside any 10-minute window is about 63%, rising to 95% within 30 minutes and 99.7% within 60. The classic client shows a transaction as unconfirmed until it is six blocks deep, and most merchants who bear double-spend risk require six or more. Litecoin targets 2.5-minute blocks, with roughly 15 minutes for six confirmations — and even then only about 55.43% of modelled six-confirmation spans finish inside a quarter of an hour.

Withdrawal Terms for New Gambling Sites 2026

2026 has been a busy year for the rules that govern what an operator may do at the point of payout, and several changes narrowed the space for delay. The one that does the most work is licence condition 17.1.1: a customer's withdrawal request must not result in a requirement for additional information if the licensee could reasonably have requested that information earlier. That does not override anti-money-laundering obligations, which can legitimately require documents at the moment funds move — but it closes the oldest trick in the book, which was to accept deposits for months without asking anything and then demand a passport the instant a balance is requested.

The second change is on bonuses. From 19 January 2026, wagering requirements on bonus funds are capped at ten times, and mixed-product promotions requiring two or more types of gambling are banned. The Commission's own words when it chose a cap over an outright ban: the limit "will take out extreme levels as some licensees currently apply up to 60 times wagering requirements". A ten-times cap on a £100 bonus means £1,000 of play before that bonus converts to withdrawable money. It is a ceiling, not a kindness.

The third is the financial limit prompt. Since 31 October 2025 all gambling businesses must prompt customers to set a financial limit before their first deposit, and under RTS 12E setting that limit must be presented as the default option, with the customer taking an action to decline it and confirming that decision. Awkward, faintly patronising, and I think sensible: the moment before the first deposit is the only moment when a number is chosen calmly.

The reversal is where a delay can hide in plain sight. The Commission permanently banned reverse withdrawals for remote operators through RTS requirement 14B — "Consumers must not be given the option to cancel their withdrawal request" — in force from 31 October 2021, on the reasoning that the reverse button tempted engaged and vulnerable gamblers to keep playing. Offshore sites are not bound by it, and an "option" presented as a convenience is a second chance to lose the money.

One detail on the fair-terms side is worth keeping in your pocket: operators may not impose a maximum limit on the amount a consumer may withdraw from their deposit balance. The Commission's own example of a prohibited term is "You may withdraw up to £50 per day and up to £500 per week". The LCCP sets no fixed number of days for a withdrawal, so the regime rests on the fair-and-open condition, the identity-verification condition and the ban on unfair terms rather than a stated deadline. That is why the practical question is not "how long do they have?" but "what did their terms say before the deposit was made?"

New Gambling Sites, Compared by Licence

The useful comparison is by the regulator behind the site, because the regulator determines what happens on the day a withdrawal is refused.

The pattern is not subtle. The British column is the only one where an exclusion registered by a player in Glasgow binds every online operator the player might sign up to. In the others, protection is whatever the operator's own terms happen to offer, which is a very different thing from a licence condition.

Offshore Sites and the British Standard

Offshore sites that hold no UK Gambling Commission licence are not connected to GamStop and are not covered by it, since the scheme's obligations apply only to UKGC-licensed operators — a point stated by trade and press sources rather than by the regulator's own page, though it sits comfortably with GamStop's own terms of use. GamStop's own documentation is blunt about the limits: it blocks access to gambling licensed in Great Britain only, and cannot prevent access to services run by organisations that do not participate.

That matters because the Commission issued an industry warning notice on 20 January 2025 about casino games supplied by licensed operators appearing on unlicensed websites available to GB consumers, noting that such sites often target customers who have self-excluded via GAMSTOP and may have inadequate social responsibility and AML controls. Read that again. The pattern the regulator is describing is an offshore site as a route round an exclusion that is supposed to be absolute.

On the legal baseline, section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005 makes it an offence to provide facilities for gambling without an operating licence, and for remote gambling it applies if at least one piece of remote gambling equipment used is situated in Great Britain, or if the provider knows or should know the facilities are likely to be used in Great Britain. On summary conviction the penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. The offence attaches to the operator, not the customer. The Commission states plainly that it is illegal to offer commercial gambling services to consumers in Great Britain without a Commission licence, including where the operator holds a licence in another jurisdiction.

Enforcement is real, if uneven. Since April 2024 the Commission's Illegal Markets team has issued 3,140 cease and desist and disruption notices — 2,032 C&Ds, 774 registrar referrals, 402 host referrals and 3 payment provider referrals — referred 447,778 Bing and Google URLs, and secured 287,961 URL removals. Across 160 illegal gambling websites for which traffic data existed, engagement fell by an average of 32%. By method, registrar blocks and website suspensions produced the largest average fall, 91% each, against 30% for Google removal. In July to September 2026 the Commission referred 1,835 websites and issued 546 cease and desist notices. Prosecutions, meanwhile, are close to nil: across April 2025 to March 2026 every quarter recorded 0 or 1 prosecutions commenced.

The regulator's own estimate of scale is more modest than the trade's. Commission analysis published 5 November 2026 estimates that 0.6% of respondents across the whole population, including non-gamblers, engaged with illegal gambling websites in the past four weeks; among those who had gambled online in the past four weeks the figure is 2.5%. H2 Gambling Capital, by contrast, estimates £16.6 billion was staked with illegal operators in the UK in 2025. Two very different numbers measuring two very different things, and I would trust the first one about people and the second one about money.

The licensing regimes themselves are also in motion, which makes stale paperwork a risk. Curaçao's National Ordinance on Games of Chance took effect on 24 December 2024, replacing the old master-licence and sub-licence model with direct licensing by the Curaçao Gaming Authority. The legacy "orange" sub-licence certificates of operation ended on 15 October 2025, and a historic /JAZ number or legacy seal must not be treated as independent proof that an operator currently holds a valid licence. The Authority's certification policy is specific about seals: clicking a Certificate of Operation Seal must redirect to its own verification site, and if the certificate behind the seal shows a different domain name from the site being accessed, that site is displaying another operator's certificate and should be considered unauthorised or fraudulent.

Anjouan is the other jurisdiction worth naming, because it is cheap and widely used. Its published fee is EUR 17,828 for B2C licence issuance, one-time, and the same for annual renewal. It states that its licences contain no territorial restrictions under Anjouan law, but that holders must comply with the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate — and in June 2026 the regulator said publicly that "An Anjouan Internet Gaming Licence is not, and has never been presented as, a universal authorisation to operate in every country in the world". That is the regulator disclaiming the sales pitch. An ABC News investigation published on 31 December 2025 went further, reporting Comoros financial intelligence officials describing Anjouan Corporate Services as operating illegally, and a former attorney-general of the Comoros calling Anjouan Licensing Services "an illegal entity". Meanwhile, Kahnawà:ke shows the opposite pattern of a jurisdiction with a long history, its own dispute officer and its own logo verification programme — but no British exclusion scheme, and a fee schedule that is about to rise.

The Withdrawal Delay, and How It Works

If one thing decides how a new site feels, it is the moment a withdrawal meets a request for documents. This is the hinge, and it works the same way everywhere that has any anti-money-laundering obligations at all.

In the UK, customer due diligence duties come from the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. In remote casinos, identification and verification are required when a customer deposits funds for remote gambling, or withdraws such funds or winnings, amounting to €2,000 or more — and that threshold applies both to a single transaction and to transactions that "appear to be linked". So the £2,000 marker is not a magic line that triggers a single check; a series of deposits in one logged-on period can be linked, and the obligation is ongoing. The Commission also expects identity and age checks to be brought forward, and has said that onboarding on incomplete or inaccurate information — initials instead of full names, nicknames, commercial addresses instead of residential — is not sufficient.

The first time, if the operator can verify electronically, it may be instant: matching an account against databases such as credit reference agencies and the electoral roll needs no documents at all. If it cannot, it will ask for a passport, a driving licence, a household bill, or a selfie where fraud is suspected. The Commission states it cannot give a timescale because the length of the process varies. That is an honest answer and an unhelpful one.

Later on, the experience should be different in a specific way. Condition 17.1.1 means a licensee cannot demand new information at withdrawal that it could reasonably have asked for earlier, so a second or third withdrawal from a verified account should not restart the queue. What it can do is ask for information it must obtain at that moment under another legal obligation — source of funds, or a Suspicious Activity Report and a Defence Against Money Laundering from the National Crime Agency. The Commission has accepted that such obligations may necessitate a delay in paying out, while saying they do not give operators the right to confiscate customer deposits.

Where this goes wrong is well documented. Over a quarter of complaints reaching the Commission's Contact Centre concern identity verification, raised by customers asked for documents only on attempting to withdraw, and it is one of the most common dispute types referred to ADR providers. The Commission has also expressed concern about operators using "fuzzy matching" through third-party verification providers and onboarding customers on partial or equivocal verification. Onboarding someone with a middle name instead of a forename creates mismatches with records held elsewhere, including GamStop records — which quietly undermines the exclusion scheme itself.

The warning signs are recognisable. A site that accepts deposits for weeks with no interaction whatsoever and then produces a document demand the hour a balance is requested. A term capping how much may be withdrawn in a period, which the Commission's guidance treats as prohibited for a deposit balance. A "pending" status that can be reversed. An inactivity clause that eats a balance. A sole-discretion clause letting the operator void winnings — the Commission's view is that such terms are unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and in July 2025 a £170,000 penalty followed a bonus term reserving the right "at their own discretion to close accounts or forfeit winnings". Account inactivity cannot be used to confiscate or deduct any part of a deposit balance at all, and a balance left untouched for at least 12 months must be repaid to the last payment method used.

The Page That Says "Not Protected"

There is a disclosure every British player sees and almost nobody reads. An operator that holds customer funds must state clearly in its terms whether those funds are protected in the event of insolvency, at which of the three levels — "not protected", "medium protection" or "high protection" — and by what method. The customer must acknowledge receipt of that disclosure before being allowed to use funds for gambling, on the first deposit and after any change to the terms. An operator rated "not protected" must remind the customer once every six months, stating the value of the funds held.

Customer funds must be kept in a separate client bank account, separate from the operator's business accounts. That is not the same as insurance: keeping funds separate does not mean customers get their money back if the operator becomes insolvent, and businesses may legally hold customers' money in overseas bank accounts. Money staked within an open bet is not customer funds at all, so it sits outside whatever arrangement exists. Of all the disclosures on a new site, this is the one I would read first.

Five Signs a Site Can Be Trusted With a Payout

The Operator Appears on the Commission's Public Register, Domain and All

Quick check: search the business name on the Commission's register and confirm the entry lists the exact domain you are using. The Commission's own advice is to look the business up and check that the site's activities and domain names match. If the brand shows up under a different operator, or the domain is not listed, the rest of this section is moot.

The Terms Cap Nothing, Delay Nothing and Give the Operator No Discretion

Quick check: search the terms for "maximum withdrawal", "per day", "reserve the right", "sole discretion" and "inactive". A maximum limit on withdrawals from a deposit balance is prohibited, and operators should not use terms giving themselves sole discretion to void or withhold winnings because such terms are unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Commission's example of a prohibited clause is "You may withdraw up to £50 per day and up to £500 per week".

Bonus Conditions Are Visible Before You Opt In, and the Numbers Are Ordinary

Quick check: read the significant conditions — deposit, wagering and withdrawal requirements — rather than the headline. Since 19 January 2026 wagering on bonus funds is capped at ten times, and mixed-product promotions are banned. If the small print quotes 35× or 50× and the operator holds a British licence, that is not a term it is entitled to rely on.

Money Is Held in a Separate Client Account, at a Stated Protection Rating

Quick check: find the customer-funds section of the terms and read the insolvency rating, which must be disclosed and acknowledged on the first deposit. If the wording is vague, or the rating is "not protected" and the reminder has never arrived, that is the answer to a question most players never think to ask.

There Is a Real Route Out of a Dispute, and It Costs Nothing

Quick check: look for the named ADR provider in the complaints section. Social responsibility code 6.1.1 requires licensees to let customers refer an unresolved dispute to an approved ADR entity free of charge if it is not settled within eight weeks, after going through the operator's own process first. IBAS and eCOGRA are approved and free to consumers, and IBAS reported 100% operator compliance with decisions in the consumer's favour in both 2023-24 and 2024-25. Offshore sites name their own providers; whether those decisions are honoured is a different question.

Checking a New Site Before the First Deposit

1. Find the operator on the Commission's public register, and match the domain. The register is the only list that matters, because it is the one that comes with rule 17.1.1 attached. Everything else — seals, badges, "licensed and regulated" footers — is decoration until that check passes.
2. Read the banking and withdrawal section of the terms before the bonus section. It names the processing times, any per-withdrawal rules and any fees. The LCCP sets no fixed payout deadline, so this document is the timetable; if it does not exist in writing, there is no timetable.
3. Check the customer-funds disclosure and its insolvency rating. It must be given in writing and acknowledged before funds can be used for gambling. A separate client account is not a guarantee, but an operator that will not say which of the three ratings applies has told you something.
4. Confirm the site's own limit-setting tools work, and set a financial limit at the prompt. Under RTS 12E the setting must be presented as the default option before a first deposit. Ten seconds of friction at that moment is cheaper than any later correction.
5. Verify your identity early, not at the moment of withdrawal. Around €2,000 in deposits or withdrawals will trigger verification anyway, and linked transactions count towards it. Doing it while nothing is at stake removes the one step that most commonly holds a payout up.
6. Decide the payment rail in advance, and price it. A wallet taking 2.80% of the amount means £56 on a £2,000 withdrawal before any exchange-rate charge, against a Faster Payments transfer that typically completes in under two seconds and usually costs nothing. The rail is chosen by inertia unless it is chosen deliberately.

Self-Exclusion, Stated Plainly

Self-exclusion is worth stating as a fact, without softening, because it is the one protection that no payment method and no licence table can substitute for. A GamStop exclusion runs for 6 months, 1 year, 5 years or 5 years with auto-renewal, and signing up takes only a few minutes although the block can take up to 24 hours to become effective. Once registered, the exclusion cannot be cancelled or deactivated during the period — and it stays in place after the end of the chosen period unless the person contacts GamStop to remove it. Auto-renewal may only be switched off during the last six months of a five-year period, and if the registration is not deactivated, GamStop holds the data through a further automatic seven-year self-exclusion period. Registration is free, and the scheme has been available to consumers since April 2018.

The scheme's own name is often typed "gamestop", because the word "game" suggests itself; the scheme is GamStop. Under licence condition 3.5.5, which requires licensees to participate in the national multi-operator self-exclusion scheme, operators have been obliged to join since 31 March 2020, and since April 2020 they must check their entire customer base for registration at least every 24 hours. The scheme is not a small thing: GamStop recorded 117,756 new registrations during 2025 and 561,983 active exclusions at the end of that year, with a 16% year-on-year rise in the first half of 2026 and a record 12,236 sign-ups in May 2026 alone. As of July 2026 it reported 614,738 consumers on the register, of whom more than one in two had chosen the maximum five-year term, and under-25s accounted for nearly one in three of the exclusions registered in the first half of 2026.

An offshore site is never a way round it. Under the LCCP, licensees must close the account of an individual who has entered a self-exclusion agreement and return the funds held in it — and it is not sufficient merely to prevent withdrawal while still accepting wagers. Offshore operators sit outside that duty entirely, which is precisely why the Commission's January 2025 warning notice singled out unlicensed sites that target self-excluded customers. Blocking software exists as an extra layer: GamStop signposts Gamban and BetBlocker, and BetBlocker states it blocks over 1,368,000 gambling websites and 3,100 apps without registration. Gamban is free for residents of Wales but costs £4.99 a month or £29.99 a year in England and Scotland after the end of TalkBanStop funding on 31 March 2026. Bank blocks are free and work at card level, so each card must be activated, with a cooling-off period of 48 or 72 hours before gambling transactions are allowed again at most banks.

The alternative to all of this is an argument, and the argument is not good. Section 245 makes it an offence to supply, install or make available a gaming machine allowing payment by credit card, and the Commission banned credit card use for gambling from 14 April 2020 — a ban that does not extend to buying National Lottery tickets or scratchcards in a shop or by post. An offshore site that takes a credit card is telling you what it thinks of the rules it does not have to follow.

Questions I Get Asked About New Gambling Sites

Are new gambling sites in the UK safe to use?

Only if the operator holds a Gambling Commission licence and the domain is on the public register. The licence carries condition 17.1.1 on withdrawal information, the fair-and-open terms condition, access to a free approved ADR provider, and the self-exclusion duty. Without it, none of those apply and the only protection is whatever the operator's own terms choose to offer.

How fast do new UK online gambling sites pay out?

The Commission's benchmark, measured across 44.2 million withdrawals by large operators in June to September 2024, is that 96.3% cleared automatically, 3.5% within 24 hours and 0.1% took up to 48 hours. Only 49% of people who gambled in the past 12 months agreed that withdrawing is quick and easy. The payment rail then sets the rest: card payouts can land within 30 minutes of approval.

Why do some sites ask for documents only when I withdraw?

Because a check that should have happened earlier is happening late — condition 17.1.1 forbids requiring information at withdrawal that the operator could reasonably have requested sooner. Anti-money-laundering rules can still legitimately require documents when funds move, and the €2,000 verification threshold can be triggered by linked transactions. Over a quarter of Contact Centre complaints are about exactly this.

What is the maximum wagering requirement on a new UK casino bonus?

Ten times, since 19 January 2026, applying to bonus funds across licences other than gaming machine technical and gambling software licences. Mixed-product promotions are banned in the same rules. Offshore sites are not bound by the cap, and their welcome offers commonly sit in the 25× to 50× range, often with a maximum cashout clause attached.

Do offshore sites accept players who have self-excluded through GamStop?

They can, and that is the point of the Commission's warning notice. GamStop blocks access to gambling licensed in Great Britain only, and cannot prevent access to services run by organisations that do not participate. Registering there does not release an exclusion: a GamStop term holds for its full duration and stays in place until the person contacts GamStop to remove it.

What should I do if a new site refuses to pay out?

Complain to the operator first and ask for a deadlock letter if it will not resolve the matter. Once eight weeks have passed you can refer the dispute to an approved ADR entity free of charge, and IBAS and eCOGRA handle most gambling disputes — eCOGRA reporting an average of 31 days to resolve a domestic dispute, with 17.8% ruled in the consumer's favour in its latest annual report.

Can I use a credit card at a new gambling site?

Not at a British-licensed one. The Commission banned credit card use for gambling from 14 April 2020, and operators must also ensure that money paid from an e-wallet was not loaded from a credit card. The ban does not extend to non-remote lottery operating licences, so lottery tickets and scratchcards can still be bought with a credit card in a shop or by post.

The Only Thing That Decides It

A new gambling site's launch is a marketing event; whether it pays is a licensing fact, and the two are only loosely related. For British players the fair-and-open terms condition, the identity-verification condition, the ten-times bonus cap and the free route to an approved ADR provider all arrive with the Gambling Commission licence and leave with it — which is why the register check takes ninety seconds and settles more than any amount of comparison shopping.

And the self-exclusion figures put the stakes in perspective: 614,738 people were on the GamStop register as of July 2026, more than one in two of them committed to the full five years. If that is the road, the National Gambling Helpline is free on 0808 8020 133, day or night. A new site with a generous welcome offer is not a route around it, and the Commission has said as much in writing.