(UNITED KINGDOM) — The UK government opened a consultation on raising annual Gambling Commission licence fees by 20-30%, warning that the regulator’s reserves will run out during the 2026/27 financial year without higher funding.
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) set out proposals that would take effect from October 1, 2026, and run the consultation until March 29, 2026.
DCMS documents outlined three options, framing the changes as a way to close a projected funding gap tied to the Commission’s forward needs and reserve levels.
One option would apply a 30% flat increase, which the Gambling Commission prefers. Another would impose a 20% rise, with DCMS warning that this approach risks cutbacks.
A third approach would combine a 20% increase plus 10% ring-fenced for illegal gambling enforcement, which the government prefers. That split model links part of the uplift directly to enforcement activity against unlawful operators.
Without the increases, DCMS projected a £7 million deficit in 2027/28 and £9.5 million by 2030/31. The fee rise plan, DCMS said, responds to the point at which reserves exhaust during the 2026/27 financial year.
Fees were last reviewed in 2021, against a backdrop of rising enforcement costs from Gambling Act reforms and inflation. DCMS positioned the new consultation as a response to that cost pressure and the regulator’s forward funding demands.
Operators and suppliers, however, have argued that higher compliance costs risk pushing some customers away from licensed firms. Industry research estimates illegal gambling at nearly 10% of the market, and the consultation noted warnings that further cost increases could drive more activity offshore.
The fee debate lands alongside wider UK gambling tax tightening that also targets remote operators, adding pressure to margins and pricing decisions. Those changes affect both UK-headquartered groups and overseas companies serving customers in Britain.
A higher Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) begins for accounting periods starting on or after April 1, 2026, with the rate rising from 21% to 40% on gross gaming yield, defined as stakes minus winnings. DCMS linked the licensing consultation to a broader shift in the cost of serving the UK market, even when firms operate cross-border.
Remote betting also faces a new levy in the pipeline, with a 25% General Betting Duty on remote betting from April 2027. Together with the proposed licence fee rises, the tax changes could shape product mix decisions, promotional intensity, and how operators allocate spend across acquisition channels.
Non-UK operators remain liable if serving UK customers. That exposure makes the combined impact of higher fees and higher taxes relevant well beyond Britain’s domestic operators, especially for firms that run remote-first businesses into the UK.
The UK’s approach is unfolding as other major jurisdictions tighten their own fiscal and enforcement frameworks, with Brazil moving to phase in higher gambling taxes and expand liability for those who support illegal betting activity.
Brazil’s Complementary Law No. 224, approved by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in early January 2026, set a phased increase in Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) taxation for licensed operators. The GGR tax rises from 12% currently to 13% in 2026, 14% in 2027, and 15% from 2028.
Alongside the GGR schedule, the law also mandates revenue allocations to social security, with earmarks of 1% in 2026, 2% in 2027, 3% in 2028. The earmarking signals a policy goal that ties the gambling tax base to funding beyond sector oversight alone.
Brazil also moved to broaden enforcement tools aimed at the illegal market by imposing new joint liability on entities that facilitate illegal betting. The measure covers a wider ecosystem that can include advertisers and payment providers, raising compliance expectations beyond licensed operators themselves.
A separate proposal would add a new layer of taxation aimed at funds moved before a bet is placed. The CIDE-Bets 15% tax on player deposits to licensed platforms was Senate-approved on December 10, 2025, but it was rejected or is pending final Chamber review after amendments.
That legislative status prevented immediate implementation, and the timeline also faced a 90-day constitutional wait. The deposit levy targets funds transferred before betting, on top of the GGR taxes, and Brazil’s debate over its final shape has become a proxy for how hard the country will push on raising revenue while trying to keep licensed platforms competitive.
Studies cited in the Brazil discussion warned that the illegal market could hit 51%, costing R$10 billion ($2 billion) in lost taxes yearly as licensed platforms lose competitiveness. The estimate underscores how tax design and enforcement capacity can affect channelisation toward regulated sites.
Brazil’s deposit levy proposal carried large revenue expectations if enacted, with projections that it could generate BRL 30 billion ($5.5 billion) annually for the National Public Security Fund. By linking the measure to public security funding, the policy debate also ties gambling enforcement to wider fiscal priorities.
Operators in Brazil face another mechanism that changes the risk picture for firms with historic exposure. A 15% retrospective tax on 2018-2024 activities applies via the RERCT Litígio Zero Bets mechanism, adding potential liabilities related to prior-year activity.
Corporate taxes remain at 34% combined IRPJ/CSLL rate. For operators assessing Brazil’s opportunity, the combination of corporate taxation, rising GGR rates, earmarks, and potential deposit levies sets a higher-cost backdrop than the early market pitch suggested.
The UK and Brazil measures share a common theme: rising compliance costs paired with attempts to curb illegal gambling. Both countries’ policy mixes also put focus on enforcement funding and on the commercial viability of regulated offers when taxes rise.
Marketing and distribution constraints are tightening in parallel, with platform rules narrowing some acquisition tactics used by gambling brands and affiliates. That shift adds another variable for operators who already face higher taxes and potentially higher fees.
X, formerly Twitter, has banned gambling promotions in influencer partnerships. The policy also restricts performance-based marketing for iGaming operators and affiliates, targeting promotional relationships that rely on measurable conversions and revenue share.
For iGaming firms and the affiliate ecosystem, influencer campaigns can function as a scalable acquisition route, particularly in competitive markets where paid media prices rise when compliance demands increase. Cutting off that channel can force a reallocation toward other compliant advertising routes, reshaping how firms buy attention and how quickly they can replace churned customers.
The timing matters because platform restrictions can amplify the effect of higher fees and taxes by raising customer acquisition costs at the same time that levies squeeze margins. Operators may respond by reducing bonus intensity, tightening product offerings, or prioritising markets where acquisition and compliance costs remain lower.
In Britain, DCMS framed the licence fee consultation as a step to prevent the Gambling Commission’s reserves exhausting during the 2026/27 financial year, while offering a choice between a larger uplift, a smaller uplift, or a mixed model with part of the increase ring-fenced for illegal gambling enforcement. The consultation’s end date of March 29, 2026 sets a near-term deadline for industry responses, ahead of the proposed start date of October 1, 2026.
The broader UK tax timeline begins sooner, with RGD moving from 21% to 40% for accounting periods starting on or after April 1, 2026, and a new 25% General Betting Duty on remote betting from April 2027. Taken together, those dates force remote operators to plan across multiple change points rather than a single compliance switch.
Brazil’s phased path runs across multiple years as well, moving from 12% currently to 13% in 2026, 14% in 2027, and 15% from 2028, while social security allocations rise from 1% in 2026, 2% in 2027, 3% in 2028. The combination of year-by-year schedules and enforcement expansion through joint liability leaves firms facing a moving regulatory and tax baseline.
The common pressure point, executives and policymakers have highlighted in different ways, is illegal gambling and the question of whether higher regulated costs shift demand to unlicensed alternatives. In Britain, industry research puts illegal gambling at nearly 10% of the market, while studies cited in Brazil warned it could hit 51%.
How operators respond will hinge on whether they can keep their regulated offers attractive after absorbing higher taxes, higher licence fees, and tighter marketing rules. With X closing off gambling promotions in influencer partnerships and restricting performance-based marketing, the competition for remaining compliant channels could intensify just as governments demand more revenue and stronger enforcement.
Gambling Commission Rings-Fences UK Igaming Fees for 2026/27
The UK and Brazil are implementing significant tax and fee hikes for gambling operators. The UK proposes a 20-30% licence fee increase, while Brazil’s GGR tax will reach 15% by 2028. These measures aim to fund regulators and social projects. However, industry experts warn that rising compliance costs and new marketing restrictions on platforms like X could drive customers toward the illegal market.
