People using unlicensed gaming platforms in Great Britain were more likely to show indicators of problem gaming behaviour than those using licensed operators, according to new research published by the UK Gaming Commission (UKGC).

The study found that 45% of individuals with detected transactions involving unlicensed operators scored eight or higher on the Problem Gaming Severity Index (PGSI), compared with 6% of individuals who had transactions with licensed non-lottery gaming operators in the same dataset. A PGSI score of eight or above indicates a high level of gaming-related problems.

The findings highlight a notable difference between the two groups. However, the UKGC stressed that the research does not establish whether using unlicensed platforms directly causes gaming-related harm.

Research Based on 157.2 Million Banking Transactions

The analysis examined 157.2 million banking transactions involving approximately 38,000 individuals. The financial data, provided by YouGov, covered the period from July 2018 to July 2026.

Researchers identified 3,426 suspected transactions involving unlicensed gaming operators, linked to 179 individuals. The regulator used transaction descriptions, merchant names and other banking information to identify payments potentially associated with illegal operators.

Among the 179 individuals, PGSI scores were available for 146. The results showed the following distribution:

• PGSI score 0: 26% among individuals with detected unlicensed transactions, compared with 68% among licensed gaming customers.

• PGSI score 1–2: 12%, compared with 16%.

• PGSI score 3–7: 17%, compared with 9%.

• PGSI score 8 or above: 45%, compared with 6%.

The UKGC noted that the dataset was not nationally representative. These percentages can therefore only be used to compare groups within the research sample and should not be interpreted as estimates of problem gaming across the UK population.

Unlicensed and Licensed Platform Use Often Overlap

The research also found that the use of unlicensed platforms did not necessarily replace activity on licensed platforms.

Among individuals with repeated detected transactions involving unlicensed operators, 91% also had transactions with licensed gaming businesses.

The analysis of 122 individuals with at least two detected unlicensed transactions showed that their average monthly transactions with licensed operators remained relatively stable after their first identified payment to an unlicensed operator.

On average, these individuals recorded 24.8 transactions with licensed operators in the month before the first detected unlicensed payment, compared with 23.7 transactions in the following month.

This suggests that unlicensed activity can take place alongside existing use of licensed services, rather than necessarily indicating a complete shift away from the regulated market.

Challenges in Identifying Unlicensed Transactions

The UKGC also highlighted difficulties in detecting payments linked to illegal operators through banking records.

Initial attempts to identify transactions by searching for known operator names produced limited results, as unlicensed businesses may not appear under their actual names in transaction descriptions.

Researchers therefore used additional methods, including matching transaction descriptions and merchant-name information against records associated with suspected illegal operators.

Despite these efforts, the regulator acknowledged that some transactions may have gone undetected. The research consequently does not provide a complete picture of all payments made to unlicensed gaming businesses.

The identified transactions included 138 credit card payments, representing approximately 4% of the total. These payments involved 15 individuals. The remaining 96% were made through current accounts.

What the Findings Mean for Industry Oversight

The study provides further insight into the relationship between unlicensed gaming activity, consumer behaviour and potential gaming-related harm.

The higher proportion of elevated PGSI scores among individuals with detected unlicensed transactions may be relevant to discussions around consumer protection, platform oversight and the risks associated with unregulated services.

At the same time, the findings should be interpreted carefully. The research does not prove that unlicensed platforms cause problem gaming behaviour, nor does it establish the overall size of the unlicensed market in Great Britain.

The UKGC's analysis instead shows that unlicensed and licensed gaming activity can overlap, while highlighting the potential value and limitations of using financial transaction data to monitor activity in the market.