The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) recently announced that from December 2024, a maximum betting requirement cap of 10 times will be set for all online casino bonuses, a move seen as a significant reform to protect player rights.
However, this new regulation has also sparked widespread controversy in the industry. Martyn Hannah, co-founder of the online casino comparison site Comparasino, provides a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons of this policy in this article.
Martyn Hannah is the co-founder and managing director of Comparasino, with over 10 years of experience in the online gambling industry, having served as a marketing consultant for multiple operators and suppliers. He founded Comparasino with the aim of helping players find online casino brands with higher trust and more transparent terms.
Why limit betting requirements? Hannah has long advocated for setting a betting cap, believing it can effectively prevent players from being misled by complex bonus conditions. He points out that many players do not understand what "50 times betting" means and are disappointed or even lose trust when they cannot cash out bonuses. This reform increases transparency, making the player experience fairer and clearer.
Overview of the new regulation
The new rule is part of a larger round of bonus reforms, which also includes banning cross-platform "mixed promotions," i.e., marketing tactics that require players to participate in both sports betting and casino games. The UKGC believes that such cross-promotions can cause confusion and increase addiction risks.
Advantages of the reform
Hannah believes that the betting requirement cap will help "low betting threshold casinos" become mainstream, enhancing industry transparency and boosting player trust. Some operators, like PlayOJO, have already adopted a "zero wagering" model and have been successful in user acquisition and retention. Lower betting thresholds will also reduce new user attrition and increase brand loyalty.
Moreover, Hannah points out that this will encourage operators to put effort into service aspects—such as simplifying the registration process, speeding up payments, optimizing customer service, etc., thereby winning players' favor without the lure of high bonuses.
Potential concerns
However, the reform is not without costs. Hannah worries that operators might significantly reduce the value of bonuses to control costs, leading to "shrinkage" of bonuses and making rewards less attractive. He emphasizes that if other aspects of the user experience are not outstanding, players might turn to unlicensed sites for higher rewards, which would increase regulatory risks.
Another risk is that smaller market brands may be under too much pressure. Some operators might question the viability of continuing operations in the UK, which is not good for the recently warming market environment. If the new regulation leads to fewer brands, it could harm consumer choice.
Could this become a global standard? Although the new rule is still in the testing phase, Hannah believes it has the potential to serve as a template for other jurisdictions. He points out that brands like PlayOJO have proven that reducing or eliminating betting requirements is not only feasible but can also lead to business growth.
Conclusion
In Hannah's view, the benefits of the new regulation far outweigh the drawbacks. A transparent, simple, and trustworthy bonus mechanism is key to future gambling operators winning over players' minds. Setting a betting cap is an important step towards this goal.
