Flutter Entertainment’s UK and Ireland division has urged the government and Gambling Commission to act against illegal gambling after a banking study found substantial overlap between licensed gambling and payments linked to known or strongly suspected illegal operators.
SBC News reported the response on 30 October, two days after the Commission published its banking-data findings. The division operates Paddy Power, Betfair and Sky Bet.
That overlap also brings licensed operators’ own customer protections into the debate.
The overlap changes the story
Researchers used an anonymised YouGov banking panel of around 38,000 people, covering July 2018 to July 2026. Banking records were linked to survey responses with participants’ consent.
They identified 3,426 transactions involving 179 people through matches linked to known or strongly suspected illegal operators. Among people with repeated detected illegal transactions, 91% also used licensed operators. The observed pattern showed no substantial shift away from licensed gambling in the six months after the first detected transaction.
Of the 146 people with detected illegal transactions and available Problem Gambling Severity Index scores, 45% scored eight or more. This is the survey’s problem-gambling category. The corresponding figure was 6% among panel members with licensed non-lottery gambling transactions. Those groups overlap; they are not separate populations of legal and illegal gamblers.
The panel was not nationally representative, cryptocurrency transactions were excluded and only some illegal activity could be identified. The Commission says the analysis cannot establish the size of the illegal market or whether illegal gambling caused harm. It also provides no basis for identifying the sampled people as Flutter customers.
What the banking study detected
| Measure | Reported finding |
|---|---|
| Panel scope | Around 38,000 people in an anonymised YouGov banking panel. |
| Detected activity | 3,426 transactions involving 179 people, linked to known or strongly suspected illegal operators. |
| Customer overlap | 91% of people with repeated detected illegal transactions also used licensed operators. |
| Study limits | The panel was not nationally representative. Cryptocurrency transactions were excluded, and only some illegal activity could be identified. |
The analysis cannot establish the size of the illegal market or whether illegal gambling caused harm. It provides no basis for identifying the sampled people as Flutter customers.
Why the tax argument needs evidence
The legal boundary concerns permission to serve Great Britain. An online operator needs the appropriate Gambling Commission licence; a licence from another jurisdiction does not replace it. An overseas address alone does not make a business illegal.
There is a commercial interest alongside the consumer-protection argument. The Commission describes illegal operators as unfair competitors that avoid the taxes and obligations of the licensed market. Meanwhile, Remote Gaming Duty rose from 21% to 40% on 1 April 2026, increasing pressure on regulated online casino businesses.
The banking study does not establish that this tax rise, or a particular regulatory check, drove customers towards illegal sites. Its records span eight years, with only the final months following the duty change. The tax argument requires separate evidence about timing and customer behaviour.
Why customers cross the boundary
A separate Commission study, published on 20 October, helps explain why a single account of migration is inadequate. It examined influences on illegal website use through a different research programme, rather than the banking sample.
It described varied experiences, including frustration around withdrawals and account processes, confusion about different checks, and deliberate attempts to avoid protections. Some consumers were intentional users; others encountered illegal services without clearly understanding the distinction.
That creates different practical problems. A customer struggling to understand a request for documents needs a clear explanation. A customer trying to get around a gambling exclusion presents a different risk. Clearer processes and effective protection belong in the same response; the findings do not justify removing safeguards across the board.
Flutter’s own history matters
The industry has already tried to address one blind spot: an operator may see risk on its own service without knowing what happens elsewhere. The Commission challenged the industry to explore a shared approach in 2020. GamProtect had its public launch in September 2024, following a pilot.
The scheme lets participating operators share flags after an account is closed following a customer’s disclosure of a serious health-related gambling concern. Sky Betting & Gaming describes acting on both its own closures and flags from other participants. This is a specific protective mechanism, rather than a shared history of every bet.
There is also a relevant compliance history. On 17 December 2025, the Commission announced a £2m regulatory settlement involving four licensees trading as Paddy Power and Betfair. A 2024 assessment had found weaknesses in identifying and responding to customers at risk of harm.
The regulator also recorded early acceptance of the failings, cooperation and an action plan, with some improvements already under way. That case concerned earlier customer-interaction failures. The new banking research is a separate piece of evidence, with no finding of a new Flutter breach.
Licensed online betting and casino operators remain required to identify risk, act and evaluate the result. The overlap in the latest research makes those duties especially relevant to this debate, even though an operator cannot be assumed to see a customer’s activity across the whole market.
Following the payments
Finding illegal activity was itself difficult. Searching payment descriptions for operator names failed; researchers then used descriptions and merchant names associated with known or suspected illegal payments.
The Commission’s enforcement strategy already includes working against facilitators such as payment providers, search engines, social media and technology providers. That extends the task beyond individual gambling websites to the businesses that help them reach customers and receive money.
The useful test now is whether that work makes illegal gambling harder to access and whether licensed operators intervene earlier when their own customers show signs of harm. Flutter’s call for action addresses a real enforcement problem. The overlap means protecting players also depends on what happens before they leave a licensed account, or while they continue using one.