Britain’s Illegal Gambling Survey: Why 0.6% and 2.5% Describe Different Groups

The Gambling Commission’s new illegal-market survey has two four-week figures: 0.6% of all respondents and 2.5% of people who had gambled online during the past year. Both appear in its November 5 news release. Choosing one without naming the group changes what readers are being told.

The findings come from the Gambling Survey for Great Britain, alongside an updated Illegal Gambling Data Dashboard. They measure indications of engagement with illegal websites. They do not put a pound value on that activity.

Start with the denominator

Among the whole survey population, the Commission reports 0.6% engaging with illegal gambling websites in the previous four weeks. Another 0.4% reported engagement in the previous year, but outside that four-week window. Those periods are separated deliberately; the second number is additional, rather than another description of the same recent users.

The accompanying Phase 4 research defines the online group as people who gambled online in the past year, excluding those whose only activity was National Lottery products. Within that group, 2.5% and a further 1.5% fall in the two periods. The dashboard’s summary instead labels the denominator as past-four-week online gamblers. That wording differs from the research definition; neither figure should be presented as a share of everyone in Britain.

The regulator also says 94.4% of respondents showed no indication of illegal-site use. There is no basis in the announcement for treating the remaining 5.6% as confirmed illegal gamblers. The Phase 4 report places 4.6% in a separate category with limited indications, insufficient to confidently classify them as illegal-site users in either recent period. It analyses survey data from April 2025 to April 2026; the November publication date is not the fieldwork period.

A participation estimate is not market share

These results cannot tell us what proportion of gambling expenditure went offshore. A respondent counts as a person, whether their activity was occasional or substantial. Estimating spending requires evidence about money, alongside a clear definition of the market being compared.

That distinction also separates this release from the banking-data research discussed in our report on illegal gambling and licensed play. Transaction evidence and survey answers can inform the same investigation while answering different questions. They should not be merged into a single headline number.

The Commission says its questions seek to identify likely engagement even when consumers do not realise a website is illegal. Readers therefore need the survey’s definitions and methods before interpreting the figures as a precise count of people knowingly choosing unlicensed operators.

What the dashboard can help establish

The release describes higher engagement among men and younger adults, with different age patterns across the two reporting periods. Those are reported associations, not proof that one characteristic causes illegal gambling or that every person in those groups faces the same risk.

A continuing dashboard could make changes easier to follow, provided comparisons retain the same population, time window and measurement method. A fall in one indicator would still need to be distinguished from evidence that a particular enforcement action caused it.

For now, the useful reading is modest: the Commission has added survey evidence to its illegal-market monitoring. The figures deserve attention with their labels attached. They are not a revenue total, a profit estimate or an offshore market-share calculation.