The Gambling Commission has told remote operators they cannot rely on their software suppliers to report technical standards breaches on their behalf, after finding that some breaches had reached the regulator only through the B2B side of the supply chain.
The reminder, carried in the Commission’s e-bulletin of 26 October 2026, follows cases where gambling software (B2B) licensees notified the regulator of breaches of the remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS), while the remote operating (B2C) licensees affected by the same breaches did not.
Every affected licensee reports
The Commission’s position is that the duty sits with each licensee touched by a breach. A notification filed by one licence holder does not discharge the obligation of another. If a supplier’s game or platform breaches the RTS on an operator’s site, both the supplier and the operator have something to report.
Reports should be made as soon as reasonably practicable through the LCCP notifications section of eServices, choosing the notification type “Reporting offences/breaches”.
The rules behind the reminder
- LC 2.3.1 (technical standards) requires licensees to comply with the Commission’s technical standards and its testing requirements. It applies to remote operating licences and to remote gambling software licences, among others, so both B2C and B2B businesses are covered.
- Section 33(2)(b) of the Gambling Act 2005: the Commission says RTS breaches are potentially offences under this provision.
- LC 15.1.1 and 15.1.2 require licensees to tell the Commission, as soon as reasonably practicable, about information they know or suspect relates to an offence under the Act, including one arising from a breach of a licence condition. LC 15.1.1 covers non-betting licences; LC 15.1.2 covers betting licences.
The Commission’s guidance on LCCP notifications does not prescribe a format, but says a report should give enough detail for the regulator to assess what action may be needed: the businesses or people involved, what happened and when, what the licensee has done, and a named contact.
What it means in practice
For B2C operators: a supplier’s report is not a substitute for your own. When a B2B partner flags an RTS issue affecting your customers, treat it as a trigger for your own notification rather than a matter already handled. The Commission’s guidance does allow one licensee to submit information on behalf of another within a group, but responsibility for the timing and content of the report stays with each licence holder.
RelatedCasinomeister dispute cases rose 174% between 2016 and 2025, arbitration data shows
For B2B suppliers: reporting a breach to the regulator remains necessary, but operators running the affected product will need the details quickly to meet their own obligation. Building prompt operator notification into incident processes helps clients meet a duty the supplier’s own report cannot cover.
For both: the RTS cover areas with direct customer impact. In a regulatory settlement published days earlier, the Commission recorded a breach of LC 2.3.1 by L & L Europe Limited after customers were able to exceed financial limits, contrary to RTS 12. RTS failings can feature in enforcement cases as well as in notification queues.
Sources: Gambling Commission e-bulletin, 26 October 2026; LC 2.3.1 technical standards; Remote gambling and software technical standards.
