The House of Lords Liaison Committee has called for a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising in the UK, bringing the industry under pressure to tighten promotional rules.

21 September 2026

The committee published a report on 17 September 2026 recommending a tobacco-style blanket ban on gambling ads, with the exception of the National Lottery and advertising for UK-based racecourses. The report argued that this approach would be the "most effective" way to mitigate gambling-related harms, including financial ruin, broken relationships, and even suicide. It accused the UK government of being "too passive" in responding to the rise of digital advertising and celebrity promotions for gambling.

Peer pressure to curb gambling advertising had been building for months, with 70% polling in favour of tougher limits. But the Lords' recommendation marks a major step, going further even than a 2020 report by the same select committee.

The report, however, sets up a confrontation between health regulators and the big players in online gaming. The Betting and Gaming Council argued that a complete ban would not make gambling disappear and would unfairly penalise licensed, regulated operators. "The epidemic of gaming addiction is being wrongly attached to legal companies, who attract over 75% of all gaming spend but less than 10% of all abuse complaints," the trade group argued. The regulator has not published the full figures underlying this claim.

That position did not sway the committee, which rejected the industry argument that tightening ad rules would simply push customers to illegal or foreign gambling sites. "The claim that gamblers would simply migrate to unregulated offshore platforms is false and undermines efforts to focus policy on reducing harms that are often more severe on these websites," the report said.

Beyond harm reduction

But the issue is not just one of harm control. The regulators' crackdown on adverts is also about raising the profile of the UK's "do as we say, not as we do" debate over how progressive a country it aims to be, particularly for vulnerable groups.

Britain's restrictions on tobacco and alcohol advertising were historically grounded in public-health concerns about how accessibility to products by even some people could lead to serious societal problems. In the case of gambling advertising, the Lords report says today's online adverts pose the same risks, just on a bigger scale: social media and sports channels can deliver ads to millions, very quickly, and the industry can track user responses in real time. Accordingly, the committee argues that gambling ads served on social networks need treating alongside alcohol and cigarette advertisements - with tougher restrictions as a result.

More on this is available via yo lo vi aquí.

It is a vivid confrontation between the power to amplify gambling promotions and the duty to moderate them for the national good. And the Lords are not alone in this push. Australia's media sector has warned that further restrictions on gambling advertising could cost broadcasters more than $20 million a year.

In New Zealand, a crackdown on advertising by offshore gambling sites has shown the difficulty of consistently applying new rules to a global industry. The Department of Internal Affairs has asked broadcasters to remove ads for free-to-play sites that are commonly used to push people into gambling abroad. But regulators have struggled with inconsistent enforcement: many unauthorised ads remained online, and some remained on television.

The House of Lords report therefore raised some international parallels, pointing to ongoing efforts to curb gambling ads in Australia and the United States. Particularly instructive for policymakers is what happened in the video game industry this year, over a controversy triggered by ads from TS Sports Ltd that used suggestive imagery to promote their poker site.

Since then, several major video-game platforms have issued directives against explicit advertising. Now, months later, following the resignation and replacement of several senior managers, some media partners are saying that the new guidelines are proving effective.

The implication is shared by the Australian, New Zealand and U.S examples: regulators are in a battle for hearts and minds, and it is a two-way street.