Plans to relax regulations on slot machine ratios in UK adult gaming centres (AGCs) have been halted, according to information published by The Guardian.
The decision would have given AGCs more latitude in the number of slots they offered.

However, the plan has been shelved, according to remarks received by the media outlet, because the sector isn’t dedicating enough energy to responsible gambling initiatives.

The Guardian added that the plans may be “dropped altogether”.

Currently, AGCs are governed by the “80/20 rule,” which stipulates that only 20% of the gaming terminals on their premises may be category B3 machines.

These machines permit stakes of up to £2 and offer maximum payouts of £500. The remaining 80% must be composed of category C or D machines, which have lower maximum stakes of £1 and jackpots not exceeding £100.

Industry representatives argue that this restriction inhibits business growth and operational efficiency.

They claim that most customers prefer the higher-stakes B3 machines, and that the imposed ratio forces shops to allocate valuable floor space and resources to less popular games.

These claims had prompted the previous Conservative government to include potential reforms in its 2023 gambling white paper.

While the white paper was largely focused on tightening rules for online gambling platforms, it had proposed a more lenient approach for land-based venues, including AGCs.

A year in the works

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) confirmed last year that it was exploring changes to the 80/20 rule, including a possible 50/50 ratio or eliminating the restriction altogether.

However, in a recent communication to stakeholders, DCMS officials clarified that no changes would be implemented in 2025.

While they did not categorically dismiss future reform, they cited ongoing concerns regarding the adequacy of protections for vulnerable individuals who use AGCs.

This reassessment follows increasing scrutiny of the AGC sector. Earlier this year, slot machine operator Merkur was fined nearly £100,000 by the UK Gambling Commission.

The penalty followed revelations that its staff had allegedly exploited a customer with cancer. The incident drew widespread criticism and intensified calls for more stringent regulation.

Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative leader and current chair of a parliamentary group focused on gambling-related harm, expressed strong opposition to any increase in the number of high-stakes machines.

He cited the addictive nature of such machines and the lack of robust consumer protections in AGCs.

Duncan Smith also called for an investigation into widespread regulatory breaches within the sector, pointing to the proliferation of AGCs across UK high streets as a growing concern.

Industry players unhappy with decision

On the industry side, frustration with the delay has been vocal. John Bollom, president of Bacta, the trade association representing AGCs and amusement arcades, described the decision as disappointing.

Bollom argued that revising the 80/20 rule was a key component of the modernisation efforts outlined in the gambling white paper and maintained that such reform would benefit both the industry and local economies.

He also insisted that Bacta members uphold rigorous player protection standards and reiterated hopes that the government would revisit the issue.

Labour MP Beccy Cooper welcomed the DCMS decision, as reported by The Guardian, and urged the government to take additional steps to limit the spread and operation of AGCs.

She echoed growing public and political concern over the potential for these venues to harm vulnerable populations, particularly in communities already struggling with socio-economic challenges.

The stalling of the proposed reform is a setback for the AGC sector, which has expanded significantly in recent years and was caught off-guard by the announcement.

Despite economic pressures on high street businesses, the number of AGCs has risen, with operators citing stable demand and low operating costs.

However, critics argue that this growth has come at the expense of consumer safety and community well-being.

While the future of the 80/20 rule remains uncertain, the latest developments suggest that any further regulatory changes will be subject to more rigorous scrutiny, particularly regarding their impact on vulnerable groups.