Report Accuses UKGC Of Misrepresenting Problem Gambling Survey Findings

The Gambling Commission is facing fresh scrutiny after a report by Regulus Partners alleged that it may have misrepresented research findings linked to its Gambling Survey for Great Britain. The critique, published in January 2026 and titled “Indications of bias?”, questions how the regulator interpreted evidence to justify changes in official guidance.

The Gambling Survey for Great Britain has been under debate since its release in 2024. Critics have argued that the dataset may overstate both gambling participation and the rate of problem gambling when compared with earlier benchmarks such as the Health Survey for England. Initial guidance issued alongside the survey urged caution, particularly against using its results to estimate the total number of problem gamblers across the UK.

The timing of this adjustment raised concern within the industry, as it came ahead of the Autumn Budget, a period with large-scale tax increase. Regulus argues that the shift in tone may have had wider policy implications beyond the data itself.

Disputed research and internal concerns

At the centre of the dispute is a study conducted by researchers from the London School of Economics and NatCen Social Research, led by Professor Patrick Sturgis and funded by the Gambling Commission. Published in August 2025, the research aimed to explain why the GSGB produced higher estimates than previous surveys.

Regulus maintains that the findings were mixed and did not justify increased confidence in the survey. Despite this, the Commission used the study to remove a key warning that had discouraged extrapolating survey results to population-level estimates.

Freedom of information material cited in the report highlights internal disagreement. In one exchange dated 6 August 2025, a Commission official asked an LSE researcher whether the evidence supported loosening guidance, noting that “our stakeholders want to be able to do this.” The researcher responded: “On the matter of grossing up. I don’t think the experimental results really makes much difference to this.”

Internal reviewers also raised concerns, with one commenting on the guidance editing process. “I don’t think this change in the guidance really follows from the experimental research.” Another reviewer added that the study “doesn’t directly justify the removal of this guidance.” The Commission proceeded with the revision regardless.

Experiments raise questions over survey reliability

Regulus analysed three experiments within the study and concluded that they did not support the Commission’s position. The first experiment tested whether presenting a survey as gambling-focused influenced responses. The results suggested topic salience bias, where gamblers are more likely to participate, leading to inflated estimates.

The second experiment compared telephone and online survey responses. Telephone surveys produced lower estimates, consistent with social desirability bias. Regulus argues this has limited relevance when compared with NHS surveys, which use self-completed formats.

The third experiment examined whether a broader list of gambling activities influenced reporting levels. It did not support the idea that expanded activity lists were responsible for higher estimates in the GSGB.

Dan Waugh, Partner at Regulus Partners, said: “Given that the study largely confirmed existing research, it is far from clear what facts warranted the LSE’s U-turn.”

The report also raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. NatCen secured a £4.5m contract to continue delivering the GSGB until 2029, while an LSE researcher reportedly expressed interest in ongoing involvement three days after publication.

Regulator rejects claims as calls for review grow

A Gambling Commission spokesperson has rejected the allegations. “We do not accept the views expressed in the latest commentary on GSGB.

“The GSGB is the largest survey of its kind in the world and has been subject to significant external scrutiny by those with recognised expertise in survey design.

“We also stand firmly by guidance we have issued on its use which was developed through engagement with experts and other stakeholders.”

Regulus has called for an independent review into how the guidance was altered, arguing that the issue goes beyond methodology and touches on governance standards. The report suggests the Commission’s actions may conflict with principles set out in the Civil Service Code and the UK Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice.

Attention has now turned to the Office for Statistics Regulation, which is already examining the GSGB. Its findings could determine whether further changes are required in how gambling data is presented and used in policymaking.