UKGC Finds No Significant Growth in High Value Customer Schemes Post-2020

Since the regulatory overhaul of VIP practices in 2020, the United Kingdom Gambling Commission (UKGC) has reported no signs of a resurgence in controversial High Value Customer (HVC) schemes. It noted that senior executives are now held accountable for their implementation, and related consumer harms have declined. 

UKGC Publishes High Value Customer Report

In its latest High Value and VIP Scheme Monitoring report, released on July 17, the UKGC stated that the number of VIP customers and the overall use of such schemes have remained largely stable since its 2021 review. The findings also indicated that High Value Customers (HVCs) contributed approximately 3% of Gross Gambling Yield (GGY) among the sampled operators, with land-based casinos continuing to rely more heavily on these schemes.

“The headline findings in this report are that these schemes are no more commonplace now and the number of consumers in them has remained consistent,” the UKGC wrote in an official statement. “Through this exercise, we also found that HVC schemes were less often assessed as being a contributory factor in issues under investigation within Commission casework.”

What Else Did the Regulator Find?

In a blog post, David Taylor, Head of Evidence Assurance and Evaluation, stated that HVC schemes were now less frequently identified as a contributing factor in issues examined during the Commission’s casework. He also noted that the number of consumers involved in HVC schemes has remained stable, and data from operators shows that each scheme now has a designated senior executive responsible for its oversight and accountable for its operation.

The latest review, drawing on 2024 data from a sample of operators, incorporated new questions related to casework relevance and oversight of HVC schemes. Although Taylor described the review as limited in scope, he indicated that the findings support the conclusion that the intended outcomes are being met, with no immediate need for policy changes.

Speaking of policy changes, the study comes amid a series of changes that the UKGC is making. Just last week, for example, the UKGC introduced a new financial penalty system. One of the many notable changes is that fines will be determined based on a gambling company’s Gross Gambling Yield (GGY), representing its total betting revenue during the time the breach occurred.

Back to Taylor’s words, he warned that while the results from the survey do not indicate much of a problem, the UKGC will still continue to take action if operators fail to meet requirements. He also stated that the findings would contribute to wider assessments related to the Gambling Act Review, and emphasized that continued monitoring would remain a central element of the Commission’s regulatory approach.