From 29th July 2026, a new Gambling Commission licence condition concerning non-compliant gaming machines comes into force.
Licence Condition 18.1.1 gives the Commission a clearer mechanism for requiring operators to stop using gaming machines that do not comply with licensing or technical requirements.
Online gambling operators in Great Britain face an increasingly exacting regulatory landscape. Holding a Gambling Commission licence requires more than documented policies. Operators must be able to evidence that controls are effective in practice, embedded in day-to-day operations and reviewed regularly for continued suitability.
The Gambling Commission is exploring a potential pathway for licensed operators to accept cryptocurrency as a payment method representing a significant policy development.
There has never been an express statutory prohibition on the use of cryptocurrency in UK-licensed gambling. However, the practical position has long been clear. The expectations around anti-money laundering controls, source of funds verification and consumer protection have made the acceptance of cryptocurrency operationally and regulatorily challenging for most licensees.
As the Autumn Budget approaches, gaming operators are preparing for what may be one of the most challenging fiscal and regulatory moments in recent years. With the Treasury under pressure to raise revenue quickly, gambling duties appear firmly in the Government’s sights. At the same time, the sector is already deep into the implementation phase of the Gambling Act white paper reforms.
Artificial Intelligence is transforming the gaming and gambling sectors — enhancing user experience, streamlining operations, and enabling more sophisticated compliance tools. Yet with these opportunities come heightened legal and ethical responsibilities. Courts and regulators across jurisdictions are setting clearer and more demanding standards around consent, fairness, transparency, and player protection.
The gambling industry has long relied on white-label arrangements and for many businesses, they can offer a quick and relatively cost-efficient way to enter the market under an established licence.
But what happens when something goes wrong? Whether it’s anti-money laundering failures, misleading advertising, or customer complaints — who is liable: the white-label partner, or the licence holder?
Liquidated damages clauses are standard features of construction contracts. They fix, in advance, the sum payable for late completion, sparing the innocent party the burden of proving its actual loss and giving the contractor certainty as to its exposure. When projects overrun and deductions follow, paying parties sometimes seek to argue that the clause is a penalty and therefore unenforceable. The argument is raised often. It succeeds rarely. Understanding why helps both in drafting clauses that stand up and in giving realistic advice on whether a challenge is worth pursuing.
Construction projects begin with a clear vision. Disputes arise when expectations, paperwork, and the realities on site fall out of step. Most problems cluster around three themes: who pays what and when, whether the works finish on time, and whether the finished site meets the agreed standard. Getting the basics right early prevents small issues turning into costly disputes.
The Government’s consultation marks the most ambitious attempt in decades to reform payment in construction. These developments herald substantial change in contract drafting, advisory practice, and dispute resolution. The reforms may carry costs and risks, but they represent a determined attempt to resolve problems that have dogged construction for generations.
Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) incentivises parties to make sensible offers to settle their disputes by attaching cost consequences to a party’s failure to beat an opponent’s Part 36 offer at trial.
There is a growing issue of adjudicator fees in construction disputes, highlighting concerns around proportionality and fairness. Court of Appeal decisions — Systech v PC Harrington and Steve Ward Services v Davies — take contrasting approaches to whether adjudicators are entitled to fees in different circumstances. Julian Critchlow offers practical insights for legal professionals, contractors, and referring parties navigating adjudication processes.
Section 1(1) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (DPA) provides that a person who takes on work in providing a dwelling must ensure it is done “in a workmanlike or professional manner” and that the result is “fit for habitation.” The DPA can extend liability for defective workmanship beyond the typical six or twelve-year limitation periods - sometimes up to 30 years. As a result, contractors (and other construction professionals) (“Relevant Persons” for the purposes of this article) may face claims long after they would ordinarily be time-barred.
The Ultimate Bitesize Legal Updates You Need In Construction
