On 1st April 2026, the economics of the online casino industry in Britain took a dramatic turn. The Remote Gaming Duty was increased from 21% to 40% of the operator’s gross gaming revenues from UK customers. While the rate itself hasn’t doubled, it has risen by over 90 percent, putting immediate pressure on an already highly regulated industry.
If a customer plays in this casino or at any other UK licensed casino site, they will not notice the duty on the deposit or withdrawal. It is a legal obligation for operators to pay. But the price will most likely ripple through the market in terms of bonuses, loyalty programs, game providers, advertising spend and the volume of brands targeting UK players.
Remote Gaming Duty is based on gross gaming revenues, which is generally defined as receipts from gaming activities less winnings paid to players. But if an operator makes £100 of qualifying gaming revenue, it is now required to pay £40 in duty instead of £21.
That means £60 before you pay out for game-provider fees, payment processing, staffing, marketing, technology and customer service and compliance. At the old rate, £79 was left over after those costs.
Some operators may absorb part of the increase since they already have a customer base and are more efficient in their technology. Smaller brands are at a disadvantage. They tend to have higher acquisition prices, are less likely to be able to negotiate with suppliers, and have fewer markets in which to amortize compliance-related expenditures.
For instance, the outcome may be more consolidation, as smaller casinos exit Britain, join rivals or work via larger platform organizations.
Though the government is not charging players directly, the customer could still feel the impact.
Online casinos have the option to counter this by cutting back on promotional costs. Welcome packages might be reduced, cashback offers may decrease and loyalty schemes may have less value. Operators might also be more picky about who they promote because every pound of gaming revenue that is kept now has a higher tax rate.
Withdrawal charges and/or deposit fees are unlikely to be the primary reaction, as this would be obvious as a reduction in competitiveness of the licensed platforms. The changes will be more likely to be seen in less visible places, such as lower bonus budgets, fewer promotional campaigns, and lower customer retention investments.
The wagering requirements on top of bonuses are already capped in the UK at 10 times the bonus value. This will make promotions more transparent for players, while at the same time giving operators less flexibility. The market may shift to smaller, simpler offers in conjunction with the increased tax rate.
It isn’t just casino operators that are impacted. A percentage of game revenue is often given to game developers. Studios and aggregators may be forced to accept lower commercial terms if operators are subject to a 40% duty rate.
Popular games with large suppliers may be unwilling to comply with those demands. Smaller studios might need to cut back on revenue shares in order to stay in view on UK casino platforms.
Affiliates may be subject to such pressure. Casinos can reduce their referral fees for new players or switch to a revenue-sharing model that isn’t as lucrative once taxes are figured in. Marketing budgets might shift more towards channels where acquisition costs can be controlled and monitored more effectively.
This could mean that the tax is not only for the operators, but it can be distributed throughout the iGaming supply chain.
The policy is based on the assumption that online casino activity will continue to be strong enough to provide more revenues from the increased rate. That is no sure thing.
Some customers may bet less if licensed platforms cut down too quickly on the value. Some may be looking for casinos with higher rewards or fewer restrictions that are operated offshore. Unlicensed operators are not paying UK Remote Gaming Duty and they may not have to pay the compliance costs that are imposed on regulated operators.
That poses a channelization risk. Increased tax rates may yield more revenue for the government from every pound wagered at licensed casinos, but can also lead to a lower percentage of gambling activity within the regulated system.
Strict action against illegal operators will thus become even more crucial.
The tax hike will be expected to boost the largest casino groups’ positions. Major operators can automate compliance, negotiate better supplier contracts and enjoy one technology platform across multiple brands.
Smaller companies aren’t able to get the same efficiencies. Britain could ultimately have fewer operators and greater market share among existing operators.
Although Remote Gaming Duty will be paid by the operators, the economic consequences will be split. Players can see reduced promotion value, suppliers can see lowered fees and affiliates can see their commissions reduced. Investors may also see a margin cut.
The government will collect the tax, but who bears the burden will be up to the broader UK iGaming market.
Lee Anderson, speaking to The Sun’s Tom Scotson, reveals the wokest thing he’s ever done: “I once had a vegetarian thought, about becoming a vegetarian. That was quickly dismissed when I had a bacon sandwich…”