• Remote Gaming Duty increased from 21% to 40% from April 2026 — the biggest rise in UK gambling tax history, heavily impacting online casinos and slots.
• New 25% Remote Betting Duty introduced for online sports betting from April 2027, while bingo duty is scrapped entirely in 2026.
• Changes expected to raise £1.1 billion per year but may reduce bonuses, tighten odds online, and push some players toward unregulated sites.

UK Budget 2025: Major Tax Shake-Up for Online Gambling

The 2025 Budget — delivered by Rachel Reeves — brought in a major overhaul of gambling duties, especially targeting remote/online gambling. The changes were published officially by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) under “Gambling duty changes.”

Key changes:

• Remote Gaming Duty (online casinos, slots, etc.) increases sharply: the duty rises from 21% → 40% from 1 April 2026.

• New remote betting duty introduced: from 1 April 2027, a new General Betting Duty rate of 25% applies to remote (online) betting.

• Bingo duty abolished: the existing bingo duty (10%) is scrapped as of 1 April 2026.

• Casino gaming duty bands frozen for 2026–27 — i.e. no further increases on top of the remote-gaming hike.

• The government estimates the new duties will raise around £1.1 billion per year by 2029–30.

In short: online casinos and remote betting are being taxed much more heavily; bingo is getting a reprieve (duty removed); the regulated land-based betting / horseracing sector is largely unaffected by the remote-betting duty increase.

According to HMRC and government statements:

• The move is intended to ensure that gambling operators “pay their fair share” and help shore up public finances in a time of fiscal pressure.

• The biggest increases target remote gaming (online casinos, slot-style games) — activities viewed by the government as carrying higher risks associated with problem gambling and lower operating costs, meaning higher profitability.

• By contrast, remote betting (e.g. sports betting) is taxed more moderately — hence the decision to set the remote betting duty at 25% from 2027, lower than the remote gaming duty.

• Abolishing bingo duty suggests the government considers bingo comparatively lower-risk or lower-harm compared with slots/online casinos.

The broad aim — as stated by the government — is to “make the tax system fairer, modern and sustainable,” while using increased revenues to support public spending.

What this means — for players, operators and the wider industry

For Players / Gamblers

• If you enjoy online casinos, slot games, or remote gaming, you may see fewer promotions or incentives. Operators face significantly higher tax burdens and may respond by reducing bonuses, increasing house edge, or lowering payouts to maintain profitability. Industry reports suggest many operators may pass on “up to 90% of the duty increases” to consumers.

• For online sports betting, the impact may be less dramatic — a new 25% remote betting duty still increases operator costs, but it’s notably lower than the 40% remote gaming duty.

• Bingo players could see a small benefit, or at least avoidance of further cost-driven reductions — the bingo duty abolition might mean operators don’t need to raise prices or cut promotions purely because of taxes.

For Operators & the Industry

• Sharp hits on profitability for online-only casino operators or heavy remote-gaming-focused businesses — many could see revenue squeezed, particularly if they are smaller and more reliant on high volumes of remote gaming.

• Potential consolidation in the industry: smaller operators may struggle; some venues or online services could shut down or pivot away from high-tax remote gaming.

• Land-based betting (shops, high-street betting terminals, horseracing bets) and bingo halls may be relatively insulated, at least compared with remote-only operators.

For the Government & Public Finances

• The changes are expected to raise ~£1.1 billion per year by 2029–30 from gambling duties.

• The additional revenue supports the government’s broader fiscal goals and public spending commitments without direct cuts to core public services — one of the themes of this Budget.

• The government frames the duty hikes as part of a broader shift toward “harm-based taxation” — i.e. taxing higher-risk gambling formats more heavily.

Risks, trade-offs & unintended consequences

• Reduced demand: Tax rises could push customers away — either out of general lower enjoyment (due to fewer bonuses/less competitive odds) or because operators withdraw less profitable products. As some industry analysts warn, that could shrink the regulated market and reduce overall gambling tax receipts.

• Black-market risk: Higher costs for regulated operators may drive some gamblers to unregulated or offshore platforms, undermining consumer protection, regulatory oversight, and possibly reducing overall tax take.

• Impact on jobs & venues: Smaller operators might struggle, risking closures and job losses — especially in remote-gaming/digital-heavy businesses.

• Uncertain social impact: While the intent is partly to curb “harmful” gambling, there’s no guarantee that heavier taxation alone reduces problem gambling — especially if it shifts activity to unregulated platforms.

What the Budget means (or doesn’t mean) for AGCs

The 2025 Budget tax changes focus heavily on remote/online gambling, but do not directly raise the tax burden for premises-based gambling venues such as AGCs. The new approach:

• Raises the Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) from 21% to 40% — but this duty applies only to online gaming.

• Leaves in-person, premises-based gambling duty schemes intact. That means the existing duty on physical machines (the Machine Games Duty, or MGD, for slot/fruit machines in venues) remains unchanged under the Budget announcement.

• Prior consultation by government considered but then reportedly dropped a plan to merge all gambling taxes into a single “remote betting and gaming duty,” which would not have covered premises-based venues such as AGCs.

In effect — AGCs are spared the biggest tax hikes aimed at online casinos and remote betting. Their tax regime remains as before (i.e. subject to MGD rather than the sharply increased RGD).

What this means for AGC’s, operators and players

• For operators of AGCs (Adult Gaming Centres): the lack of extra tax pressure may offer relative stability compared with online-only businesses. While online-focused casinos and remote-betting sites face sharp rises in costs, AGCs mostly avoid many of the profitability pressures that come with them.

• For players using AGCs: in theory, you may not see dramatic changes in pricing, payouts or gambling offers at high-street or arcade-style venues. Because the duty framework for premises-based gambling is unchanged, operators may not feel compelled to cut promotions or tighten odds as much as online casinos.

• For the wider gambling economy: this differentiation reflects a broader strategy by the government to hit “high-risk / high-volume” online gambling more heavily — while (for now) leaving traditional or land-based venues less affected. That may influence where gamblers and operators shift their focus in coming months.

This article may be updated as more news comes in.