Recent comments by Gibraltar gambling commissioner Andrew Lyman have drawn attention to the direction of gambling regulation in the UK. He warned that an overly restrictive approach could do more harm than good, arguing that prioritizing public health to the exclusion of everything else risked undermining the regulated market and harming the consumers it is meant to protect.
Regulations Must Balance Growth with Consumer Safety
In a recent LinkedIn post, Lyman noted that gambling policy needs to find a practical equilibrium. He stated that regulations should ensure operators meet clear standards on player protection, while still leaving room for personal responsibility. According to him, viewing all gambling as a public health threat requiring sweeping intervention oversimplifies the situation.
Gambling regulation should draw a balance between the obligations of betting operators to protect consumers and the responsibility of individuals to manage their own risk.
Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar gambling commissioner
Lyman focused on recent developments in the United Kingdom, where stricter controls and growing friction in online betting have already started to change how players engage with operators. He reported that some bettors have stopped using regulated digital platforms in favor of in-person venues or, more concerningly, unlicensed operators where safeguards are weaker or nonexistent.
Lyman’s comments drew attention to a paradox: efforts to create safe gambling policies may instead push users toward less visible and less controllable spaces. This debate is especially relevant for Gibraltar, whose economy depends on the gambling industry. Many companies based there operate in the UK market under a dual regulatory framework, so changes in British policies have immediate consequences.
An Overly Zealous Approach Could Do More Harm than Good
The UK’s gambling tax hikes were another pain point for Lyman. While he acknowledged the government’s right to tax the sector, he warned that the industry cannot absorb infinitely high levies. Increased taxes beyond a certain level could lead to cost-cutting, reduced investment, and potential job losses. The reduced competitiveness of regulated operators could also cause consumers to turn to unlicensed offerings.
Lyman argued that these dangers represent fundamental economic principles. According to him, businesses that experience escalating expenses will cut costs wherever possible. Over time, such shifts could damage the regulated market. Harsh regulations and excessive taxation could even force companies to leave the market. Once customers and operators migrate elsewhere, rebuilding that ecosystem becomes far more challenging.
Gambling does not cause universal harm, and harm is better reduced through targeted and tough regulation, not a punitive tax policy that may be self-defeating.
Andrew Lyman, Gibraltar gambling commissioner
In Lyman’s view, gambling-related harm is another contentious topic. While he acknowledged that problem gambling represents a critical problem that needs specific solutions, he was against a blanket approach that treats all consumers as equally at risk. Lyman instead argued that the most effective policies focus on high-risk behavior, rather than imposing universal restrictions that may disrupt the entire sector.
