On 3 July 2025, the Gambling Commission of Great Britain (the “Commission”) fined Taichi Tech Limited (trading as Fafabet) £170,000 alongside a requirement for a third-party audit to ensure it is effectively implementing its anti-money laundering and safer gambling policies, procedures and controls. The investigation and findings underscores key lessons for gambling operators, notably that their Terms and Conditions can be the subject of Commission scrutiny, in much the same way as AML or safer-gambling processes can.
Background
The Commission’s investigation found that Fafabet had inserted the following discretionary clause in its bonus terms for new casino promotions:
“Fafabet have the right at their own discretion to close accounts or forfeit winnings.”
This clause was deemed to breach the fair and open licensing condition because it empowered Fafabet to act arbitrarily and without clear justification. The Commission’s position was that clauses of this nature lack transparency and leads to unfair outcomes for players.
Whilst the Commission also flagged anti-money laundering and social responsibility shortcomings, it is their position on discretionary terms which provides fresh food for thought. John Pierce, Director of Enforcement and Intelligence at the Commission, summed it up as follows: “Licensed operators must ensure their terms are clear, fair, and transparent, so customers fully understand what to expect.”
Whilst the sentiment of the Commission’s position is beyond question, it arguably underplays the operational challenges operators face in tackling bonus abuse by players who deliberately test the boundaries of promotions. The Commission’s expectation appears to be that Terms and Conditions should provide an exhaustive list of prohibited behaviour by customers and that such terms should be constructed with a genuine intent to combat player practices that would objectively be considered to be against the spirit of the promotion. However, these findings mean that operators can no longer rely on “sweeper” provisions to mop up any player behaviours that are not explicitly referred to in the Terms and Conditions.
Key Takeaways for Operators: Avoid These Pitfalls
- Discretion & Fairness
A fallback, catch-all clause like “we may close accounts or forfeit winnings at our discretion” might seem handy. Spoiler alert: the Commission disagrees. It’s vague, leaves customers in the dark, and opens a can of compliance worms. Instead: be specific. Include clear, objective conditions under which suspension, account closure or forfeiture may occur.
- Terms & Conditions Mean More
Gone are the days where operators and consumers considered Terms and Conditions to be just fine-print, dreamt up by boring lawyers. Now, they are a fundamental part of an operator’s licence. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which the LCCP explicitly references, every term must be fair, transparent, and consumer-friendly. If an operator’s Terms and Conditions are so broad that they can be contorted or lead to unfair outcomes, then the Operator is at risk of regulatory action.
- Don’t Ignore AML and Safer Gambling Triggers
Terms aside, if an operator is letting high-rollers blitz through its site unchecked, or if a player seems to be in trouble and your only interaction is an unacknowledged email, then you’re skating on thin ice. Operators must have active monitoring, meaningful customer interactions, and escalation pathways—not just email blasts. If safe-gambling advice goes unheeded, follow up.
- Third-Party Audits Are Not Just for Offenders
As in Fafabet’s case, the Commission mandated an audit following the breaches. However, audits are also a great proactive tool: they can uncover weak spots, demonstrate good faith, and be presented to regulators as part of a robust compliance culture, even before something goes wrong.
Next steps?
Drafting Terms and Conditions should not be left solely to legal teams operating in isolation. A compliant, effective set of terms requires collaboration across compliance, legal, and operational functions. Historically, many operators sought to rely on bullet-proof catch-all clauses to preserve flexibility. That approach is no longer tenable. Operators should now focus on:
- removing ambiguous or overly operator-friendly terms, and
- ensuring that protections against known player behaviours are explicit, targeted, and fair.
While one may debate whether the Commission fully recognises the day-to-day challenges faced by operators, the decision is a timely reminder of the need for operators to adopt a thorough 360-degree review of their Terms and Conditions with two key objectives: firstly, to ensure that they are fully and explicitly protected against known player behaviours that need to be neutralised and, secondly, to ensure that customers are not exposed to unclear catch-all terms which may be perceived to be open to abuse and interpretation.
In short: write terms that your customers can understand, your compliance team can enforce, and your regulator won’t challenge.