Cookies on the Gambling Commission website

The Gambling Commission website uses cookies to make the site work better for you. Some of these cookies are essential to how the site functions and others are optional. Optional cookies help us remember your settings, measure your use of the site and personalise how we communicate with you. Any data collected is anonymised and we do not set optional cookies unless you consent.

Set cookie preferences

You've accepted all cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Skip to main content
Back to full FOI list

Evolution Malta Holding Limited's operating licence under Section 116

Request date
27 January 2026

Outcome
Partial exemption

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Request

My request concerns the review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited's operating licence under Section 116.

I would like to request the following recorded information:

Current Status: A confirmation of whether the Section 116 review is currently ongoing or has been concluded as of the date of this request.

Timelines: Any recorded documentation or internal memos specifying the expected completion date, or any revised project timelines for this specific review.

Scope of Review: Any documents or terms of reference that outline the specific areas of compliance being investigated (e.g., technical controls for geo-blocking, B2B supplier due diligence, or unlicensed operator access).

Connection with any other regulators: if any other gaming regulators (including but not limited to the Nevada Gaming Board/Commission, the Agence Nationale des Jeux in France) have been contacted in regard to this investigation.

Outcome Documents: If the review has concluded, I request a copy of the final report, the decision notice, or a summary of any regulatory actions taken (e.g., warnings, financial penalties, or additional licence conditions).

Response

Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In your email you have requested information relating to the review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited's operating licence under Section 116.

Specifically:

  1. Current Status: A confirmation of whether the Section 116 review is currently ongoing or has been concluded as of the date of this request.

  2. Timelines: Any recorded documentation or internal memos specifying the expected completion date, or any revised project timelines for this specific review.

  3. Scope of Review: Any documents or terms of reference that outline the specific areas of compliance being investigated (e.g., technical controls for geo-blocking, B2B supplier due diligence, or unlicensed operator access).

  4. Connection with any other regulators: if any other gaming regulators (including but not limited to the Nevada Gaming Board/Commission, the Agence Nationale des Jeux in France) have been contacted in regard to this investigation.

  5. Outcome Documents: If the review has concluded, I request a copy of the final report, the decision notice, or a summary of any regulatory actions taken (e.g., warnings, financial penalties, or additional licence conditions).

The Gambling Commission can confirm as follows:

Question One:

The Commission can confirm that the Section 116 review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited's operating licence is currently ongoing.

Question Two:

The Commission can confirm that no information is held relating to any recorded documentation or internal memos specifying the expected completion date, or any revised project timelines for this specific review.

Question Three:

I can confirm that further information falling within the scope of question three of your request is held. However, the Commission is of the view that information in relation to specific operators, other than what is made publicly available, is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)g of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released.

The Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions; through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.

Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.

Information collated as part of this process is used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to hold a licence.

Regulatory action may only be imposed where the Commission thinks that a condition of a licence has been breached. Section 116 of the Gambling Act (opens in new tab) gives the Commission the power to review the performance of licence holders and their compliance with the LCCP.

Law Enforcement – Section 31

Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).

The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:

i. Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise,

ii. Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on.

It is our view that the regulatory functions of the Commission, would be prejudiced by disclosure of this information as it would:

i. prejudice the Commission’s ability to fulfil its statutory functions by revealing how the Commission assesses operators’ and individuals for regulatory purposes, and

ii. prejudice the Commission’s licensing, compliance and enforcement functions as well as its ability to raise overall standards in the gambling industry as it would undermine the trust the Commission has gained with operators in terms of disclosing information where it is necessary and proportionate.

The Commission therefore concludes that the disclosure of this information would prejudice the regulatory functions of the Commission.

Arguments in favour of disclosure:

  • The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
  • It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals or organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
  • Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing licensees and, furthermore, this disclosure may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption:

  • The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when assessing existing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator continuing to provide gambling services where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s compliance assessment processes.
  • There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly when discussing areas of a licensee’s compliance with the LCCP. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
  • Disclosing this level of detail is likely to reveal the techniques the Commission uses in general when conducting investigations. This could severely hamper the effectiveness of the Commission’s investigatory processes in future cases.
  • It could seriously impact the Commission’s investigation process, if information relating to what information it uses to inform the licence review process became known; this is strongly not in the public interest as it would impair the Commission’s ability to regulate effectively.
  • Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
  • Further, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.

Weighing the balance

The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.

It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.

However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess operators’ compliance with the LCCP and identify any operators who will be unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.

We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.

Question Four:

In relation to question four of your request, the Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any investigations unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.

Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of question four of your request, section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Arguments in favour of disclosure

  • The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
  • It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that it is fulfilling its statutory obligations as set out in section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005. The statutory duties laid out in section 1 are:

a. preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,

b. ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and

c. protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

  • Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission conducts its investigatory activities.
  • Furthermore, fulfilling this request may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption 

  • The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when exercising our investigatory powers. These procedures and processes have been put in place to increase the integrity of investigations, demonstrating to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s ability to uphold its statutory obligations.
  • There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the course of an ongoing investigation. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
  • Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals, events or lines of enquiry identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t engaging in specific conversations; providing an opportunity for individuals to alter their behaviours or evade detection. This would result in making it more difficult for the Commission to achieve its aims.  
  • Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commissions work and individuals from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations. 
  • Finally, if a formal decision is made the Commission will ordinarily publish all such information in full. Fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work of the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest. 

Weighing the balance 

Given the points considered, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest. As such, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption, therefore, we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to question four of your request.

Question Five:

The Gambling Commission can confirm that no information is held in relation to outcome documents for this specific review as the review is still ongoing.

Review of the decision

If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email. 

Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.

If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission. 

It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.

The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Information Management Team
Gambling Commission

Internal Review Request

I am writing to request an internal review of the Gambling Commission's decision to deny the information requested in Question Three of my Freedom of Information request, dated 02 February 2026 .

The Commission confirmed that information regarding the scope of the Section 116 review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited is held . However, disclosure was refused under Section 31(1)(g), citing potential prejudice to regulatory functions and the need to preserve "techniques" and "trust".

I contest this decision on the following grounds:

Overbroad Application of Section 31

The Commission argues that disclosure would reveal "techniques the Commission uses in general" . However, my request seeks the parameters of a specific review, not the internal manual of investigative methodology. Confirming which high-level compliance areas (e.g., technical controls or due diligence) are under scrutiny does not "reveal" secret techniques; it merely identifies which established regulatory standards are being applied .

Failure to Consider Partial Disclosure or Rephrased Scope

The Commission stated it would not release information "other than what is made publicly available". To facilitate a more transparent outcome, I invite the Commission to provide a high-level summary of the "Terms of Reference" by addressing the following rephrased categories:

Categorical Focus: Confirming if the review pertains to Technical/Social Responsibility (e.g., geo-blocking) or Corporate Governance/B2B Due Diligence. Regulatory Alignment: Confirming which of the three statutory licensing objectives preventing crime, ensuring fairness, or protecting the vulnerable are the primary focus of this specific Section 116 review. Statutory Notices: Providing the generic "Notice of Review" sent to the operator, which outlines the statutory grounds for the review under the Gambling Act without disclosing sensitive investigative methods.

Public Interest Balance

The Commission acknowledges that the public must be "assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions" and that disclosure could" increase confidence" in the regulator. Given that Evolution Malta Holding Limited is a significant market participant, the public interest in knowing the subject matter of the review outweighs the perceived risk to "trust" with the operator . As a statutory regulator, the Commission's ability to function relies on legal mandates rather than the voluntary "trust" of those it regulates.

Conclusion I request that the Commission reconsider the balance of public interest and provide at least a partial disclosure or summary of the scope as outlined above. I look forward to your response within 20 working days.

Internal Review Response

I am writing to you further to your Freedom of Information request dated 27/01/2026 which we responded to on 02/02/2026, and your subsequent request for an internal review received on 02/02/2026.

We have now concluded our review and our findings are detailed below.
This internal review was conducted by someone who was not involved in the processing of your original request.

In your initial email you requested the following information: My request concerns the review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited's operating licence under Section 116.

I would like to request the following recorded information:

  1. Current Status: A confirmation of whether the Section 116 review is currently ongoing or has been concluded as of the date of this request.
  2. Timelines: Any recorded documentation or internal memos specifying the expected completion date, or any revised project timelines for this specific review.
  3. Scope of Review: Any documents or terms of reference that outline the specific areas of compliance being investigated (e.g., technical controls for geo-blocking, B2B supplier due diligence, or unlicensed operator access).
  4. Connection with any other regulators: if any other gaming regulators (including but not limited to the Nevada Gaming Board/Commission, the Agence Nationale des Jeux in France) have been contacted in regard to this investigation.
  5. Outcome Documents: If their view has concluded, I request a copy of the final report, the decision notice, or a summary of any regulatory actions taken (e.g., warnings, financial penalties, or additional licence conditions).

In our initial response we advised that the Section 116 review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited's operating licence is currently ongoing and that no information was held relating to the expected completion date.

We were able to confirm that further information falling within the scope of question three of your request was held. However, the Commission was of the view that information in relation to specific operators, other than what is made publicly available, is exempt from disclosure under section 31(1)g of the FOIA (‘law enforcement’) and therefore will not be released. Further to this, in relation to question four of your request, we advised that we do not provide comment on any investigations unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information regarding connection with any other regulators. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption was engaged.

Finally, we confirmed that no information was held in relation to outcome documents for this specific review as it is still ongoing.

In your request for an internal review of our initial response, you have specifically raised concerns regarding the application of section 31(1)(g) to part three of your request (scope of Review: Any documents or terms of reference that outline the specific areas of compliance being investigated (e.g., technical controls for geo-blocking, B2B supplier due diligence, or unlicensed operator access). As such, we have only addressed these concerns in this response.

After reviewing your request and our response, I uphold our original decision to engage the section 31(1)g exemption. My considerations for this decision and response to your specific issues raised are as follows:

Overbroad Application of Section 31

The Commission argues that disclosure would reveal "techniques the Commission uses in general". However, my request seeks the parameters of a specific review, not the internal manual of investigative methodology. Confirming which high-level compliance areas (e.g., technical controls or due diligence) are under scrutiny does not "reveal" secret techniques; it merely identifies which established regulatory standards are being applied.

In our response we advised that the Commission is a regulatory body with licensing, compliance, and enforcement functions and through our regulatory activity, the Commission aims to protect consumers and the wider public, and to raise standards in the gambling industry.

The Commission takes steps to publish information, ensuring the transparency and accountability of our regulatory work.

We release details of our enforcement activity through public statements, which can be found on our website here:

All public statements

Regarding this specific case, information about the commencement of the review of Evolution Malta Holding Limited’s operating licence under Section 116 of the Gambling Act 2005 was made publicly available by Evolution AB in December 2024:

Review by UK Gambling Commission (opens in new tab)

When we publish public statements, we take care to present as much information as possible to ensure that lessons can be learned, and standards raised in the industry. However, we must also be careful not to reveal any information that could hinder our ability to conduct investigations or enable those we may investigate to avoid detection.

As a public body, which is required to regulate the gambling industry, we acknowledge that there is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of the Commission. There is a public interest in members of the public having confidence in the Commission being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account. Further to this, it is important that there is sufficient information in the public domain, so consumers have an understanding of the Commission’s regulation of the market which can enable them to make informed decisions regarding their choice of operator. This is achieved through the publication of statements detailing enforcement activity (as outlined above).

However, there is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding individual operators. It is the impact on this, which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.

It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions, in ensuring that any individuals or organisations providing gambling facilities have undergone the necessary assessments and are upholding the licencing objectives, ensuring that consumers are protected. Nevertheless, the Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when reviewing licensees. Disclosing the parameters of our investigations whilst they are still ongoing would impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.

Failure to Consider Partial Disclosure or Rephrased Scope

The Commission stated it would not release information "other than what is made publicly available". To facilitate a more transparent outcome, I invite the Commission to provide a high-level summary of the "Terms of Reference" by addressing the following rephrased categories:

  • Categorical Focus: Confirming if the review pertains to Technical/Social Responsibility (e.g., geo-blocking) or Corporate Governance/B2B Due Diligence .
  • Regulatory Alignment: Confirming which of the three statutory licensing objectives preventing crime, ensuring fairness, or protecting the vulnerable are the primary focus of this specific Section 116 review.
  • Statutory Notices: Providing the generic "Notice of Review" sent to the operator, which outlines the statutory grounds for the review under the Gambling Act without disclosing sensitive investigative methods.

It should be noted that the FOIA gives individuals the right to request only recorded information held by public authorities, such as the Gambling Commission. It does not provide an avenue for individuals to gain views or opinions of public authorities or information not held at the time the request is made. It also does not require us to create information. The FOIA stipulates that public authorities are not required to create new information in order to comply with a request for information under the Act. They only need to consider information already in existence at the time a request is received.

The specific nature of the information you have requested (a high-level summary of the "Terms of Reference") would require the Commission to create a document to fulfil your request, as this is not already in existence. Therefore, the Gambling Commission does not currently hold any recorded information falling within the scope of your request.

Public Interest Balance

The Commission acknowledges that the public must be "assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions" and that disclosure could" increase confidence" in the regulator. Given that Evolution Malta Holding Limited is a significant market participant, the public interest in knowing the subject matter of the review outweighs the perceived risk to "trust" with the operator. As a statutory regulator, the Commission's ability to function relies on legal mandates rather than the voluntary "trust" of those it regulates.

Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.

Section 31(1)(g) exempts information whose disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).

The Commission considers the subsections below apply and therefore the information is exempt from disclosure:

Subsection 31(2)(c) refers to the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise, Subsection 31(2)(d) refers to the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on,

It is my view that the regulatory functions of the Commission, would be prejudiced by disclosure of this information as it would:

i. prejudice the Commission’s ability to fulfil its statutory functions by revealing how the Commission assesses operators’ and individuals as well as applications for regulatory purposes, and

ii. prejudice the Commission’s compliance and enforcement activity and raise overall standards in the gambling industry as it would undermine the trust the Commission has gained with operators in terms of disclosing information where it is necessary and proportionate and to cooperate in an open manner.

i) Undermining statutory functions

Once licensed, gambling operators are subject to ongoing compliance requirements and are subject to regulatory action should they fail to meet their licence requirements.

The information that has been requested was generated as part of our regulatory work which was used to inform the licence review. Reviewing the manner in which licensees carry out their licensed activities authorised by their licence, and, in particular, how they comply with the conditions attached to their operating licence form part of our assessment of that operator for regulatory purposes.

The Commission considers that disclosure of the requested information would provide licensees with information that could be used to undermine and circumvent the assessment process and reduce the possibility of any non-compliance being detected by the Commission. Licensees would have knowledge of the particular areas of the assessment that the Commission directs its resources towards, the particular form and type of evidence required and conversely what evidence does not appear to be relevant to the Commission’s assessment.

The Commission’s concern is that this would result in licensees using the disclosed information to present information in a manner which would avoid further scrutiny or be targeted at the particular factors which those assessing compliance are considering for evidence of compliance with the published framework.

By releasing the records into the public domain, the Commission will be in a position where it will not be able to rely on the current process to assess compliance and would need to introduce further assessment processes which have not been disclosed to ensure that the assessment process remains robust and fit for purpose in order for the Commission to perform its statutory functions.

(ii) Raising overall standards in the gambling industry

The Commission also takes the view that disclosure is likely to reduce the overall standards in the gambling industry because releasing this information would undermine our relationship with licensees as the information that they provide to us as part of the review process is done so on the understanding that this will not be released into the public domain. If this information was disclosed, it would damage the relationship that we have formed with licensees which would result in them being less likely to share information with us in the future which would undermine our regulatory functions and, as a consequence, have a detrimental impact on the wider public.

Establishing trust with licensees is key to having open and frank exchanges and this, in turn, will make licensees more inclined to provide commercially sensitive information on the basis it is trusted to be kept with appropriate safeguards. Disclosing the requested information without sufficient rationale would undermine this trust and make licensees less likely to cooperate fully in the future.

The Commission considers that if it were to be in a situation in the future where it must use its formal powers to compel the provision of information then this information, provided under compulsion, would be of a different and arguably less satisfactory quality than if information was voluntarily supplied.

Any information that we can publicly disclose in relation to particular regulatory activities is made available on our website at the appropriate time so as not to disclose any information that could impact on our ability to make enquiries and conduct investigations. Whilst the Commission has formal powers to compel the provision of information from licence holders in certain circumstances, the Commission relies heavily on the provision of information on a voluntary basis across several of the Commission’s functions (including licensing, compliance and enforcement and other aspects of its regulatory remit which include the provision of information by licensees). The voluntary supply of information enables the Commission to obtain information

(i) without the cost and delays occasioned by reliance on formal enforcement powers,

(ii) in circumstances where no formal powers exist or are limited in scope and

(iii) which is pro-actively shared by operators on an open and transparent basis.

After consideration of the above arguments, I consider that the public interest is better served by withholding this information, ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than the disclosure of information.

If you are not content with the outcome of your review, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.

Is this page useful?
Back to top