Regulated, but not trusted: the gambling industry’s social licence problem

Gambling operators can point to licences, compliance teams, and a pile of technical rules. That still does not guarantee public acceptance, and for PSPs and acquiring partners that gap between “regulated” and “trusted” is where reputational risk starts to matter.

1. In August, UK prime minister Andy Burnham posted on social media and grouped “betting shops” with “vape shops” when talking about “dodgy businesses”. Simon Westbury, who is strategic advisor to 1xBet, called it an example of the industry losing its social licence and its ability to operate in an environment.
2. Westbury’s point is not that regulation is irrelevant. It is that saying “we’re regulated” does not, by itself, change how the public sees the sector or move the argument forward. On paper that sounds neat; in practice, perception keeps doing its own thing.
3. He said the reaction to Burnham’s post showed the problem clearly: some in the industry replied that “vape shops are not” regulated, while gambling is. Westbury’s view is that this argument does not solve the optics issue, and optics is exactly what social licence is about.
4. Westbury also noted that 1xBet is unlicensed in the UK, but has over 35 local licences, with some major additions in the pipeline. The broader point, he said, is that everyone understands regulation is needed, but it may not be seen as beneficial if the offshore market is growing.
5. For payment providers, this is the practical takeaway: a merchant can be licensed in multiple jurisdictions and still sit in a category that politicians, media, and customers do not trust. That matters when you are deciding whether to onboard, keep, or de-risk a gambling account.