Regulatory enforcement in the gambling industry has intensified dramatically, with the UK Gambling Commission alone issuing over £60 million in penalties during 2025. Understanding your organization's compliance risk exposure across multiple regulatory domains is essential for proactive risk management.
1 Operator Profile
2 AML/KYC Compliance
Anti-money laundering compliance is a top enforcement priority. The FATF Recommendations provide the international standard framework.
3 Responsible Gambling
Player protection measures are increasingly scrutinized. See GambleAware for harm prevention research and resources.
4 Advertising Compliance
Marketing restrictions are tightening globally. The ASA CAP Code provides guidance for UK operators.
5 Technical Standards
Game fairness and platform integrity requirements. See Gaming Laboratories International for testing standards.
6 Governance & Reporting
7 Compliance History
Past enforcement actions significantly impact current risk profile.
Compliance Risk Assessment Results
Based on your responses across 6 compliance domains
Risk Score by Domain
Priority Recommendations
Customize Domain Weights
Adjust the relative importance of each compliance domain. Default weights reflect typical regulatory enforcement priorities.
Scoring Methodology
This compliance risk score calculator uses a weighted multi-domain assessment framework aligned with regulatory enforcement priorities. The methodology draws on publicly available enforcement data and guidance from major regulators including the UK Gambling Commission regulatory framework and Malta Gaming Authority requirements.
Domain Weights
Default weights reflect current regulatory enforcement priorities based on published fine data and regulatory statements:
| Domain | Default Weight | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| AML/KYC Compliance | 25% | Highest enforcement priority; largest fines typically relate to AML failures |
| Responsible Gambling | 25% | Growing enforcement focus; social responsibility failures increasingly penalized |
| Advertising Compliance | 15% | High-profile enforcement area; reputational impact beyond fines |
| Technical Standards | 15% | Foundation for fair gaming; certification failures lead to license review |
| Governance & Reporting | 10% | Regulatory relationship management; aggravating factor in other failures |
| Compliance History | 10% | Past issues indicate systemic problems; significant penalty multiplier |
Risk Score Interpretation
| Score Range | Risk Level | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 0-25 | Low Risk | Strong compliance posture; maintain monitoring and continuous improvement |
| 26-50 | Moderate Risk | Some gaps identified; targeted remediation recommended |
| 51-75 | High Risk | Significant compliance gaps; immediate attention required |
| 76-100 | Critical Risk | Serious deficiencies; urgent remediation and potential regulatory engagement needed |
Jurisdiction Adjustments
Risk scores are adjusted based on jurisdiction-specific regulatory intensity. Tier 1 regulators (UK, Sweden, Netherlands) apply stricter oversight and higher fine thresholds, while offshore jurisdictions may have less intensive supervision but carry reputational risks.
Limitations
This tool provides an indicative assessment based on self-reported compliance status. Actual regulatory risk depends on implementation quality, documentation, and factors not captured in this assessment. For comprehensive risk evaluation, operators should conduct formal compliance audits with qualified professionals. See our Compliance Audit Checklist Generator for detailed requirements by jurisdiction.