The increase in Remote Gaming Duty (RGD) to 40% represents one of the most significant economic shifts the UK gambling industry has faced in recent years.
Following the publication of an earlier article by Chris Conroy, Chief Data & Product Officer at Future Anthem, exploring the implications of this change, Future Anthem hosted a live Ask Me Anything (AMA) session, led by Chris.
The session brought together operators, suppliers and industry leaders to move the conversation forward - not just on what has changed, but on what operators can do next.
This article summarises the key themes and practical considerations raised during that discussion as operators prepare for the new RGD rate coming into effect in April.
Why the Application of RGD Still Matters
Much of the AMA focused on a point that was emphasised throughout the discussion: the application of RGD matters as much as the headline rate.
Remote Gaming Duty continues to be charged on Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR), not Gross Gaming Yield (GGY or NGR). As Chris highlighted during the AMA, that distinction creates a structural challenge. Operators are taxed on revenue that is ultimately returned to players through bonuses and free spins.
At a typical 20% bonus rate, a 40% headline tax becomes an effective rate closer to 50%. The consequences are significant:
- Bonuses become disproportionately expensive
- Efficient reward strategies are penalised
- Player experience becomes harder to sustain without margin erosion
In the short term, the clearest and most realistic lobbying objective remains unchanged: applying RGD to GGY rather than GGR. As discussed during the AMA, this would not remove the impact, but it would at least align tax with retained revenue.
Will the Market Consolidate Further?
A recurring question during the AMA was whether this change will accelerate consolidation, with larger operators gaining share while smaller ones struggle to compete.
Chris noted that it remains too early to draw firm conclusions.
The UK market is already highly consolidated, and Chris referenced analysis suggesting that the greater risk may not be redistribution within the regulated market, but increased leakage beyond it. As margins compress and incentives weaken, unregulated alternatives become more attractive to players.
What appeared to be universal, however, was pressure on efficiency. Every operator, regardless of size, is now forced to confront the same question:
For every pound spent on rewards, how much revenue is actually returned?
That question is likely to play an increasingly important role in defining competitive advantage.
Bonus Efficiency Becomes the Primary Lever
The AMA highlighted that most operators already target bonuses reasonably well. Leakage rarely comes from poor retention targeting; it comes from acquisition mechanics and broad, attraction-led promotions where value is promised upfront.
Under the new tax structure, that approach becomes far harder to justify.
The direction of travel is clear:
- Fewer blanket offers
- Less guaranteed value
- More conditional, contextual rewards
Every bonus increasingly needs to be justified against the expected value of that specific player, in that specific moment.
This is where real-time decisioning becomes critical. Decisions made at the point of interaction allow operators to suppress unnecessary rewards, adjust value dynamically, and move from attraction-led incentives to behaviour-led ones.
As Chris discussed during the AMA, this shift may also require changes in how promotions are framed, including greater use of “mystery” rewards, where value is not fixed in advance.
In practice, this means promotions that feel more personal, even if overall bonus spend is lower.
Rethinking RTP at a Player Level
Return to Player (RTP) was another major focus of the discussion.
The industry has already seen years of gradual RTP compression. Blanket reductions carry real risk, particularly for frequent and knowledgeable players who will notice changes quickly.
A more sophisticated approach is emerging: managing RTP exposure at a player level rather than a game level.
Examples discussed during the AMA included:
- Prioritising higher-RTP games for loyal, high-frequency players
- Steering lower-engagement or less price-sensitive players towards lower-RTP content
- Using recommendation systems to manage this in a controlled, transparent way
This mirrors long-standing practices in land-based environments, where table conditions vary by time and demand. Digital platforms now have the tools to do this with far greater precision.
The Under-Discussed Lever: Operational Efficiency
One of the least discussed, but most impactful, consequences of higher RGD is the importance of operational efficiency.
At today’s tax levels, an average UK online slot spin can return only a few pence of revenue after duty, before platform, content, marketing and compliance costs are considered. That revenue is generated through billions of micro-transactions, each carrying real infrastructure overhead.
As Chris noted during the session, data and cloud costs now matter more than ever.
Reducing latency, duplication and processing overhead can materially change unit economics. The discussion highlighted that data infrastructure is one of the few remaining areas where meaningful cost mitigation may still be possible at scale.
What This Means for Operators Now
The AMA made one thing clear: there is no single silver bullet.
Mitigation will come from a combination of:
- More efficient, personalised bonus allocation
- Smarter, player-level RTP strategies
- Meaningful reductions in data and infrastructure costs
What makes the current environment particularly challenging is that the tax structure actively discourages many of the mechanics that create strong player experiences.
The discussion suggested that operators will need to rethink not just how value is delivered, but when decisions are made, shifting from upfront promises to moment-based decisioning wherever possible.
Operators that invest now in real-time personalisation and efficiency will be better positioned to absorb the pressure without undermining long-term player value.
Conclusion
The move to a 40% Remote Gaming Duty applied to GGR has fundamentally reshaped the economics of the UK market.
It demands sharper decisioning, faster execution and greater discipline in how value is delivered to players. The discussions during the AMA showed an industry that understands the challenge and is actively searching for smarter responses.
The next phase will be defined by execution, not reaction.
Explore the strategies in practice
The shift to a 40% Remote Gaming Duty has made precision and efficiency non-negotiable.
Many of the themes and questions raised during the AMA were explored in more depth during one of our AI Masterclass Sessions at ICE Barcelona, where we broke down how operators are using real-time AI to:
- Improve bonus efficiency without eroding player experience
- Personalise rewards and RTP exposure at an individual level
- Protect margins by reducing waste across bonuses, content and infrastructure
Sign up to access the AI Masterclass recordings
If you want to see how these strategies apply to your operation, you can also book a demo to explore how Future Anthem enables real-time personalisation across the player journey.