Milliseconds put slot design under UK Gambling Commission scrutiny
The UK Gambling Commission has taken action against gambling software supplier Stakelogic BV after finding that a number of its online slot games ran faster than allowed under responsible product design rules, in a case where some breaches were measured in milliseconds.
The company will pay £122,835 as part of a regulatory settlement after its game Tiger Temple 88 was found to have operated with 1.97 seconds between spins, below the 2.5-second minimum required under the Commission’s Remote Technical Standards.
Following enquiries from the Commission, Stakelogic conducted a wider review of its portfolio of games offered to the GB market, identifying 15 further games that had also fallen short of the slot-speed requirement.
While the settlement is modest by recent UK enforcement standards, the case is notable for the issue at its centre. It appears to be a rare, and possibly first public, enforcement action focused squarely on the 2.5-second game-cycle rule.
The compliance issue behind the timing gap
The Commission’s investigation began after Stakelogic self-reported the issue, telling the regulator that Tiger Temple 88, one of its online slot games, had not complied with the responsible product design standard requiring a minimum time gap before the next game cycle could begin.
Following enquiries from the Commission, Stakelogic retested its GB portfolio and found that a further 15 games had also breached the guidelines. The non-compliant games were live during different periods between 31 October 2021 and 30 October 2025. The timing shortfalls ranged from 0.001 seconds to 0.675 seconds below the 2.5-second minimum.
The public statement points to an unusually simple cause: manual timing. Stakelogic had been using a stopwatch to check compliance with a rule that depends on very small time intervals.
The explanation did little to soften the Commission’s view. The use of a manual stopwatch drew particular criticism from John Pierce, the regulator’s Director of Enforcement and Intelligence. “With all the technological resources available to an online gambling business, it is unacceptable that Stakelogic were relying on a manual stopwatch to measure the speed of their games,” he said.
Stakelogic has accepted the settlement. In a statement to SiGMA News, Yves Herveille, Director of Legal and Compliance Affairs, said: “The Gambling Commission’s public statement sets out the agreed resolution of this matter, which we recognise and agree with. We have strengthened our approach to game-cycle timing validation through a modern digital testing method. Stakelogic continues to intensify its compliance efforts in the areas identified and remains fully committed to maintaining the standards expected across regulated markets, including the Great Britain market.”
The Commission also acknowledged mitigating factors. Stakelogic disabled all games available to the GB market once the scope of the issue became clear, cooperated with the investigation, and accepted the failings at an early stage.
From game speed to product safety
The 2.5-second rule was introduced in 2021 as part of a wider package of reforms to online slots. At the time, the Commission said remote gambling was not subject to a minimum game-cycle speed, creating the possibility of faster, more intensive products online than in other sectors.
In slot design, rhythm matters. So do anticipation, animation, button behaviour, sound, and the gap between one decision and the next.
The case also touches on a wider design question: whether friction can be used as a form of player protection. In a previous interview with SiGMA News, Helen Walton, Chief Commercial Officer at G.Games, said: “Take Candy Crush, the pauses before buying lives or asking friends for help aren’t flaws. They’re deliberate points of friction that slow the user down just enough to reframe their intent. In gambling, that kind of design could be used to promote responsibility, not just monetisation.”
In gambling, friction can act as a brake on intensity. It can interrupt automatic behaviour, slow repeat decisions, and make each game cycle a separate act rather than part of a continuous flow.
The supplier role in responsible design
The case also reinforces the role of suppliers in responsible gambling. Stakelogic provides games that appear on operators’ websites and apps. It does not control the entire customer journey. Operators remain responsible for player monitoring, safer gambling interactions and account-level controls.
Suppliers, however, shape the mechanics and interface of the games themselves. If a game runs too quickly, displays information poorly or builds intensity into its design, the issue can arise before any operator intervention takes place.
Be part of the action! Join the world’s biggest iGaming community with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. Subscribe HERE for weekly updates, insider insights, and exclusive subscriber-only offers.
