We spoke to Bojoko’s casino and bingo expert Kati Saari, who has been closely following the upcoming regulatory changes in the UK online casino sector. With experience in operator compliance and bonus design, Kati explains what players should expect from the new rules on mixed bonuses, lower wagering requirements and improved bonus clarity.
Kati, can you begin by explaining what’s behind the move from the regulator to change the rules around bonuses?
The principal driver is the need for greater player protection and transparency. Regulators have noted that many bonus offers, especially those with mixed conditions and high wagering requirements, were confusing or misleading for players. The aim is to ensure that when a bonus is presented, the terms are clear, the value is genuine, and the risk of misunderstanding is reduced.
This means eliminating mixed bonuses, which combine free spins, deposit bonuses, betting bonuses and other elements with different terms, and simplifying the structure. At the same time, lowering wagering requirements is part of restoring trust.
Lowering wagering requirements has been flagged as part of the reform. What is the significance of that for players and for the industry?
Wagering requirement, or play‑through requirement, is a key term that often determines how realistic a bonus is. A bonus may look large, but if the wagering requirement is 40× or 50×, the benefit is much less. This plays a much bigger role in casino games than in online bingo or betting, which previously had lower requirements. For instance, no wagering bingo offers in the UK have been readily available, as our dedicated page shows, but now the number of casino offers is set to increase.
The regulator’s shift means that they want wagering requirements to be more moderate. For players, lower wagering requirements mean a clearer path from bonus into real cash, and for the industry, it means operators need to balance their cost models differently, as this is a higher risk on the operator side.
Will we see a standardised threshold across the industry, or will it vary by operator and offer type?
It will likely vary by operator, game type and product line, but within a more constrained regulatory boundary. The regulator will set a maximum ceiling or guidance, but individual operators still have flexibility. For example, live‑casino games may still have heavier weighting than slots, and riskier games might be excluded. The key change is that the upper end of the wagering‑requirement spectrum will come down, and the variance across offer types will shrink.
You mention mixed bonuses. What exactly is a “mixed bonus,” and why is it being banned?
A mixed bonus is typically an offer that bundles several types of bonus rewards, such as free spins, deposit match, betting bonuses or bingo tickets, into one composite package, often with conflicting or compound terms. For example, bingo tickets may have one wagering condition, free spins another and a deposit match yet a third.
That can lead to ambiguity on which condition applies when, what counts toward wagering, and what games qualify. The regulator sees that as potentially problematic from a consumer‑risk perspective. By banning mixed bonuses, promotions will have to be more linear and comprehensible.
Clarity of bonus terms has long been a complaint among players. What concrete changes should players expect in how bonus terms are communicated?
There are some. First, operators will need to highlight key terms better upfront. While this has already been a thing, the rules are now stricter. And second, any restrictions, such as maximum bet sizes while using the bonus, excluded games and withdrawal limits, will have to be clearly visible and not hidden in fine print.
This might not be so easily apparent if you haven’t kept an eye on these offers, but the change is for the better.
Every regulatory change has trade‑offs. What are the main challenges or unintended consequences you foresee with these bonus‑rule reforms?
One challenge is that operators may reduce the nominal size of bonuses in order to compensate for lower wagering requirements or easier terms. So while the structure will be clearer, the value may shrink.
Another risk is that operators might shift risk elsewhere, like increasing house edge on certain games, excluding more games from bonus eligibility, or introducing stricter withdrawal caps. Also, the simplification of offers may reduce the creative marketing edge. Operators will need to find new ways to differentiate their offers within the more standardised framework.
How do you see the UK operator and bonus market evolving once these changes are fully in place?
I expect a leaner promotional environment. Offers will be fewer but more honest. Players will begin to trust the bonus claims more, which may reduce fatigue or skepticism around “too good to be true” offers. Operators that adapt early could build a reputational advantage, such as being seen as transparent and fair.
Over time, we may also see an upswing in value‑added benefits rather than heavy bonus weightings. The regulatory shift effectively nudges the market from bonus‑led acquisition toward quality player experience and retention.
