Friction as Safeguard: Will the UK’s New Deposit Prompt Change Player Behaviour?

A new regulatory experiment is set to test just how far interface design can go as a tool for safer gambling. From October 2025, every online betting operator in the UK must interrupt new users with a mandatory pop-up: Do you want to set a deposit limit? It’s a small piece of friction, introduced deliberately. But the implications are anything but minor. Will it meaningfully change how players spend—or simply be another checkbox most ignore? This article examines the technical, behavioural, and commercial consequences of embedding consumer protection into the onboarding flow—and what it signals about the UK’s wider push for “safety by design” in online betting.

In late 2025, every new online gambler in the UK will face an extra step before they can put down a bet: a prompt to set a deposit limit. This mandatory pre‑deposit pop‑up – taking just a few seconds – is intended as a “friction‑as‑safeguard” measure, nudging players to cap their spending as they sign up. It’s one of several safer gambling reforms flowing from the government’s 2023 High Stakes white paper (link). The big question is whether this brief interruption will meaningfully change player behavior or business metrics. Will it materially depress conversion funnels, or simply be a minor friction most users accept? And what does this experiment signal about the UK’s broader approach to regulating online betting through UX design?

New Rules: LCCP & RTS Changes for Deposit Limits

Effective 31 October 2025, the UK Gambling Commission is amending its Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) and Remote Technical Standards (RTS) to require “financial limit-setting” as a default part of customer onboarding (link). In practice, this means any licensed operator must prompt a new customer to set a deposit limit either during registration or at first deposit. The platform cannot simply allow unlimited play by default – setting a limit has to be the clear default choice, and the user must take a positive action (like ticking “I don’t want a limit”) to decline it. If the customer chooses not to set a limit, the system must explicitly confirm that decision before letting them proceed to gamble.

Critically, the regulator opted not to make limits completely mandatory (players can opt out), but the flow is designed to nudge every new user toward using the tool. All operators must implement a free-text input for the limit amount – no predefined dropdown values. This was very deliberate: behavioural research found that when sites showed high preset options (like £1,000 or £10,000), users tended to anchor to those and set much higher limits than they otherwise would. In a UK trial by the Behavioural Insights Team (link), removing those high “anchors” and letting users type any number led to deposit limits almost 45% lower on average (e.g. people chose a £550 limit instead of £1,000). That same trial hinted that free-text limits might even reduce actual spending – users given a blank box deposited ~18% less in the next month than those shown high presets, though the sample wasn’t large enough for statistical certainty. Armed with such insights, the Commission’s new RTS rules explicitly ban preset menu options; customers must manually enter their chosen limit to avoid any upward anchoring effect.

The updated standards also push for ongoing engagement with limits. Even after sign-up, any existing customer without a limit must be periodically prompted – at least once a year – to consider setting or reviewing one. And for those who do set a cap, operators must make it easy to review or change at any time (including decreasing it instantly, or increasing it only after a 24-hour cooling-off). Additionally, every six months players will receive a reminder to check their account activity and think about adjusting limits or other tools. Additionally, every six months players will receive a reminder to check their account activity and think about adjusting limits or other tools (link).

“These changes will help consumers decide on deposit limits, enable them to keep track of their spending and ensure they are fully aware of what happens to their funds should an operator become insolvent,” explains Tim Miller, the UKGC’s policy director (link).

The Commission emphasises that many leading operators already offer proactive limit tools; the new rules simply make it universal. Notably, one proposal the regulator held back (for now) is a cross-operator deposit cap – a single customer-wide limit across all gambling accounts. The industry strongly opposed that idea, and the Commission conceded it would revisit the concept later rather than implement it immediately. For 2025, the focus is on each site implementing the onboarding prompt and ensuring every player is at least asked to set a safe budget from day one.

Commercial Impact: Conversion, CAC and LTV Effects

From the industry’s perspective, any added step in the customer journey is often met with trepidation. Online gambling operators carefully optimise their acquisition funnels – typically, out of all visitors who click “Register,” only a fraction complete sign-up, and an even smaller fraction make that all-important first deposit. Even a tiny percentage drop at this stage can hurt conversion rates, raising the cost per acquisition (CPA/CAC) and lowering marketing ROI. So, will the new deposit-limit prompt cause more users to drop off before depositing?

Operators have voiced concerns that it might. In consultations, some argued that a mandatory-or-bust approach would “discourage customers from opening new accounts,” disproportionately affecting newer or smaller brands and reducing consumer choice. A tier-2 operator without a well-known brand might worry that a casual player – enticed by an ad or bonus – hits the registration page, encounters an unexpected “set your deposit limit” form, and hesitates. That moment of hesitation could be enough for a potential customer to abandon the sign-up. For tier-1 brands (household names like Flutter’s or Entain’s platforms), the user may be more committed to finishing the process, limit prompt or not. In fact, many big operators already had voluntary deposit limit prompts in place as a responsible gambling measure; they report that most users just enter a number or select “no limit” and continue. These companies expect minimal impact on conversion because the prompt is quick and familiar.

Smaller operators, on the other hand, fear a conversion rate dip. With thinner margins and less brand loyalty, even a 1–2% drop in first-time deposits could hurt. If conversion falls, marketing cost per acquired player rises – you might need to buy more ads or bigger bonuses to get the same number of depositing users as before. That in turn could squeeze budgets for customer offers or reduce profitability per player (LTV, lifetime value). Tier-1 firms, with their larger budgets and existing RG tools, can absorb such hits more easily than tier-2 sites operating on fine margins.

What do data and analogies suggest about the likely magnitude of impact? The Behavioural Insights Team trial with Bet365 offers a clue: when they removed preset options and used a free-text limit field (an intervention very similar to the new mandate), they found an 18% reduction in deposit amounts over the next month (on average) compared to the control, although this result wasn’t statistically firm. If that effect holds at scale, it would mean players deposit a bit less money when prompted to consciously set a limit. Less deposit = less revenue per user, which would dent short-term LTV. However, 18% was an upper estimate; more conservative anchors led to only ~4% less deposit, and again it wasn’t definitive. Operators might even hope that any initial spending reduction is offset by longer-term retention – i.e. a player who sets a comfortable limit and avoids ruinous losses could stay active longer, whereas one without limits might bust out and churn. From a marketing ROI standpoint, if deposit prompts prevent some customers from going on uncontrolled binges, those customers might stick around and continue playing (more sustainably) over months instead of burning out in weeks. This could improve retention and LTV for those players, balancing the equation.

Of course, this is speculative and something operators will monitor closely post-implementation. Many UK licensees plan to A/B test and closely track funnel metrics around the change. Key performance indicators will include: the percentage of registrants who make it through to first deposit, average first deposit amount, and 4-week new player values pre- versus post-31 Oct 2025. If those KPIs drop markedly, we can expect some noise from the industry and perhaps calls for tweaking the approach (not that the regulator is likely to reverse course easily on a safer gambling measure). On the flip side, if the data shows little change in conversion or value or even positive outcomes like reduced early losses without killing retention, it will validate the “friction as minimal cost for protection” stance.

User Experience: Real Players on Friction and the “Skip” Dilemma

How do actual users feel about this kind of pop-up? For some players, especially those aware of responsible gambling tools, it may be seen as a welcome feature – a chance to set a personal budget upfront. Others, particularly recreational punters who consider their gambling low-risk, might find it a nuisance. About one-third of gamblers in a UK survey felt that setting limits was an inconvenience or not useful to them. These players might react to the prompt with a sigh and either click the “No thanks”/Skip button or enter an extremely high limit (effectively nullifying it).

From a UX perspective, a well-designed limit prompt could even be a value-add. It signals that the site cares about your well-being and “wants you to stay in control.” One outcome to watch is how many users actually set a meaningful limit versus opting out or setting a trivially high number.

“I set a £50 weekly limit thinking I’d never hit it, but I maxed out by Wednesday night. That was a real eye-opener,” says one 32-year-old bettor, describing his first week under the new system.

Policy Precedent: From License Conditions to Design Mandates

The UK’s deposit prompt rule is noteworthy not just for its substance but for its regulatory philosophy. Traditionally, gambling regulators set outcome-focused rules and let operators figure out the implementation. With this move, the UKGC is venturing into prescriptive UI/UX mandates. Globally, we see similar design mandates:

• Spain requires players to input session limits before play and receive stat pop-ups every 30 minutes.

• Sweden mandates deposit limits at registration.

• Germany enforces a €1,000 cross-site cap via a national database. (link)

• Australia will soon require carded pokie play with a default AU$50 loss limit. (link)

• The U.S. is exploring similar rules via the proposed SAFE Bet Act.

  
  

This shows a clear trend: regulators embedding consumer protection into interface design itself. Whether these rules remain light-touch nudges or evolve into hard gates will likely depend on how effective these initial interventions prove.

A two-second pop-up at the point of deposit might seem like a minor tweak, but it symbolises a larger shift in gambling regulation. The UK’s mandatory deposit-limit prompt is an experiment in how a small dose of friction can serve as a safeguard. The coming year will yield the data: will players set limits, abandon signup flows, or carry on as normal? Will the pop-up curb losses, or simply be ignored? As British bettors adjust, the rest of the world will be watching.