Gibraltar's remote licence fees are set by the Gambling (Duties and Licence Fees) Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/065), made under sections 155(1) and 175 of the Gambling Act 2025 and in force from 1 April 2026, which revoke the 2018 Regulations that earlier guidance relied on. Annual B2C fees are banded on annual gross yield per licence rather than charged at a flat rate: £50,000 below £20m, £100,000 between £20m and £300m, and £200,000 above £300m (Schedule 3). An operator holding both a betting and a gaming licence pays the sum of the two, not a single combined fee. Betting intermediaries pay £100,000 annually and betting agents £50,000. B2B annual fees are tiered by the supplier's exposure to the Gibraltar market: gaming aggregators and platform suppliers pay £85,000 for a single vertical plus £15,000 for each additional one - with no double charge where a supplier performs both platform and aggregation functions, the higher principal fee applying instead - while direct-integration suppliers pay £85,000 (Tier 1), £50,000 (Tier 2) or £20,000 (Tier 3) according to gross sales to Gibraltar licence holders and the number of approved integrations - so the commonly-quoted £85,000 B2B figure is the ceiling, not the entry point. Contracted-out fraud and risk, CDD and compliance, identity-verification and CRM functions attract £50,000 each. Application fees (Schedule 2) are charged per principal activity and are non-refundable: £30,000 for B2C betting or gaming, £20,000 for lottery, £15,000 for a betting intermediary or agent, £20,000 for gaming aggregation or platform supply and £10,000 for direct integration. Annual fees fall due on 1 April and must be paid by 30 April, apportioned from the start of the calendar quarter in which the licence takes effect (regulation 6(4)-(5)). Separate schedules price change of control at £3,000 rising to a complexity-assessed maximum of £30,000 (Schedule 4), content-provider approval at £1,000 (Schedule 5), regulated-individual approval at £500 for a five-year first approval and £200 per material change (Schedule 6), and duplicate documentation at £50 (Schedule 7). Non-remote operations are priced separately by LN.2026/088 (in force 7 May 2026, revoking the Gambling (Fees) Regulations 2016): a £150,000 application fee, £100,000 annually for non-remote gaming and £50,000 for the making or acceptance of bets, £5,000 for a material change to an approval, and £250 per approved betting premises per licensing year on top of the annual fee. No published annual fee cap exists under the current instruments; the £425,000 cap quoted in pre-2025 guidance was a feature of the now-revoked 2018 Regulations. Prediction markets are charged separately under the Prediction Market (Fees and Duties) Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/316), in force 13 August 2026: a £30,000 application fee, a £100,000 annual fee, and a general prediction market duty of 0.15% of commission charged with no exemption threshold.
Gibraltar · Question 04 of 11
Licence fees: What do the licences cost?
Mixed · Confirmed · Not reviewed · 1 post-review update · Not reviewed · In expert review scope · Back to full Gibraltar report →
Key section parameters
| Jurisdiction | Gibraltar (GI) |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner (GGC) — Gambling Division, HM Government of Gibraltar |
| Favourability | Mixed |
| Confidence | Confirmed |
| Review status | Not reviewed · 1 post-review update · Not reviewed · In expert review scope |
| Last collected | 18 Oct 2026 |
Summary answer
Gibraltar's remote licence fees are set by the Gambling (Duties and Licence Fees) Regulations 2026 (LN.2026/065), made under sections 155(1) and 175 of the Gambling Act 2025 and in force from 1 April 2026, which revoke the 2018 Regulations that earlier guidance relied on. Annual B2C fees are banded …
New fee and duty regulations made under the Gambling Act 2025's fee-setting power set betting and gaming duty at 0.15% of gross gambling profit, with the first £100,000 of gross profit exempt from duty. Intermediary duty is set at the same 0.15% rate, but the regulations show no equivalent exemption threshold for intermediary duty, an asymmetry that increases the effective cost of intermediary-structured arrangements relative to direct betting and gaming operations. The headline duty rate itself is unchanged from the prior structure; the cost picture this cycle is shaped by the institutional transition around it rather than by a change in the rate.