GamStop and Young Players: Why Under-25 Registrations Jumped 40%

I first noticed the age-demographic shift in GamStop data in mid-2024, when the H1 numbers showed a noticeable bump in younger registrants. Six months later, the H2 2025 report confirmed it was not a blip. Registrations among 16-to-24-year-olds grew 40% year-on-year in the second half of 2025, and this age group accounted for 29% of all new GamStop sign-ups. In a scheme with 562,000 total registrations, that is not a marginal footnote — it is a generational signal.

The Numbers: 40% Growth and 29% Share of New Sign-Ups

Breaking down the figures gives a clearer picture of the acceleration. The 40% year-on-year increase in H2 2025 followed a 31% rise in H2 2024 and a 12% increase in H1 2024. The trend is not just growing — it is growing faster, each period outpacing the last. Fiona Palmer, GamStop’s CEO, has attributed the spike directly to younger consumers increasingly choosing to self-exclude, noting that this trend has driven record overall registrations in 2025.

The 29% share is particularly striking when you consider the demographics of UK gambling. Adults aged 18-24 represent a smaller proportion of the total gambling population than older age groups, yet they now account for nearly a third of new self-exclusion registrations. Something specific is happening within this cohort that is driving them toward self-exclusion at rates disproportionate to their gambling participation.

The choice of exclusion period differs markedly by age. Among 16-to-24-year-olds, the six-month period is the most popular option, selected by 38%. Across all age groups, the dominant choice is five years, selected by 47%. Young users are more likely to view GamStop as a temporary tool — a pause button — while older users tend toward permanent or semi-permanent exclusion. Palmer has commented that young consumers are increasingly choosing six-month exclusions, which suggests GamStop is being used as a tool to allow them a break from gambling rather than a permanent exit.

What Drives Young Gamblers to Self-Exclude

There is no single cause, but the data points toward a convergence of factors that disproportionately affect younger adults. The PGSI data — the Problem Gambling Severity Index used by the Gambling Commission — shows that 5.3% of 18-to-24-year-olds in the UK score 8 or higher, which places them in the “problem gambler” category. That is the highest rate of any age group. A broader measure, the proportion of 18-to-24-year-olds with any non-zero PGSI score, reaches 21.9%.

Those figures do not mean that a fifth of young adults have a gambling problem. A non-zero PGSI score can reflect anything from occasional concern about spending to clinical-level addiction. But they do confirm that this age group experiences a higher prevalence of gambling-related harm than any other demographic, which naturally produces a higher rate of self-exclusion.

Access patterns play a role too. Younger adults are more likely to have started gambling on mobile devices, where the friction between impulse and action is almost zero. A football match, a push notification from a betting app, and a bet placed in under thirty seconds — that cycle is more embedded in younger gambling behaviour than it is among older cohorts who began gambling in shops or on desktops.

The introduction of stake limits in April and May 2025 may have also contributed indirectly. The £2 cap for under-25s specifically targeted this demographic, and while the cap was designed to reduce harm at UKGC-licensed sites, it also raised awareness about gambling intensity. A younger player who discovers their stakes have been capped might, for the first time, consider whether their spending warranted regulatory intervention.

Why Under-25s Prefer the Six-Month Exclusion

The preference for six-month exclusions over longer periods reveals something about how younger users relate to gambling and to self-exclusion as a concept. Palmer has noted that GamStop has worked to destigmatise self-exclusion among younger consumers, positioning it as a preventative tool rather than a crisis response. The six-month period aligns with that framing — it is long enough to break a pattern, short enough to feel reversible.

I see parallels with how younger adults approach other areas of digital well-being. Social media detoxes, screen-time limits, periodic app deletions — there is a broader cultural pattern of using temporary restrictions to manage digital behaviour. GamStop’s six-month option fits neatly into that framework, even if the underlying issue is substantially more serious than excessive Instagram scrolling.

Whether the six-month exclusion is sufficient to produce lasting behavioural change is a different question. The 90% retention rate across all GamStop users — the proportion who remain excluded after their cooling-off period — is encouraging, but age-specific retention data is not publicly available. If younger users are disproportionately returning to gambling after their six-month periods end, the temporary exclusion may be managing symptoms rather than addressing causes.

Where Young Players Go After GamStop

This is the part of the conversation that policy discussions tend to avoid. GamStop blocks access to UKGC-licensed sites. It does not block access to non-GamStop casinos, offshore sportsbooks, or any other gambling platform operating outside UK regulation. A 20-year-old who registers with GamStop on a Monday can create an account at a Curaçao-licensed casino on Tuesday.

Among minors aged 11 to 17, problem gambling rates sit at 1.2% — stable compared to 1.5% in the prior year, but still indicating that exposure begins well before legal gambling age. When these individuals turn 18 and engage with gambling, they enter an environment where GamStop is the primary self-exclusion tool — but one that covers only half the available market.

The offshore alternatives that sit outside GamStop’s scope do not offer the same responsible-gambling infrastructure. No mandatory GamStop integration, no UKGC-enforced affordability checks, no age-verified stake limits. A young player who self-excluded because they were struggling with gambling intensity can, if they choose, access an entirely unregulated environment where none of the guardrails that triggered their self-exclusion exist.

That gap is not GamStop’s failure — the scheme does exactly what it was designed to do within its mandate. But it is a systemic gap that policymakers have not yet addressed, and it falls disproportionately on the demographic that the data shows is most vulnerable.

Created by the "StakeVault" editorial team.