Gambling Commission compliance is a design constraint, not a checkbox. We have run £15M multi-platform lottery programmes, delivered PAM systems, and improved checkout conversion by 15% while maintaining compliance throughout.
Lottery and sports betting platforms operate under more stringent regulatory oversight than most financial services products. The Gambling Commission does not accept technical debt as a reason for non-compliance. We treat regulatory requirements as architecture inputs, not post-launch additions.
We have run £15M national lottery transformation programmes across five delivery teams, maintained Gambling Commission compliance as a non-negotiable programme condition, and delivered a 15% checkout conversion improvement in the same programme. Player Account Management, KYC, payments, and responsible gambling features were all delivered within the regulatory framework — not around it.
Our practitioners hold direct experience inside licensed operators, not just as external advisors. That distinction matters when a Gambling Commission milestone is non-negotiable and a delivery conflict has to be resolved in hours, not days.
Gambling Commission · AML · PCI DSS · GDPR · Responsible Gambling Standards · LCCP
Our flagship iGaming engagement: a £15M national lottery PAM transformation. Five delivery teams, Gambling Commission deadlines, KYC and payment integrations — delivered on time and on budget. 22% user satisfaction improvement. 15% payment conversion increase. Zero severity-one compliance defects throughout.
National Lottery · Sports Betting · Casino · B2B iGaming Platforms
CBAP · PMP · SAFe RTE · PSM I · ITIL v4
Read the full account of the national lottery PAM transformation — five delivery teams, Gambling Commission deadlines, and a 15% payment conversion improvement.
Read the case studyEvery Gambling Commission requirement is a delivery constraint, not a post-launch audit item. Responsible gambling features, KYC, AML, and payment gateway integrations must be designed to the Commission's LCCP technical standards from sprint zero. We write functional specifications against those standards and test compliance before any go-live — not after.
Through dual-run period planning, cutover risk assessment, and player data migration governance. The transition phase is the highest-risk phase of a PAM replacement — it requires the most rigorous governance, not the least. We design the cutover plan as a first-class delivery workstream, not an afterthought.
Responsible gambling features — self-exclusion, deposit limits, affordability checks, reality checks — are defined requirements in the LCCP. We write the functional specifications against the Commission's standards and test them as part of the main delivery cycle, not as a separate compliance workstream. A feature that fails a responsible gambling test has not been delivered.
Through unified programme governance with shared dependency management, a single testing strategy across all three platforms, and coordinated release governance so that no platform diverges during the programme. We have managed this for a national lottery operator — five delivery teams, three platforms, hard Gambling Commission deadlines.
Yes. Most iGaming programmes involve multiple vendors — PAM provider, KYC supplier, payment gateway, CRM. We manage vendor performance and cross-vendor dependency as part of programme governance. Our role is to hold the delivery accountability across the full vendor landscape, not to replace any single supplier.
Tell us about your iGaming delivery challenge and we will be direct about whether we can help.
Arrange a Diagnostic