Stakelogic to pay £122,835 after UK slot game speed breaches

Online casino software developer Stakelogic BV has agreed to pay £122,835 in fines. This comes after an investigation by the UK Gambling Commission into the speed of several of its online slot games.

The supplier discovered one of its titles Tiger Temple 88 didn’t comply with the Commission’s technical standards. The problem was the minimum time between slot spins. The provider self-reported the UKGC.

Initially, this seemed to be an isolated issue. However, it ended up uncovering a wider compliance problem. This affected 16 games made available to customers in Great Britain.

The Commission concluded that several titles operated more quickly than permitted under its Responsible Product Design Remote Technical Standard (RTS) 14D. There is a requirement of at least 2.5 seconds to elapse between the start of one game cycle and the next.

Investigation uncovered wider portfolio issues

After notifying the regulator about Tiger Temple 88, Stakelogic was asked to review its wider catalogue of games.

That assessment revealed a further 15 titles had also failed to meet the minimum cycle time requirement during various periods between October 2021 and October 2025.

While some of the discrepancies were measured in fractions of a second, the Commission said every breach was a failure to comply with the mandatory technical standards.

The fastest recorded game cycle was 1.97 seconds, while other titles fell between 0.001 and 0.675 seconds short of the required threshold.

The Commission said that these inaccuracies were caused by manual stopwatch testing to measure game speeds. The company didn’t use automated testing methods.

Commission criticises testing methods

The Gambling Commission said the investigation demonstrated weaknesses in Stakelogic's quality assurance processes. John Pierce, the Commission's Director of Enforcement and Intelligence, said there was no justification for relying on manual timing methods.

"With all the technological resources available to an online gambling business, it is unacceptable that Stakelogic were relying on a manual stopwatch to measure the speed of their games." – John Pierce

The regulator also considered it an aggravating factor that Tiger Temple 88 remained available for two days after the supplier first identified the issue. It should have been withdrawn immediately.

It also found the full extent of the problem only emerged after the Commission requested additional information and a broader review of the supplier's portfolio.

Supplier promises stronger compliance controls

The Commission acknowledged several mitigating factors when reaching the settlement, however.

Stakelogic voluntarily removed all affected games from the Great Britain market once it understood the scale of the issue. The company also cooperated throughout the investigation and accepted responsibility at an early stage.

The supplier also confirmed it had already corrected the technical faults before notifying the regulator and has since committed to strengthening its quality assurance procedures, incident management processes and wider compliance framework.

The £122,835 settlement will be paid instead of a formal financial penalty. There will also be a contribution towards the Commission's investigative costs. The funds will be paid into the Government's Consolidated Fund.

Why the 2.5-second rule matters

The minimum spin interval was introduced by the Gambling Commission in 2021. This was part of a package of safer gambling reforms designed to reduce the intensity of online slot play.

Research considered by the regulator found that faster game speeds can increase the risk of gambling-related harm by allowing players to place bets more rapidly over a shorter period.

Although the timing differences identified in several of Stakelogic's games were relatively small, the Commission's action demonstrates that suppliers are expected to meet the required technical standards precisely rather than approximately.

With regulatory scrutiny continuing to increase across both operators and suppliers, the case also serves as a reminder that robust testing and quality assurance processes remain an essential part of maintaining