Age-verification rules are designed to stop a child from opening and using a gambling account in their own identity. They cannot prevent every form of access when an already verified adult account is shared, left signed in or used by someone else. The UK Gambling Commission’s 2025 Young People and Gambling survey makes that distinction visible.
Among surveyed young people who had used the relevant online gambling activities, 31 percent said they had used a parent’s or guardian’s account to play on gambling websites or place bets online with permission, while 7 percent said they had done so without permission. Those percentages apply to the survey subgroup answering that question, not to all 11- to 17-year-olds in Britain.
The survey measures account use, not a technical verification failure
The 2025 survey asked young people about using parents’ or guardians’ accounts. It did not establish that operators had opened accounts directly for underage users or that identity-verification systems had been technically defeated. In many cases the adult account already existed and had passed whatever checks applied to the adult customer.
That distinction is essential. If a parent deliberately allows a child to use an adult account, the pathway is account sharing. If a child uses saved credentials without permission, the pathway is unauthorized account access. Neither situation is accurately described as “the casino failed to ask the child for ID,” because the system may believe it is still dealing with the verified adult account holder.
The same survey found that 7 percent of the relevant respondents used a parent or guardian account without permission and 31 percent with permission for gambling websites or online bets. Boys were more likely than girls to report use without permission. The data describes self-reported behaviour in a specific UK sample; it does not prove how common the same pathways are in other countries.
British remote operators must verify age before gambling
The Gambling Commission’s current social-responsibility code requires remote licensees to verify a customer’s age before that customer can deposit funds, access free-to-play versions of gambling games provided by the licensee, or gamble with money, free bets or bonuses. Operators must also maintain procedures designed to prevent underage gambling and review their verification systems as technology changes.
A separate customer-identification condition requires remote licensees to obtain and verify information including name, address and date of birth before the customer is permitted to gamble. These rules create a barrier to a minor simply entering a false birthday and immediately playing on a fresh British-licensed account.
They do not make account credentials impossible to share. Once an adult passes verification, the operator still needs security controls and behavioural monitoring to detect whether somebody else is using the account.
Permission is a major part of the access problem
The survey result that 31 percent of the relevant young people reported using an adult account with permission is especially important. It shows that underage access cannot be analysed only as children sneaking past controls. In some cases the adult account holder is actively facilitating the access.
That changes the practical prevention strategy. Stronger age checks at signup may do little if a verified adult later hands over the account. Parents and guardians need to treat gambling credentials like banking credentials: do not share passwords, do not leave a gambling app unlocked on a child’s device, and do not approve bets placed through the adult’s verified identity.
GambleRoad’s responsible gambling tools overview explains account limits and exclusion tools. Those controls are designed for the verified account holder and can be undermined if another person is allowed to use the account.
Unauthorized access is partly a security problem
When use occurs without permission, ordinary account security becomes important. Saved passwords, persistent logins, shared devices and weak device locks can make it easy for another household member to enter an account without confronting the original identity check again.
Practical controls include using a unique password, enabling multi-factor authentication where offered, locking devices, disabling automatic login on shared hardware and signing out after use. Payment cards and wallets should also be protected so that an unauthorized user cannot easily fund the account even if they gain session access.
GambleRoad’s online casino security guide covers account-security controls more broadly. For underage access, the key insight is that identity verification and session security are different layers: one verifies who opened the account; the other helps ensure the same person is still the one using it.
Age verification has limits but still matters
It would be wrong to conclude from shared-account use that age verification is pointless. Verification makes it materially harder for a child to establish an independent regulated gambling account and creates an auditable adult identity behind the account. It also supports enforcement when account details are false or misused.
The limitation is narrower: verification at account creation cannot physically control who later holds the adult’s phone or password. That is true of many online services. Strong protection requires account verification, secure sessions, payment controls, household behaviour and operator monitoring to work together.
Operators may also detect unusual device, location or behavioural patterns, but public rules do not guarantee that every case of account sharing will be identified. A child who uses an adult account can appear to the platform as the verified adult unless other signals reveal the difference.
What the 2025 data can and cannot tell us
The survey provides direct evidence that parent or guardian account use occurs among young people who engage with online gambling. It separates permission from non-permission, which is valuable because the prevention response differs. It also gives the finding a defined context: the research covers young people aged 11 to 17 in Great Britain and uses self-reported survey answers.
It does not prove that 31 percent of all British children gamble through adult accounts. The percentages come from the subgroup who answered the specific account-use question after reporting relevant activities. Nor does it identify the exact operator, site, duration, value of bets or technical method used in each case.
The practical conclusion is therefore targeted rather than sensational: regulated age verification can stop direct underage account opening, but adult-account access remains a separate pathway. Parents, operators and young people need to understand that sharing a verified account can bypass the very age barrier the account-opening process was designed to create.
Household controls are most effective when they remove both opportunity and ambiguity. Adults should make clear that a verified gambling account is personal, keep credentials private and avoid placing bets on a child’s behalf. That reduces the chance that “permission” becomes a routine route around age restrictions.