The Upper Tribunal has wiped out a £13.2m Remote Gaming Duty bill against Jumpman Gaming in a landmark ruling with sweeping implications for UK online casino operators.
Jumpman won its appeal against HMRC on 25 September, with the court ruling that approximately £13.2m in additional RGD should be reduced to zero.
The case centred on the tax treatment of promotional free spins, an area that had long created uncertainty for operators offering bonus-based gameplay to customers.
The tribunal concluded that an extensive tracking exercise required by HMRC did not emerge naturally from the legislation underpinning Remote Gaming Duty.
As a result, further free spins issued to players fell within the statutory exclusion and therefore did not create an additional RGD liability for Jumpman Gaming.
The tribunal also left in place an earlier finding that Jumpman’s initial free Mega Reel spin was not taxable, meaning the full £13.2m bill was ultimately slashed to nothing.
The ruling is significant beyond Jumpman alone, as it could encourage other operators to seek refunds on RGD they previously paid under similar circumstances.
William Hill owner Evoke had already flagged potential exposure of £17.6m in its FY 2025 accounts, contingent on HMRC succeeding in the Jumpman appeal and pursuing other operators for under-declared RGD.
Super Group’s 2025 annual report recorded a related provision of $26.4m, of which $16.9m related to RGD, with the remainder covering estimated penalties and interest.
The judgment arrives at a particularly sensitive moment for the UK’s online casino tax landscape, given that RGD increased from 21% to 40% on 1 April 2026.
That steep rate increase means promotional play now carries far greater tax consequences for operators than it did during the period covered by the Jumpman dispute.
With the new rate in force, the question of how free spins and similar promotions are treated for RGD purposes has become even more commercially critical for the sector.
Operators across the industry will now be closely examining their historical RGD positions to assess whether the Jumpman ruling opens the door to meaningful refund claims against HMRC.
