16.5 Million Safety-Tool Accounts Is a Useful Number, Not a Clean Bill of Health

EGBA’s latest sustainability report arrives with a number that sounds reassuring: 16.5 million customer accounts used safer-gambling tools voluntarily in 2025. That is 38% of the accounts covered by its member operators, up from 34%, and a 25% increase in volume. The Brussels trade association also says deposit limits accounted for 61% of the voluntary tools used.

Those figures are worth reporting. They show that limits, time controls and similar features are not decorative objects hidden three menus deep. At the same time, “16.5 million” is not 16.5 million protected people, and a rise in usage is not proof that harm fell. The distinction matters before anyone turns an industry statistic into a promise that gambling is automatically safe.

What the report actually counts

EGBA collects the data from its operator members. The customer figure is an account count, so somebody with accounts at three members can appear three times. The reporting period covers 2025 and, unless otherwise stated, the members’ online operations in the EU and UK. Membership has grown, and newer members enter the comparison from their first reporting year.

EGBA also says the report has not been externally audited. That does not make the numbers worthless. It does mean a reader should treat them as a transparent trade-body disclosure rather than an independently assured regulatory census. The 38% figure concerns voluntary use, too. It should not be read as the share of all customers who had some protection activated.

The deposit-limit share is more concrete. A limit is a rule set before the cashier opens, not a warning displayed after a loss. It can make the account’s incremental risk visible. But the report does not establish how many users chose a limit that matched their finances, whether they kept it, or whether the limit prevented harm. It measures adoption, not outcome.

Why deposit controls deserve the attention

An online gambling account differs from an arcade game in one important respect: the next round, spin or live football market can also create a credit or debit event. A quick deposit can turn a planned entertainment budget into a repeated cashier visit. The friction that once existed at a physical cage may be only a saved card and a few taps now.

That makes account-level tools useful in principle. A deposit limit, loss limit, session reminder or time-out gives the player a boundary that does not have to be renewed at every moment of excitement. The UK Gambling Commission advises players to use controls and seek support when gambling is no longer staying under control. TopGamb’s guide to loss limits explains the difference between a limit and a loss-chasing rule.

The choice of tool also depends on the risk. A sportsbook user who reacts during live matches may need a lower live-bet exposure or a break from in-play markets. A casino player may need a deposit limit and a forced session check. A player who has already tried to hide losses should not treat a small limit as an alternative to a stronger self-exclusion or outside support.

Our sportsbook account-controls guide puts deposit, loss and time limits beside marketing preferences because a notification can restart a session before the player has made a conscious choice to return.

The other figures tell a broader story

EGBA reports €4.5bn in taxes from members in 2025, up from €3.8bn a year earlier; €768m invested in European sport; and €186.6m donated to charities and community initiatives unrelated to gambling. These numbers explain the association’s argument for a regulated market, not just its player-protection work.

The report says 29.6 million personalised safety messages were sent, a 6% increase. It also says such messages represented 31% of all safety messages, up from 28%. Personalisation may improve relevance, but it also raises the standard for operator conduct. A message that merely advertises another game while carrying a generic safety line is not equivalent to an intervention based on a customer’s behaviour.

EGBA’s own notes separate voluntary tools from mandatory ones. That is the right caveat. A regulator can require limits, checks or blocks for some customers. The association’s headline concerns people who chose a tool without being forced into it. The two categories can overlap in practice, so the report is best read as evidence of optional-tool uptake rather than a measure of all customer protection.

What a player can check this week

European Safer Gambling Week runs from 16 to 22 November. The calendar is a prompt to inspect the controls already available, not a reason to deposit because a site has adopted the campaign colour. Open the responsible-gambling page before the bonus page. Check whether deposit limits take effect immediately, how long a reduction lasts and whether an increase is delayed. Find the time-out and self-exclusion routes.

Then apply a second test to the site itself. TopGamb’s cashier and reality-check test looks for practical access to those controls, while the self-exclusion explainer covers what a stronger block should do.

The strongest reading of the EGBA report is therefore precise: member operators report broader voluntary use of safety tools, led by deposit limits. That is a useful shift in the product. It still leaves questions about the quality of those limits, the customers not represented by voluntary use and whether the tools actually change behaviour. Keep gambling inside a fixed entertainment budget, and use GamCare or a local support service if a break feels impossible to take.

Report and player-safety references

• EGBA: Members contributed more than €5.5 billion to European society in 2025 – new report
• UK Gambling Commission: Safer gambling
• GamCare: Gambling support