Article
That fee structure becomes even more relevant once you look at the second-tier operators. Take Betfred, for instance. The bookmaker’s phone billing option caps deposits at £30 per day, which aligns with the industry’s move toward tighter spend controls. Across the border, Germany’s GlüStV framework enforces a similar monthly deposit limit of €1,000 for online gambling, but the pay-by-phone channel remains practically unused there because the telecom billing infrastructure differs. That contrast matters for any cross-border operator evaluating whether to roll out the payment method in multiple jurisdictions.
When comparing the top UK providers, the differences are not just in limits. The settlement speed also varies. William Hill, Ladbrokes, and Coral all settle transactions through Boku or the operator’s own direct carrier billing agreement. In practice, the deduction appears on the phone bill within minutes, but the operator’s risk team may hold larger deposits for 24–48 hours. That is a nuance rarely mentioned in marketing materials. Players who expect instant access to a £100 deposit might find themselves waiting overnight.
From a cost perspective, the premium for convenience is steep. Most operators pass on a consumer fee of 10–15% per transaction, either as a separate charge or by offering slightly worse odds/payout rates on casino games. For slots, this effectively raises the house edge by around 2–5 percentage points compared to debit card deposits. Over a session with £100 wagered, that difference can mean £5–10 extra theoretical loss. Politically, this has drawn attention from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which in 2023 expressed concern about opaque pricing in pay-by-mobile gambling. The operators responded by listing the fees explicitly on the deposit page, though not all did so clearly.
One recurring pattern is that pay-by-phone is rarely the primary deposit method for regular players. Data from a sample of UK-facing operators (including Betfair, Sky Vegas, and PartyCasino) suggests that fewer than 8% of monthly active users choose phone billing as their main funding source. For most, it functions as a fallback or a way to enforce a self-imposed spending limit. That behavioural angle is worth keeping in mind when assessing the long-term viability of the channel.
The regulatory environment adds another layer. While the UK Gambling Commission treats pay-by-phone as an ordinary payment method, the German GlüStV takes a different route: it requires the player to set a monthly net deposit limit before any transaction, and the limit applies across all payment methods. Since carrier billing is not explicitly mentioned in the treaty, German operators often avoid offering it altogether, preferring to rely on e-wallets and instant bank transfers. This has led to a fragmented market where UK players enjoy the convenience of phone billing, their German counterparts do not.
That fragmentation also explains why the international payment network Boku is far more prominent in the UK than in continental Europe. With 10 million UK users and connections to all major mobile networks, Boku processes the majority of pay-by-phone gambling deposits in the country. Its closest competitor, Fortumo, has a smaller footprint but still supports several niche operators such as MrQ and Casumo. Interestingly, both providers are now exploring biometric authentication to replace the old one-time password (OTP) flow, which would cut the average deposit time from 12 seconds to 4 seconds.
In terms of responsible gambling, the payment method has both supporters and critics. On one side, the forced friction of a phone bill check gives players a few extra seconds to reconsider a large deposit. On the other, the 10–15% fee can be seen as a regressive tax on those with less access to banking. Some operators have tried to solve this by offering reduced fees for accounts with established track records. Betway, for example, introduced a 5% fee after the tenth successful deposit, but the promotion was quietly discontinued in 2024, likely due to low uptake.
What remains clear is that the pay-by-phone segment is not going to disappear, but it is also not going to grow at the pace seen between 2018 and 2021. The UK’s Open Banking push, with its instant account-to-account payments, is a direct competitor. Pay by bank transfer does not carry fees and settles in real time. Yet for players who want to keep gambling purchases off their bank statement, carrier billing still holds a unique niche. The question is whether the regulators will continue to treat it as acceptable, particularly if the fee transparency debate resurfaces.
