Google will allow certified online gambling advertisers to run campaigns in YouTube’s Masthead, the premium placement at the top of the YouTube home feed, from 21 October 2026.

The change was set out in a Google Ads policy notice posted on 7 October. It extends an allowance that already covered sports betting, opening the slot to online gambling operators that hold certification under Google’s Gambling and games policy.

Who qualifies

Eligibility rests on certification. Operators must be certified for the relevant market, and every ad must still comply with the wider Gambling and games policy as well as local legal, jurisdictional and age restrictions.

The notice explicitly excludes advertisers in Google’s online gambling-promoting content category that are not subject to mandatory state or national gambling registration. In practice that shuts out affiliates, comparison sites and other promotional publishers that send traffic to operators without holding an operating licence themselves, even when the operator they promote is certified.

Google has not listed the countries in which the Masthead change applies. Trade press analysis of the notice has pointed out that earlier announcements on gambling ads in Google TV and Masthead placements named specific markets, while this one does not. Masthead creative is also reviewed individually, so certification alone does not guarantee approval.

Certification itself is country by country. Google requires gambling advertisers to show they hold the appropriate licence from the regulator in each market they target, and to restrict ads to those jurisdictions. That means the Masthead opening will only matter in regulated markets where Google already accepts online gambling ads, and only for operators that have completed the process there.

Part of a wider recalibration

Google’s standard policy has long barred gambling promotion in a handful of formats, including Gmail ads, Shopping ads and Masthead placements. The company has spent 2026 tightening the certification rules that sit underneath its gambling ad policy, starting in March with new requirements for online gambling advertisers and extending them across categories in September.

The Masthead change runs the other way, adding inventory for operators that have cleared those tighter checks. It gives licensed brands access to one of the most visible and expensive placements in digital advertising.

Timing against tighter ad rules

The move arrives as gambling advertising faces mounting restrictions in several of the markets where operators would most want to use it. Denmark has tabled a whistle-to-whistle ban on gambling ads during live sport alongside curbs on affiliate marketing. France has added new sign-off requirements for gambling ad campaigns, and in the UK a House of Lords committee has called for a ban on gambling advertising, a recommendation the industry has challenged.

Platform policy is also under pressure from regulators and industry bodies focused on the black market. In the Netherlands, the Dutch online gambling association VNLOK has taken Meta to court over ads for illegal gambling, while Nordic operator Paf has launched a pilot with Meta aimed at curbing unlicensed gambling promotion.

By tying Masthead access to formal certification and excluding unregistered promoters, Google’s change is likely to favour the largest licensed brands with the budgets to buy premium reach. Operators will be watching for confirmation of which markets are covered once the policy takes effect on 21 October.

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has stepped up its campaign against a further rise in UK gambling taxes, warning that doubling Machine Games Duty (MGD) to 40% at the forthcoming Budget could cost up to 16,000 jobs.

In a statement published on 13 October, the trade body cited EY modelling showing that the increase would put almost 1,500 betting shops and as many as 34 casinos at risk, while leaving the Treasury up to £124m worse off as venues close and the tax base shrinks.

Betting shops and young workers

The BGC said betting shops support more than 36,000 jobs, with over 80% of them outside London. It said the workforce skews young: 19% of betting shop employees are under 25, against 11% across the wider economy, and 51% are under 35, compared with 35% nationally. Half of the workforce is female.

Of the jobs it says are at risk, 27% are in the North of England, rising to nearly 40% when Scotland is included.

“Britain’s betting shops support more than 36,000 jobs, and more than eight in ten of them are outside London,” said BGC chief executive Grainne Hurst. “Our message to the Chancellor is simple: rule out any increase in Machine Games Duty.”

Casinos warn of closures

The intervention followed a separate BGC statement on 12 October focused on land-based casinos. It said a 40% MGD rate would put up to 3,800 casino jobs at risk and could lead some operators to consider closing as much as a third of their estates. Half of the threatened closures would be in the North of England and Scotland.

The BGC said casinos directly employ more than 10,000 people, receive 14 million visits a year and contribute £515m in taxes. More than £50m of planned investment could be cancelled or scaled back if taxes rise, it added. Hurst described the proposal as “an existential threat to casinos across Britain”.

Where the proposal came from

The idea of doubling the duty on Category B gaming machines was put forward by the Social Market Foundation, which estimated it could raise between £275m and £458m a year in additional revenue. The industry disputes that estimate, arguing that closures would erode the yield.

The warnings land on a sector still absorbing the last round of increases. Remote Gaming Duty rose to 40% in April 2026, and the remote betting rate of General Betting Duty is due to rise in April 2027. Betfred founder Fred Done has said doubling MGD would force the closure of hundreds of the bookmaker’s shops, and a report by consultancy Regulus has argued the hike would put £92m of horseracing income at risk because of the sport’s reliance on betting shop turnover.

The BGC said the regulated industry as a whole supports 109,000 jobs, contributes £6.8bn to the UK economy and pays more than £4bn a year in tax.

What happens next

The Treasury has not confirmed whether MGD is under review, and the BGC’s figures come from modelling the industry commissioned. With the Budget approaching, the sector’s lobbying is now focused squarely on retail, after a year in which online operators bore the brunt of the tax changes. Whether the Chancellor treats machines as the next source of revenue will shape the size of the British high street estate for years to come.

Stake’s attempt to keep operating in Brazil until the end of the month has collapsed after the president of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) suspended the injunction that had shielded the operator from the government’s betting ban.

Judge Luis Antonio Johonsom Di Salvo granted a request from the federal government, represented by the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), on 9 October, a day after the lower-court order was issued. Stake said in a notice on its Brazilian site that its website and app have been unavailable again since 10 October.

What the injunction had allowed

On 8 October, Judge Cristiane Farias Rodrigues dos Santos of São Paulo’s 9th Federal Civil Court partly granted Stake’s writ of mandamus. She rejected the operator’s main request to suspend Provisional Measure (MP) 1.394/2026 entirely and keep trading until 31 December 2029, when its federal authorisation was due to expire. She did, however, allow it to keep operating until 25 October, the date on which the MP brings existing betting authorisations to an end.

Until then, authorities were barred from treating the licence as expired, blocking or redirecting the stake.bet.br domain, or sanctioning the company solely for operating within the terms of the order. The relief came with 12 conditions, including a ban on new marketing campaigns and bonuses, guaranteed withdrawal of player balances, and responsible gambling controls.

Why the appeals court stepped in

The AGU argued that the order carved out an exception to national policy for a single operator, creating regulatory asymmetry and an undue advantage, and that it risked encouraging copycat claims from other licensees. Di Salvo agreed. According to Brazilian legal outlets that reviewed the ruling, he found “serious harm to public order”, said the MP was intended to apply uniformly across the sector, and pointed to the risk of a multiplier effect.

He also noted that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) is already reviewing the MP in three constitutional challenges, ADIs 8024, 8027 and 8028, under Justice Luiz Fux, and said the judiciary should avoid becoming the agent of instability while that review is pending.

The suspension holds until the underlying case is finally decided or the court’s presidency rules otherwise. With the order lifted, the MP’s effects apply to Stake again, including the redirection of its domain requested by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Stake can appeal to the TRF-3’s full panel. Meanwhile the writ of mandamus continues in the lower court, where the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA/MF), telecoms regulator Anatel and the Central Bank must provide information before the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office gives its opinion.

A sector in limbo

Stake’s licence had been granted under the regime that launched in January 2025, when Brazil opened its regulated fixed-odds market to authorised operators. President Lula’s government moved to unwind that framework through the MP, giving licensees 30 days to wind down.

The consequences are already being counted. Trade press reports put job losses linked to the ban at more than 3,500, while some licensees, including Kaizen Gaming, have publicly said they remain committed to the market despite the uncertainty.

The decisive ruling is expected to come from the STF. Reports in Brazil suggest Justice Fux may wait until after the presidential election run-off before deciding on requests for preliminary relief against the MP. Until then, the TRF-3’s decision signals that operators seeking individual carve-outs from the ban are unlikely to find a sympathetic hearing in the federal appeals courts.