Games software supplier Stakelogic BV has been handed a £122,835 penalty by the UK Gambling Commission for operating slot machines faster than regulatory minimums. The kicker? They were relying on manual stopwatches to test game speeds, not automated systems.

The breach: speed demons in the portfolio

The Commission sets a minimum spin-to-spin interval of 2.5 seconds for online slots. Stakelogic’s Tiger Temple 88 was caught spinning at just 1.97 seconds between plays. That’s only 0.53 seconds faster, but it breaches the strict product design standards that govern all GB-licensed games.

One breach would have been bad enough. But when Stakelogic ran their own portfolio review, they uncovered 15 additional non-compliant games. Some fell short by less than 0.05 seconds, others by up to 0.675 seconds. And this wasn’t a recent problem. Tiger Temple 88 breached standards between May 28 and 30, 2025, while other titles had been running too fast since October 2021 across various periods.

Manual testing in a digital world

Here’s where it gets embarrassing. Stakelogic had been measuring game cycle times using a manual stopwatch. Full stop. For a software business operating in a heavily regulated market with access to sophisticated testing infrastructure, this approach was indefensible.

John Pierce, the Commission’s Director of Enforcement and Intelligence, wasn’t shy about it: “With all the technological resources available to an online gambling business, it is unacceptable that Stakelogic were relying on a manual stopwatch.”

Why the 2.5 second rule matters

The minimum spin interval became law in 2021 as part of a broader harm-reduction package. Research showed that faster game cycles correlate with increased consumer risk. The standard exists to moderate gameplay intensity and protect vulnerable players.

To Stakelogic’s credit, they self-reported the original breach, immediately suspended the affected games, and cooperated fully with the Commission throughout the investigation. They’ve since overhauled testing procedures with what the regulator calls “significant steps” to stop this happening again.

The settlement and public statement send a clear message to other suppliers and operators. Compliance with the Commission’s technical standards demands rigorous, automated testing regimes, not improvised manual checks. In a regulated market, cutting corners on due diligence costs real money.