Gaming companies and regulators are often at odds over issues such as anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, payments, and responsible gambling. A recent report from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas indicates that artificial intelligence (AI) could emerge as another contentious topic in this relationship. Released this week, 'The State of AI in Gaming 2026' was created by UNLV's International Gaming Institute in partnership with KPMG. This comprehensive report relied predominantly on surveys from companies and regulators across various sectors and international jurisdictions.
Kasra Ghaharian, director of research for the IGI and editor-in-chief of the report, explained the intention behind the study: "How are organisations deploying AI in practice? Where are the biggest challenges? How can we ensure responsible implementation? And what new AI advancements will drive future innovation? We created The State of AI in Gaming to address these questions, and it is my pleasure to welcome you to the first in what will be an annual series."
Key findings revealed that gaming significantly lags behind other industries in AI adoption, with an average 'AI Maturity Index' score of 45 out of a possible 100. The index comprises four pillars; notable scores included a strategy score that surpassed 55, while infrastructure and expertise received 46 and 47, respectively. Governance, however, fell short with a score of only 30.
For an industry still heavily regulated and, in some areas, reliant on cash and traditional table games, these results may not be surprising. Yet, the varying applications of AI within the sector, and future directions, were noteworthy.
The report collected responses from 83 companies worldwide, divided into 44 suppliers and 39 operators, the latter predominately land-based (71%). In comparison, 113 responses came from regulators, with 94 from North America and Europe.
The primary applications of AI among companies were technology/security and product development, accounting for about half of the usage reported. In contrast, risk and compliance ranked as the least cited area at 14%.
Researchers examined discussions at gambling conferences over three years leading to 2025, finding a strong focus on compliance, marketing, and customer relationship management. The Las Vegas Strip operators are currently revising compliance protocols following various money laundering scandals affecting at least four properties.
"Unlike retail or media, where customer-facing AI is often the leading use case, gambling operators appear more closely aligned with regulated financial services, prioritising technology, security, and product integrity ahead of direct player engagement," the researchers stated. They suggested that this priority might stem from regulatory scrutiny and the potential risks associated with AI-driven personalisation in sensitive environments.
Another significant finding was the 27-point gap between companies' AI strategies and their governance, which the authors highlighted as the "most notable finding." They remarked that the industry is setting directions faster than it develops the necessary protective measures to support them.
Companies expressed that the biggest risks of AI adoption relate to cybersecurity gaps and data privacy failures. Notably, only 22.9% of organisations had dedicated AI-related roles for governance, responsible AI, ethics, or compliance.
This lack of dedicated roles underscores a significant disconnect: while data privacy and governance are top AI concerns, many organisations lack the governance frameworks to address them effectively.
Responses from regulators showed a disconnect, as many responses contradicted those from industry representatives, suggesting a potential for increased collaboration on AI regulation. Of the 113 regulatory responses, only 68 answered the section on AI literacy questions, yielding a mean score of 8.6 out of 14. Researchers noted little correlation between AI training and AI literacy, leading to the conclusion that there is no significant relationship between AI use and understanding among regulators.
Regulators expressed confidence in identifying ethical risks in AI but were less sure about assessing how AI is employed by licensees and grasping its application within gambling. Concerns over limited internal expertise and the rapid pace of AI developments left them feeling underprepared to meet forthcoming governance challenges. When questioned about their agencies' plans for AI guidelines or review processes, only 52% affirmed they were developing them.
The report also highlighted a notable discrepancy: regulators believed that AI was primarily focused on customer-facing functions, while companies reported that their top priorities revolved around tech/security and product innovation. This misalignment raises questions regarding regulators’ understanding of industry practices, particularly about the strong agreement on the need for gambling-specific regulations and skepticism about self-regulation.
Poll results indicated a consensus that collaboration would enhance AI oversight. However, opinions varied on whether regulators were aware of broader AI and digital governance frameworks, with significant disagreement expressed over the adequacy of current regulations to manage existing risks and opportunities.
Looking toward the future, gaming companies hope that AI will yield operational efficiencies and cost savings. Despite recent layoffs, not directly linked to AI, many companies reported minimal benefits from AI initiatives thus far. The average contribution of AI to cost savings was rated 2.43 out of 5, with 10.8% indicating no cost savings and 48.2% reporting only minor savings.
When considering their expectations for AI investments, 26% of respondents anticipate realizing returns in one to two years, while 20% expect returns in six to 12 months. Additionally, 20% indicated that they had already seen meaningful results, and 19% noted that it was too early to assess outcomes. Only 3.6% do not foresee any returns at all. Despite recognized gaps in governance and expertise, 42% of companies stated they did not plan any AI-related hires, and among those making changes, 53% expected reorganization without significant adjustments to workforce size.
