<!-- Markdown twin of https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/egypt/distribution/. Same text as the HTML page; the HTML page is canonical. -->
title: Egypt — Distribution and platforms: Can we ship through apps and platforms? | advennt.io
canonical: https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/egypt/distribution/

[Jurisdictions](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/) [Egypt](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/egypt/) Distribution and platforms

 Egypt · Question 09 of 11

# Distribution and platforms: Can we ship through apps and platforms?

Unfavourable · Confirmed · AI-generated · [Back to full Egypt report →](https://advennt.io/jurisdictions/egypt/)

Key section parameters

| Jurisdiction | Egypt (EG) |
|---|---|
| Regulator | Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities (Casino Licensing) / Ministry of Interior (Enforcement) |
| Favourability | Unfavourable |
| Confidence | Confirmed |
| Review status | AI-generated |
| Last collected | 18 Oct 2026 |

Summary answer

Distribution-platform enforcement intensified this cycle. Following the 2024 removal of 1xBet from Google Play and the App Store, Egyptian authorities and platform operators targeted MelBet in a further takedown campaign, an uncertain-confidence, single-source finding that nonetheless corroborates a…

## Full section analysis

Distribution-platform enforcement intensified this cycle. Following the 2024 removal of 1xBet from Google Play and the App Store, Egyptian authorities and platform operators targeted MelBet in a further takedown campaign, an uncertain-confidence, single-source finding that nonetheless corroborates a sustained pattern of app-store-level action against offshore-licensed betting operators serving Egyptian users. This distribution-platform pressure runs alongside the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority and Supreme Council for Media Regulation's technical-blocking campaign, which reported blocking approximately 80 percent of online betting applications as of February 2026, suggesting that platform delisting and network-level blocking are being pursued as complementary enforcement tracks against the same population of offshore operators. The accessory-liability basis for these actions is inferred from the general gambling-related liability provisions of Law No. 371/1956, as no explicit hosting or DNS-specific statute was identified in the evidence reviewed this cycle.