Lens · which facet of each jurisdiction’s flags:
All Rules Risks Reality
Showing all facets.
Child access to gambling products
Statutory child-protection obligations.
Accepting wagers from under-21 patrons
Accepting wagers from under-21 players
21+ minimum age is mandatory.
Allowing under-21 users
Cited by OCCC against Kalshi; flagrant violation of Ohio law.
High-velocity spend without checks
Cited in William Hill case (£23k in 20 mins).
SRC-GB-004
Missing mandatory limits / intervention tools
Financial/time limits, fit-to-play affirmations and high-risk intervention are mandatory.
Failure to integrate BetStop
ACMA fines (Unibet AUD 1M; PointsBet undertaking).
Delayed account closure for self-excluded users
ACMA 7-day 'as soon as practicable' standard.
Inadequate harm-prevention systems
MintBet AUD 100,000 fine for RG code breaches.
1,000+ MFS agents referred for licence revocation
Direct enforcement against the human payment-facilitation layer.
No self-exclusion tooling
Mandatory RG obligations.
Failure to monitor/intervene on high-risk play
theScore fined $105k after patron lost ~$230k over 8 months.
No RG / self-exclusion framework
No consumer-protection redress; reputational and host-country exposure.
Not integrating the national self-exclusion register
Res. 184-2026 mandates blocking excluded players.
Exposure of minors to betting apps
Committee cited complaints involving children/teenagers, intensifying political pressure.
No self-exclusion programme
EUR 800k fine precedent (SPS Betting).
No deposit/loss limits
Mandatory limits and session controls.
€1,000 cross-operator monthly deposit limit
Caps player spend across all licensed operators via LUGAS.
Accepting bets from self-excluded players
IGC exclusion list is binding.
Not enabling customer deposit limits
Mandatory financial-limit obligation.
Not joining National Gambling Exclusion Register
Failing age verification (18+)
Minimum age obligation; criminal exposure.
Admitting players under 21
Minimum gambling age is 21 with IIN/Face ID verification.
Marketing sports betting or DFS in opt-out parishes
Nine parishes have not approved sports wagering and seventeen have not approved DFS; offering or advertising in these parishes is unlicensed activity
No RG database cross-check
Self-excluded persons must be blocked before wagering.
Key person fails suitability investigation
Regulation 5.011 imposes strict suitability standards.
Serving under-19 customers
Serving under-18s online or under-20s at casinos
Age thresholds apply (18+ online, 20+ casinos).
Failure to honour Time Out Ohio self-exclusion
Mandatory self-exclusion programme; cited against Kalshi.
Allowing under-18 play
Minimum gambling age 18 with verification required.
Underage access
Minimum age 21; biometric KYC mandated.
Not honouring market-wide self-exclusion
All operators must block self-excluded players.
Inadequate age verification
Pre-registration ID/e-ID age check mandatory (18+).
Not integrating RGIAJ self-exclusion register
Mandatory national exclusion register integration.
Not enforcing deposit limits
Mandatory deposit-limit regime under amended art. 36 and RD 176/2023.
Allowing under-18 participation
Statutory offence under the GRA Act.
Consumers using unlicensed operators
GCGRA states players acting via unlicensed operators are themselves engaging in illegal activity.
Failure to block minors
Federal Decree-Law No. 26 of 2025 prohibits children accessing online commercial games; mandates age verification and parental controls.
Pre-verification gambling access
Age/identity verification required before play.
SRC-GB-001
No GAMSTOP integration
Mandatory for all remote licensees.
SRC-GB-001
No self-exclusion support
Statutory self-exclusion duty under § 58.1-4036.
Inconsistent minimum-age controls
Some brands enforce 21+; operators must verify age at registration.
No self-exclusion / RG framework
No consumer protection; offshore protections unenforceable.
VfGH criticised existing deposit limits as existence-threatening
RG framework likely to tighten under reform.
Minimum age 21
Raised from 18 in 2024; verification burden.
EUR 200 default deposit limit
Reduced from EUR 500; revenue impact.
CPF + facial-recognition KYC
High onboarding friction/cost.
Marketing to under-24 without stricter limits
Stricter limits required for under-24s.
No codified player-protection regime located
Home-regulator scrutiny on player protection for cross-border operators.
Non-integration with CSE program
From H1 2026 operators must integrate with iGO Centralized Self-Exclusion.
No deposit limit at registration
Deposit limits are mandatory at registration.
Inadequate RG training
Mandatory RG training under Standards 2.10/2.11.
Player disputes arising from an operator licensed only by the unrecognised Anjouan bodies
No national ADR, regulator, or enforcement body exists to hear player complaints against a Comoros-nexus operator; redress is effectively unavailable.
Pure shell with nominee directors
Substance challenges undermine tax and banking positions.
Mandatory national self-exclusion integration
Centralised player ID by 2026
End users accessing banned platforms
Draft framework contemplates penalties for users accessing banned platforms.
Divergent age limits reported (18 vs 21)
Compliance threshold ambiguity for casino/betting registration.
Mandatory self-exclusion cross-check
HK resident betting with offshore operator
Player commits an offence, though rarely prosecuted
No self-exclusion program exists at Idaho tribal casinos and no statutory RG funding requirement exists in the compacts.
Elevated reputational/regulatory-drift risk if federal or advocacy scrutiny increases on tribal gaming RG standards.
Not checking the national self-exclusion register
Register linked to licensed operators via eGov Mobile.
Serving public servants, military, or restricted persons
These groups are explicitly prohibited from gambling.
Minimum wagering age rising from 18 to 21, effective 2026-07-15
Operators must update KYC/age-verification systems ahead of commencement or face compliance exposure.
Weak age verification in market
Underage betting concerns may trigger tighter rules.
Minimum age raised to 21
Shrinks addressable player base.
Limiting bettors without disclosure
New MGC rule requires disclosure of limitations and reasons.
No national self-exclusion register
RG framework weaker than EU comparators.
Omitting self-exclusion integration
RG policy is an NBLGC core responsibility.
Very low per-capita RG funding relative to peer states
Elevated reputational and regulatory-drift risk if RG funding gap draws legislative scrutiny
High per-capita betting spend scrutiny
Increasing RG regulatory scrutiny and OASAS reporting.
No self-exclusion / age verification
SafePlay and age-18 verification expected
SRC-NG-002
No unified cross-platform self-exclusion registry covering all Oregon gambling forms
Self-excluded players from one channel (e.g. Lottery sportsbook) are not automatically blocked from tribal casinos or VLTs, undermining harm-reduction efficacy.
Ignoring self-exclusion register
JCJ self-exclusion is mandatory; honouring it is a licence obligation.
Under-19 access
Minimum age 19 (21 KRA online).
No confirmed self-exclusion / deposit-limit regime
Player protection obligations are thin for private operators.
31% of 15-17s reported illegal online gambling
Heightened RG scrutiny and tightening likely.
Failing player verification under Decree 147
Mobile-number verification and minor controls are mandatory for online games.
Ignoring forthcoming risk-detection algorithm
RD 176/2023 mandatory mechanism expected 2026.
No national self-exclusion register
RG gap exposes operators to reputational and future-compliance risk.
Marketing to or onboarding Emirati nationals
Emirati citizens reportedly excluded / subject to additional emirate-level conditions.
Unfair T&Cs / forfeiture clauses
Fafabet fined £170k July 2025.
SRC-GB-016
Missing reality-check / session limits
SRC-GB-001
Assuming a federal self-exclusion register
There is no federal register; self-exclusion is state-by-state.
SRC-US-005
Rising gambling harm cited (~35,000 addiction cases)
Harm narrative is driving tighter controls and a registry proposal.
No national self-exclusion register
RG infrastructure immature; reputational and reform-driven exposure.
No affordability/RG tech
Player-protection regime is minimal.
Affordability checks voluntary
RG framework lighter than some peer states.
Age 21 minimum for online casino/sports
Stricter than some lottery products; verification required.
Limited codified player-protection standards
Emerging RG framework; reputational and future-compliance risk.
Legal age 21
Higher than EU norm of 18.
Cash-payment restrictions on winnings
Operational payout constraints.
Mandatory RG intervention staff
Mandatory player-limit and self-exclusion tooling
Tech and process build required.
Mandatory RG frameworks as licence condition
Operators must maintain robust RG tools or risk licence.
Not referencing NGCB self-exclusion program
Self-exclusion program must be supported.
French-language interface effectively mandatory
Bilingual product is a market entry precondition.
21+ casino/sports age
Higher than lottery age (18); compliance complexity.
RG framework not fully implemented
Self-exclusion/deposit-limit regimes are policy intent, not yet enforced rules.
No mandatory affordability checks
Reform critics flag gaps; future obligations likely
Voluntary-only self-exclusion
No national mandatory scheme.
Minimum gambling age 25
Narrows addressable base versus 18+ markets; strict ID verification needed.