B2B gambling licensing: licences, certification and launch evidence

A supplier's licence is one part of an evidence record. It should not stand for every product the business offers, every destination it serves or every condition that must be met before launch. Start with the narrower question: which legal entity will perform which activity, for which product and in which jurisdiction?

Describe the proposed arrangement in plain language. Is the business developing software, supplying executable games, hosting content, distributing through an intermediary or contracting with players? Identify who controls the relevant systems and who signs each contract. A group name, product name and licence holder may refer to different organisations.

This guide provides a research method and selected examples. It does not assess a particular supplier or replace a review of the rules and decisions applicable to an actual arrangement.

An authorisation record can establish a named holder and an activity. A technical assessment can describe a tested product, version, system or process. Read what each document actually covers before using it in a decision. Neither its title nor a certification logo establishes a broader scope than the supporting record.

The following five questions are an Atlas research framework. They do not imply that every jurisdiction has the same approval structure. Where the authority specifies an assessment body, technical process or separate launch step, record that requirement with its own source. Do not transfer a rule from one jurisdiction into every supplier's checklist.

An Atlas research framework for a defined arrangement, not a universal list of legal obligations.

The verification questions are editorial recommendations. Add a legal or technical requirement only when a source applicable to the actual jurisdiction, activity and product supports it.

Keep the source observation separate from the conclusion. A register naming an entity for an activity is an observation. Whether that activity resolves a proposed distribution arrangement is a further assessment. A reviewer should be able to follow both without guessing which entity or product the source describes.

Record the source URL and the page or passage supporting each material conclusion, alongside the dated observation. This lets another reviewer check the exact evidence rather than relying on a summary or familiar badge.

For each material conclusion, record jurisdiction, exact entity, activity, product scope, primary source, relevant dates and unresolved questions. Keep the date of an act, its effective date, a documented expiry and the actual evidence review date distinct. Missing fields remain missing until suitable evidence is obtained.

For technical evidence, record the product version and stated limits. For a change, identify the changed entity, activity, product or condition instead of treating every update as a new approval. If a document is private, preserve its handling restrictions; this guide uses public authority guidance only.

The Gambling Commission's remote gambling software guidance covers manufacturing, supplying, installing or adapting gambling software by remote communication. It also says that a business manufacturing software and providing gambling facilities only through other operators' platforms may be eligible for a host licence.

The host conditions described on that page include holding a gambling software operating licence and having no direct contract with the players using the hosted content. These conditions concern the operating model; they are not an automatic host approval. Atlas rechecked the guidance on 8 October 2026; the page states that it was updated on 1 October. Fees are outside this comparison.

The Malta Gaming Authority describes critical gaming supply as a B2B licence with a Malta connection: supply from Malta, to a Maltese person or through a Maltese legal entity. Its guidance covers essential regulatory-record software and control systems, as well as material elements of a game.

More than one gaming vertical can fall within the licence, but the MGA says that those verticals require prior approval. A broad supplier description therefore does not establish that every product, vertical or destination is covered. Match the actual supply and entity to the relevant authorisation and approval record.

The Alderney Gambling Control Commission describes Category 1 through organising and preparing gambling operations, including player registration and verification, the contractual relationship and player funds. Category 2 concerns executing the transaction, including operational management of the platform within an approved hosting centre. An organisation may apply for one or both categories.

The AGCC also separates licence approval from operational preparation, ending with an approval letter to begin commercial operations. Read these categories in their Alderney context. Category 2 is not a universal synonym for a supplier licence elsewhere.

Before relying on a record, check that the entity and activity match the proposed arrangement, the evidence is suitable for the planned date and an unresolved condition has not been mistaken for permission. The result may be a narrower research brief rather than an immediate yes-or-no conclusion.

Continue through the linked Atlas market profiles for jurisdiction context. The research request below uses the existing Atlas enquiry process: specify the entity, product, destination and operating model so that the scope can be assessed. It does not certify compliance or grant an authorisation.

Atlas rechecked the three linked authority guidance pages on 8 October 2026 and compared the functions they describe. This is a bounded explanatory comparison, not a review of every law, technical standard, fee, licence holder or market-entry condition in those jurisdictions. The related market profiles have their own evidence dates.

The Research Desk maintenance target is 2 November 2026, with earlier review if a cited authority changes the relevant guidance. Current applicable rules and decisions control if they differ from this explanation. The evidence record is a working method, not a supplier ranking or consumer recommendation.