Belgium licensed gambling sites: how A+, B+ and F1+ differ

Belgium does not publish one undifferentiated list of legal gambling websites. The Belgian Gaming Commission maintains separate datasets for A+, B+ and F1+ supplementary licences. On 14 August 2026, those dated datasets contained 9 A+ rows, 49 B+ rows and 24 F1+ rows. Two B+ rows had already expired, leaving 80 unexpired records across the three classes.

That distinction changes how a licence check should be performed. A match in the A+ dataset can support an online-casino relationship, but it does not automatically prove a betting authorisation. A sports-betting conclusion needs the F1+ evidence; a B+ entry belongs to the gaming-arcade branch. Atlas therefore keeps jurisdiction, class, legal entity, consumer domain and expiry date as separate fields.

Belgium's system connects online activity to a land-based authorisation. Federal Public Service Justice material explains that supplementary A+, B+ and F1+ licences enable holders of the corresponding A, B and F1 licences to operate games through the internet. The plus sign is therefore not a quality grade or a general online badge; it identifies an online extension tied to a particular underlying class.

The practical consequence is that the online record should be read together with its class and related establishment. A website name alone is insufficient. The European Commission's published description of the Belgian framework likewise separates A+ for online casinos, B+ for online gaming arcades and F1+ for online betting.

A+ is the supplementary online class associated with a class A casino. The current A+ dataset contains nine rows and names casino-oriented domains such as casino777.be, napoleoncasino.be, betanocasino.be, pokerstars.be, unibetcasino.be and bwincasino.be. Each row also identifies the legal holder, dossier, decision and expiry dates, and the related land-based establishment.

The narrow conclusion is important: the A+ row supports the named domain and holder in the Belgian casino branch for the recorded term. It should not be expanded to every domain owned by the wider group, every product carrying the same brand, or another country.

B+ is the online extension associated with a class B gaming arcade. It is not a second name for A+, even where the consumer experience contains familiar casino-style branding. The official 14 August file includes 49 raw rows, but two records had expiry dates in 2020 and 2021. Atlas excludes those expired records from the current count and reports 47 active B+ rows.

This is a useful warning about copying a register total without checking dates. The raw dataset retains historical rows such as reddice.be and carousel.be, so a robust analysis must apply the verification date to each term rather than assume that every returned row is current.

F1+ is the supplementary online class linked to class F1 betting. The 14 August dataset contains 24 unexpired records, including domains such as ladbrokes.be, betanosports.be, unibetsports.be, bingoalsport.be, bwin.be, goldenpalacesports.be and napoleonsports.be. These are betting records; they do not by themselves prove an A+ or B+ casino relationship.

The F1+ table is therefore the correct starting point for a Belgian sportsbook check. If a brand also offers casino content, find the separate casino-class record and match its entity and exact domain instead of treating the betting licence as a group-wide permission.

Betano demonstrates one pattern: betanocasino.be appears in A+ and betanosports.be in F1+, both under Casinos Austria International Belgium SA/NV, but with separate dossiers and terms. Unibet demonstrates another: unibetcasino.be is connected to Blankenberge Casino-Kursaal SA/NV in A+, while unibetsports.be appears under Unibet Belgium Ltd in F1+. The brand is familiar in both cases, but the underlying evidence structure is different.

The same caution applies to Ladbrokes, Bingoal and Golden Palace. Their casino or gaming-arcade domains and betting domains appear in different class records, sometimes under different legal holders. A brand-level list that collapses those relationships can turn a valid product-specific finding into an inaccurate global claim.

After excluding the two expired B+ rows, Atlas counted 80 active licence rows: 9 A+, 47 B+ and 24 F1+. Normalising the exact legal-holder names produced 74 distinct entities, while splitting comma-separated website fields produced 78 distinct consumer domains. Those numbers answer different questions and should not be presented as interchangeable totals.

A row is a class-specific authorisation record. An entity can hold more than one row, and a row can name more than one domain. A consumer domain can also sit beside a different domain for another product under the same public brand. This is why Atlas reports the unit behind every count rather than calling all 80 rows 'operators' or all 78 domains 'companies'.

Begin by defining the product you are checking. Open A+ for online casino, B+ for the gaming-arcade branch or F1+ for betting. Search the exact consumer domain, then record the published legal entity, dossier number, decision date, expiry date and related land establishment. Finally save the dated official URL and the day of your review.

When a brand spans products, repeat the process for each class. A defensible result should say, for example, that a named entity and domain appear in a named Belgian class on a named date. It should not imply that the brand is authorised for products, domains or jurisdictions outside that evidence.

A missing exact match means the reviewed dataset did not support that precise domain, entity and class relationship. It is not automatically proof that every activity by the brand is illegal. Check spelling, redirects, alternative trading names and the other product-specific datasets, then look for a newer dated snapshot or a Commission decision.

Keep the conclusion jurisdiction-specific. A Belgian finding does not establish the status of the same brand in the Netherlands, France or Malta. For a broader investigation, compare the Belgium country profile, the relevant operator profile and the Atlas worldwide regulator directory.

This guide is a dated research resource, not legal advice and not an endorsement of any operator. It does not test player eligibility, account access, advertising compliance, responsible-gambling controls or whether a site is operational. The official datasets can change after grants, renewals, surrenders, expiry or domain changes.

Atlas will re-check this high-risk guide within 30 days and earlier if the Belgian Gaming Commission publishes a material update. Anyone making a legal, compliance or commercial decision should open the linked official datasets immediately before acting.