Skip to main content
All insights
Methodology11 minute read

Can players verify a gambling licence online? A 74-market audit

Atlas audited 74 gambling markets for public licence-register and complaints routes. Download the market-level evidence, definitions and limitations.

Published 31 August 2026 · Updated 13 October 2026
By iGaming Atlas Research Desk9 primary sourcesReview cadence: 30 days
Editorial data graphic showing that 20 of 74 mapped gambling regulators have a dedicated complaints or disputes route recorded.
Jump to a section

The short answer

  • Atlas currently records a public register or operator-lookup route for 68 of 74 market profiles.
  • Only 20 of 74 regulator records expose a dedicated complaints or disputes route; a generic contact page does not count.
  • Fifty-nine of 632 selected non-Brazil operator-market checks are retained as not listed in the reviewed register, a narrow evidence result rather than a finding of illegality. Kenya's two historical misses are preserved in archived under-review history, excluded from the current dataset.
  • The downloadable CSV and JSON expose all 74 market rows, definitions, review dates and route URLs.

Licence transparency by region

Availability recorded in the current Atlas market and regulator directory, with selected relationship counts shown for context.

Region
Africa
Markets
3
Register routes
3
Complaint routes
2
Selected relationships
10
Not listed
2
Region
Asia
Markets
8
Register routes
5
Complaint routes
1
Selected relationships
15
Not listed
2
Region
Europe
Markets
31
Register routes
30
Complaint routes
10
Selected relationships
333
Not listed
16
Region
North America
Markets
23
Register routes
22
Complaint routes
4
Selected relationships
238
Not listed
32
Region
Oceania
Markets
2
Register routes
2
Complaint routes
0
Selected relationships
11
Not listed
1
Region
South America
Markets
7
Register routes
6
Complaint routes
3
Selected relationships
34
Not listed
6

Routes are counted only when a suitable public URL is recorded in Atlas. Relationship totals describe selected Atlas research, not every operator in each region. ‘Not listed’ is not, by itself, a finding of illegality. The regional table includes nine selected Brazil relationships. The 632-row not-listed percentage excludes those nine; the separate 194-row official Brazil export is another evidence population.

The finding in one line

Atlas records a public register or operator-lookup route in 68 of the 74 gambling markets it maps. Finding somewhere to complain is much harder: only 20 regulator records contain a dedicated complaints or disputes route.

That difference matters. A public register helps a player or journalist test a licence claim. A clear dispute route tells them what to do when the claim, the service or the regulator record does not answer the problem. The two functions are related, but they are not interchangeable.

Evidence path

From question to defensible conclusion

1

The finding in one line

2

What Atlas counted as a public register route

3

Six markets have no public register route recorded

4

Only 20 regulators expose a dedicated complaint route

Each step must preserve the jurisdiction, product, entity, source and review date.

What Atlas counted as a public register route

The audit counts a route when the current Atlas market record links to a public operator, licensee, approved-domain or permission lookup. The format can be a searchable database, a directory, a whitelist or a dated official file. A regulator homepage on its own does not qualify.

This is a route-availability audit, not a claim that every register is equally complete or easy to use. Some sources publish legal entities but not trading names. Others list domains, separate products, or release periodic spreadsheets and PDFs. A successful licence check still has to connect the correct jurisdiction, company, brand, domain, product and date.

Six markets have no public register route recorded

The current Atlas records contain no suitable public register route for Chile, Croatia, Indonesia, Japan, Panama or South Korea. That wording is deliberate: it means Atlas has not located and recorded a qualifying route. It does not prove that no public record exists, and it does not describe the legality of any operator.

The gap also has different meanings in different market models. A prohibition-led market, a monopoly and a licensing regime do not create the same public-information need. The downloadable file preserves the market model and last review date so researchers can interpret each row in context.

Only 20 regulators expose a dedicated complaint route

Atlas records a dedicated complaints or disputes URL for 20 of 74 regulators. Generic contact pages, switchboards and press addresses are excluded. This stricter definition measures whether a user can find an obvious route intended for a complaint or dispute, not whether the authority can be contacted somehow.

The result should not be read as proof that the remaining 54 authorities accept no complaints. Some may direct users through a government portal, an approved alternative-dispute-resolution body, the licensed operator or a general service form. The audit identifies a discovery problem: that route is not yet explicit in the current regulator directory.

Why 59 register misses need careful language

Among 632 selected non-Brazil operator-market relationships, 59 retain the status ‘not listed in current register’. The phrase records what the reviewed source did not show. It does not turn absence into an allegation of illegal operation.

A brand can sit under a licensed legal entity, a public file can lag behind a decision, or a register can cover only one product or domain. Conversely, a familiar brand name is not enough to establish a local permission. Atlas keeps the narrower result until an official licensing or enforcement source supports something stronger.

On 3 October 2026, the two historical Kenya not-listed results were moved to under review because the 2025/26 source period and inconsistent domain links do not support a current absence check. On 4 October, all five selected Kenya relationships were archived outside the current dataset because successor permissions remained unconfirmed. On 5 October, Tonybet's Ireland result moved from not listed to a positive Remote Betting match, while 32Red and Unibet were added from the same GRAI delta. No unrelated relationship was reverified.

  • The 59 results represent 9.3% of the selected non-Brazil relationship set.
  • North America contains 32 of those results and Europe 16, but the Atlas selection is not normalized by market size.
  • Brazil's 194 official brand records are published separately and are not added to the 632-row denominator. They describe the pre-measure register; MP 1.394/2026 introduced a fixed-odds shutdown transition on 25 September, so these rows do not establish unrestricted current operation.
  • Every result remains tied to a jurisdiction, source and verification date.
Evidence summary

9

named primary sources

Last editorial review: 2026-10-13. Review target: every 30 days.

Atlas currently records a public register or operator-lookup route for 68 of 74 market profiles.

Only 20 of 74 regulator records expose a dedicated complaints or disputes route; a generic contact page does not count.

Fifty-nine of 632 selected non-Brazil operator-market checks are retained as not listed in the reviewed register, a narrow evidence result rather than a finding of illegality. Kenya's two historical misses are preserved in archived under-review history, excluded from the current dataset.

The visual summary does not replace the linked regulator records below.

How the audit was built

The audit was generated from the same canonical records that power the Atlas country profiles, regulator directory and global evidence export. Each of the 74 rows combines the market model, regulator, recorded register route, recorded complaint route, selected relationship count and market review date.

The 5 October evidence release contained 825 source-backed rows: 609 direct records and 216 matches preserved through dated, reproducible register-review batches. In the 9 October release, the same 825-row population contains 631 direct records and 194 batch-backed rows after 22 existing relationships were checked directly. This provenance correction does not reverify every market, register route or complaint route. Dataset generation is deterministic, and the release manifest records a SHA-256 checksum, provenance and freshness range for every downloadable file. The five archived Kenya relationships remain separately preserved and excluded from these totals; archiving does not establish revocation, suspension or illegality.

The 13 October release adds one direct Bwin Ontario relationship that was already described in the operator guide and is now also recorded in the canonical data. The current global export has 826 rows and the selected non-Brazil relationship denominator is 632. This addition changes Atlas coverage, not the number of regulatory permissions in Ontario; market-policy review dates and the historical release snapshots above remain unchanged.

  • Register availability is evaluated at route level, not by visual design or search convenience.
  • Complaint availability requires a dedicated complaints or disputes route.
  • Relationship counts are descriptive coverage measures, not market rankings.
  • The live official source controls if it differs from the dated Atlas export.

A quotable version of the result

A precise summary is: ‘iGaming Atlas records a public licence-register or operator-lookup route in 68 of 74 mapped gambling markets, but a dedicated complaints or disputes route for only 20 regulators.’ The attribution matters because the audit measures routes located and recorded by Atlas on the review date.

Journalists and researchers may reuse the aggregate findings with attribution and link to this report. The CSV is intended for analysis, while the JSON includes definitions and limitations suitable for data pipelines. Questions about individual rows can be sent to the Atlas Press Desk.

What the numbers do not prove

The audit does not grade regulatory quality, measure enforcement effectiveness or determine whether an operator is legal. It also does not say that a missing dedicated complaint URL means there is no remedy. Those questions require jurisdiction-specific legal and operational evidence.

It does show where a public verification route is recorded, where the public route is less obvious and where reporting can overreach. That is a practical transparency baseline the Atlas can repeat as regulator records change.

Turn the evidence into a focused research brief

Send the regulatory question, entities and markets you need reviewed. We can scope a private source review with dated evidence and explicit limits.

Markets, outputs, evidence cut-off and fee are agreed in the written scope.

Need structured records for a workflow? Explore CSV and JSON data.

Primary sources

These links are maintained by the named authority. Open the current source before relying on a status.