Danish court orders 98 gambling sites blocked, taking the official total to 870
The Frederiksberg court backed Denmark's gambling regulator after a process that asks operators to stop before DNS blocking reaches ISPs.
Jump to a section
98 sites · 870 total
The blocklist is the visible end of a court-backed process
Denmark · illegal market
Evidence behind the story
What we checked
Primary documents
1 checked
Response record
Not applicable
Last source check
26 August 2026
Next scheduled review
9 September 2026
Why this matters
The headline number is large, but the mechanism is more revealing: Denmark combines regulator monitoring, a request to stop, judicial review and ISP-level DNS disruption rather than treating a blocklist as an unexplained technical event.
Procedural status
Court-backed ISP blocking order
The Frederiksberg court ruled in the regulator's favour on 8 July. The authority announced on 19 August that Danish ISPs had been ordered to block the 98 sites.
The current picture
- The Frederiksberg court ruled on 8 July 2026 that 98 sites targeting Danish players without a licence should be blocked.
- Internet service providers carry out the restriction through DNS blocking after the regulator and telecom providers obtain a court decision.
- The Danish Gambling Authority says the cumulative number of blocked gambling sites since 2012 is now 870.
Confirmed by the record
- The regulator announced the latest block on 19 August 2026.
- The authority first asks an operator to stop the illegal offer before progressing to blocking action.
- Danish language, currency, marketing and customer service are among the indicators used to assess whether an offer targets Denmark.
- Licensed operators must display the Danish Gambling Authority's official label.
Not established
- DNS blocking does not remove a site from the global internet or prove that it is inaccessible through every technical route.
- The announcement does not say that every blocked site is controlled by a different legal entity.
- The court order is not described as a criminal conviction of all people associated with the listed domains.
- The cumulative total does not show how many blocked domains remain active elsewhere.
Sources for each key claim
Evidence map
Each core claim is paired with the document used to substantiate it. Open the record and check our reading.
The Frederiksberg court ruled in favour of blocking 98 illegal gambling sites on 8 July 2026.
The Danish Gambling Authority reports a cumulative total of 870 blocked sites since 2012.
The published process uses an initial stop request, court involvement and ISP DNS blocking.
What changed, and when
1 January 2012
Court-backed blocking begins
The regulator uses 2012 as the start of its cumulative blocked-site count.
8 July 2026
Frederiksberg court rules
The court backed the authority's request to block 98 gambling sites.
19 August 2026
Authority publishes the result
The regulator announced the order and said the cumulative total had reached 870 sites.
The number: 98 now, 870 since 2012
A Danish court has ordered internet service providers to block 98 gambling sites after the Danish Gambling Authority concluded that they were offering gambling illegally to people in Denmark. The Frederiksberg court ruled on 8 July; the authority announced the result on 19 August.
The new group takes the regulator's cumulative total to 870 sites since 2012. That is a domain count, not necessarily a count of 870 operators. One business can use multiple sites, and the announcement does not publish a one-domain-to-one-company map.
A block is the end of a longer process
The public description begins before an ISP changes anything. When the authority assesses that a website is offering gambling illegally, it first asks the operator to stop. If the offer continues, the regulator moves forward with telecommunications providers and the court process.
Only then are Danish ISPs ordered to interrupt access. The authority says the technical method is DNS blocking: the connection between a player and the gambling website is blocked through the person's provider, and an information page replaces the requested destination.
What targeting Denmark can look like
A site does not need a Danish office to attract Danish enforcement. The regulator lists signals including Danish language, kroner, the Danish flag, Denmark-focused marketing, local payment cards and Danish customer service. It can also consider the composition of the betting offer, such as markets on lower-tier domestic sport.
Those indicators explain the jurisdictional test. They do not mean that any single Danish word automatically proves a complete offence in every case. The court reviewed the authority's request concerning this set of sites and ruled in its favour.
What DNS blocking can and cannot do
Blocking disrupts ordinary access through participating Danish internet providers. It raises friction, places an official warning in front of a visitor and removes a direct route to an unlicensed offer. It does not erase the underlying site from the internet or convert the operator into a Danish licensee.
The distinction matters for players and for market analysis. A blocked domain belongs in an enforcement record. It should not be treated as proof that every related brand, company or domain has the same legal status in every country.
The useful check for players
Denmark requires licensed gambling operators to display the regulator's approval label. The authority also maintains official information on licence holders and blocked sites. A polished website, familiar payment method or foreign licence is not a substitute for a Danish authorisation when the offer targets Denmark.
The next meaningful update will be another official list, a court challenge or evidence that the process changed. Until then, the precise finding is straightforward: 98 sites were added through a court-backed DNS blocking process, bringing the reported cumulative total to 870.
For Atlas records, the domain and date should stay attached to that Danish action. Similar brand names, redirected addresses and services in another jurisdiction require their own evidence rather than an automatic inheritance of the block.
Response record
The announcement covers 98 sites and does not provide a consolidated named-party response. The story makes no claim beyond the court-backed regulator process.
Status: not applicable