Skip to main content
All Watch files
DevelopingEnforcement·Watch Explained·France·Prediction-market blocking

France orders Polymarket blocked after its geoblocking was circumvented

The ANJ told French internet providers to block Polymarket, months after a formal notice and a geoblock that users could bypass.

Published 21 August 2026 · Updated 9 October 20268 minute read
By iGaming Atlas Editorial Team6 primary sourcesNext review 16 October 2026
Jump to a section

Evidence behind the story

What we checked

Primary documents

6 checked

Response record

Response included

Last source check

9 October 2026

Next scheduled review

16 October 2026

Why this matters

The French block and Dutch recovery action now sit at different procedural stages. Keeping them separate shows what is actually enforceable, what remains unpaid and which questions still belong to courts or prosecutors.

Procedural status

French ISP block ordered; Dutch forfeiture under collection

ANJ ordered French providers to block Polymarket. In the Netherlands, the Ksa records a €420,000 forfeiture, non-payment, a collection decision and rejection of Adventure One’s objection to the underlying order.

The current picture

  • France’s ANJ ordered internet service providers to block Polymarket on 16 July 2026.
  • The regulator says an earlier geoblock stopped French financial transactions but was circumvented in practice.
  • The Dutch Ksa records a €420,000 forfeiture that remained unpaid and moved into collection; it is no longer merely conditional.

Confirmed by the record

  • The French order concerns Adventure One QSS Inc. and the polymarket.com domains.
  • ANJ says Polymarket recorded 578,751 French visits and 205,057 unique visitors in June 2026.
  • ANJ treats prediction sites as unauthorised gambling offers in France.
  • The Dutch Ksa imposed its separate cease order on 20 January 2026 and published it on 17 February.

Not established

  • The French blocking order does not establish a criminal conviction against Polymarket or its operator.
  • ANJ’s references to potentially manipulated weather markets concern an open cybercrime investigation, not a final finding against the platform.
  • The Dutch €420,000 was forfeited and placed into collection, but the official record reviewed does not show it paid or recovered.
  • A blocking order does not prove that every technical route to the website is inaccessible.

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.

1

ANJ ordered French internet providers to block Polymarket after reporting that the platform’s geoblocking was circumvented.

2

ANJ recorded 578,751 visits and 205,057 unique French visitors during June 2026.

3

The Ksa records a €420,000 forfeiture, non-payment and a decision to collect the amount.

4

The Ksa rejected Adventure One’s objection and maintained the underlying Dutch order.

5

The Dutch cease order is dated 20 January 2026 and was published on 17 February, when its compliance deadline expired.

France moved from warning to network blocking

France's gambling regulator ordered internet service providers to block Polymarket on 16 July 2026. The ANJ says Adventure One QSS Inc. had already received a formal notice over the polymarket.com offering. The company then introduced geoblocking that prevented financial transactions from French territory, but the regulator says users circumvented it in practice.

That sequence is the core of the action. The order did not begin with an immediate block. It followed monitoring dating back to November 2024, a formal notice and a technical restriction that the ANJ considered insufficient. The public statement classifies the prediction-market offer as illegal gambling promotion in France.

Traffic kept rising despite the restriction

ANJ published unusually specific audience figures. It says Polymarket recorded 578,751 visits from France in June 2026 and 205,057 unique visitors. The regulator viewed the homepage's live odds as a major promotional channel for an offer that was not authorised in the country.

Those figures measure visits and visitors, not deposits or betting turnover. They do not show how many people successfully traded after the geoblock. They do, however, explain why the regulator treated continued visibility as more than a technical edge case and escalated to an ISP-level blocking order.

A cybercrime investigation sits beside the gambling case

The French notice also refers to weather-related markets that may have been distorted after weather probes were allegedly hacked. It says the Paris prosecutor's cybercrime section opened an investigation on 4 May 2026 and assigned it to the national anti-cybercrime office. That is a live investigation, not a concluded finding.

The distinction is essential. The ANJ blocking decision is an administrative gambling action supported by its own view of the unauthorised offer and promotion. The separate cybercrime investigation does not establish that Polymarket, Adventure One or any named individual hacked equipment, directed manipulation or committed a criminal offence.

The Netherlands had already set a weekly clock

The Dutch proceeding has moved beyond the conditional stage described when the original order was issued. The Ksa imposed the cease order on 20 January 2026 and published it on 17 February, the day its compliance deadline expired. A collection decision dated 19 May records that Adventure One forfeited €420,000 and had not paid it. That is an administrative recovery step; the public record reviewed does not show that the money has been recovered.

Adventure One argued that Polymarket was a prediction market in which users traded positions and made informed decisions rather than participating in a game of chance. It also said it implemented Dutch blocking on 18 February. The Ksa rejected the objection and maintained the underlying order on 23 June, finding that the blocking measures came one day after the compliance deadline. The case record describes the route to a court appeal but does not publish a later court outcome.

The French block and Dutch recovery action remain separate national proceedings. They should not be combined into a single fine, and neither establishes the outcome of the distinct French cybercrime investigation mentioned by ANJ.

That separation also defines the next update. French access, Dutch collection and the Paris prosecutor’s cybercrime inquiry can change on different dates and through different documents. A development in one track must not be presented as a result in the others.

What happens after an ISP order

The immediate French consequence is a direction to access providers, not a licence suspension, because Polymarket did not hold the gambling authorisation that the ANJ says would be required. The order aims to reduce ordinary access and promotion from France. Users attempting workarounds do not turn the underlying offer into a regulated one.

The next material records would be a court challenge, confirmation of implementation by providers, an ANJ update on traffic or a conclusion to the cybercrime investigation. Until one appears, the accurate status is developing: the blocking order is confirmed, while the broader technical and criminal questions remain open.

Response record

The article records the geoblocking step attributed to the operator and Polymarket's regulatory position as described by the Ksa. No separate current company statement was found in the sources checked.

Status: included

Sources checked

Update log

26 August 2026

Fresh regulator check found no later procedural outcome; the French block and Dutch conditional order remain the latest published positions.

29 August 2026

Updated the Dutch enforcement track after official Ksa records showed a €420,000 forfeiture, non-payment, collection decision and rejected objection.

9 October 2026

Documentary correction: the Dutch order was imposed on 20 January and published on 17 February 2026. The operator's objection is described in the terms recorded by the Ksa, and the French status states an ordered block rather than verified implementation. The penalty and French audience figures are unchanged; this is not a new enforcement event.