Casinos That Bypass GamStop: What It Means
Available in GB
Table of Contents
UKGC-licensed operators must participate in GamStop, but sites outside that framework may not check a registration or offer equivalent safeguards.
What “Bypassing GamStop” Means—and What It Does Not
GamStop is a self-exclusion service for people who want to block their access to gambling with operators licensed by the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC). Once registered, a person is excluded from participating UKGC-licensed gambling establishments. The point is to make that choice apply across the regulated market, rather than relying on a separate request to each casino.
In my experience, the distinction that matters is not whether a website calls itself a casino that bypasses GamStop. It is whether the operator falls within the UKGC system. UKGC-licensed operators must participate in GamStop. A site outside that regulatory framework may not check a registration, so the exclusion may not prevent an account being opened there. That describes a limit of the scheme’s reach; it does not establish that the site provides equivalent safeguards.
“Bypass” is an especially loaded word. In ordinary advertising, it can make a gap in coverage sound like a feature: access where a restriction would otherwise apply. But GamStop exists to help people maintain a decision not to gamble. A website that does not recognise the registration is not extending that protection. It may simply sit beyond the system that enforces it.
This is why “non-GamStop casinos UK” can be a misleading label. It may describe sites that are visible or accessible to people in the UK, not casinos authorised to serve the British market. The two ideas are not interchangeable. UK players may gamble at online casinos licensed outside Great Britain, but an operator offering gambling services to UK residents without a UKGC licence is acting illegally. Accessibility is not authorisation.
The player’s legal position is different from the operator’s. Using a non-GamStop site is not itself a criminal offence for the player. That does not turn the operator’s activity into a lawful service for UK residents, nor does it give the player the consumer protections attached to a UKGC licence. A calm reading of the label matters more than its sales pitch.
Casino Guides for UK Players: Payments, Access and Licences
I have seen how promotional wording compresses these separate questions into one. “Available to UK players” can mean that a page loads or registration is presented; it does not prove a UKGC licence. “Outside GamStop” says something about exclusion coverage; it says nothing by itself about the operator’s entitlement to serve the UK market. And “best non-GamStop casinos” is a ranking claim, not a regulatory status.
The practical consequence is that a GamStop registration should not be treated as a universal block against every gambling website. It applies within the UKGC-licensed system. A site outside that system may not honour the exclusion, but that absence is not evidence that its protections, complaint routes or standards match those of a UKGC-regulated casino. They do not carry the same consumer protections.
That difference matters particularly when the search language frames access as a solution. Someone looking for online casinos not on GamStop may encounter pages presenting non-participation as convenience or choice. The mechanics are less flattering: the restriction that applies to UKGC operators may not apply elsewhere. Calling this a way around the block does not change why the block was set.
I would separate three questions before drawing any conclusion: Is the operator licensed by the UKGC? Does GamStop apply to it? Is it legally entitled to offer gambling to UK residents? The first two concern regulatory status and exclusion; the third concerns the operator’s permission to serve the market. One answer cannot stand in for the others.
So “casinos that bypass GamStop” is best understood as shorthand for sites that may not enforce a GamStop exclusion—not as a promise of safety, legitimacy or lawful access. For a person who has chosen self-exclusion, that distinction is not academic. A restriction can only do its intended job when gambling access is not sought elsewhere. No equivalent protection.
How Non-GamStop Sites Fall Outside the Exclusion System
GamStop works within a defined regulatory perimeter. UK Gambling Commission-licensed operators must participate in the scheme, so a registered person is excluded from gambling with those operators during the selected self-exclusion period. The arrangement depends on participating businesses applying the restriction; it is not a universal block placed on every gambling website that can be reached from the UK.
GamStop is a self-exclusion service for UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) licensed operators; it is not a universal block that applies to every gambling website reachable from the UK.
That distinction explains why an online casino not on GamStop may not check whether a person has registered with the service. If the operator is based outside the UK regulatory system and is not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission, it is not required to integrate with GamStop. The system’s reach follows the regulator’s requirements, rather than automatically extending across national borders.
In practical terms, GamStop and an outside operator do not share the registration data that would allow the operator to apply the exclusion. The casino is not receiving a list of excluded people from the scheme and is not implementing GamStop’s restrictions as part of its own controls. This is a boundary between systems, not evidence that an individual registration has been overlooked or that the exclusion has been cancelled.
I have found it useful to separate the question “Does this site participate?” from “What does that tell us about the site?” The first has a narrow answer: participation is tied to the UKGC framework. The second cannot be answered from GamStop status alone. Being absent from the scheme does not establish that an operator is trustworthy, properly authorised for the market it serves, or able to offer equivalent safeguards. It establishes only that the GamStop arrangement does not apply to that operator in the same way it applies to UKGC-licensed businesses.
That matters because the phrase “not on GamStop” can sound like a feature deliberately designed around a player’s preference. In operational terms, it may simply describe an operator outside the system’s jurisdictional reach. The wording tells little about the business behind the website. It does not reveal whether the operator has reliable controls, how it handles disputes, or whether a claimed licence is genuine. Those are separate questions, not consequences of the operator’s connection—or lack of connection—to GamStop.
USA Casinos for UK Players: What to Know
The scheme itself does not become weaker because an outside casino does not consult it. Its restriction remains in place with participating operators. The gap arises because the same exclusion data is not carried into a separate regulatory environment. From the player’s point of view, this can make the boundary easy to misunderstand: a restriction may work exactly as intended within its defined network while failing to prevent access to services beyond that network.
Nor does technical access change the regulatory relationship. A website appearing in a browser does not mean it has joined GamStop, and a site’s use of familiar language or payment options does not connect it to the UK scheme. The relevant point is whether the operator is within the UK Gambling Commission’s regulatory reach and subject to the participation requirement. A brand’s presentation cannot substitute for that relationship.
In my experience, the misleading part is often the implied promise hidden in a label. “Independent” may mean no GamStop integration; it does not mean stronger privacy, greater fairness, or better service. “Unrestricted” may describe the absence of this particular exclusion check; it does not describe the full set of rules that govern an operator. Promotional language can make a system boundary sound like a consumer benefit. It is not proof of one.
This is why the absence of a GamStop check should be read narrowly. It does not cancel a registration, change the chosen exclusion period, or establish that a person is no longer excluded from UKGC-licensed operators. It means only that the outside operator is not applying the UK scheme through its normal participation and data-sharing arrangements. The distinction is important: a boundary in enforcement is not a change in the status of the self-exclusion itself.
Attention: The absence of a GamStop check at a casino does not mean your self-exclusion is cancelled or that the operator provides equivalent consumer protections to UKGC-regulated sites.
For someone who registered with GamStop, that boundary can have serious practical consequences. The service is designed to restrict access across the participating UK-licensed market, but it cannot make every site operating elsewhere apply the same restriction. An online casino not on GamStop UK is therefore not evidence that the service has failed within its own network. It is a separate operator outside that network.
The key point is not whether an outside site calls itself a casino site not on GamStop. It is what that label actually establishes: no integration with GamStop under the UKGC participation framework. Nothing more.
The Routes That Can Defeat a Self-Exclusion
GamStop is designed to block a registered person from gambling with participating operators. A restriction can nevertheless fail to prevent gambling altogether if the activity moves somewhere the scheme does not reach, or if the person’s identity or location is obscured. Those are different kinds of failure: one concerns the boundary of the system; the others involve attempts to get around checks. None makes a casino not on GamStop a suitable substitute for the protection someone chose.
A route described in coverage of the subject is registering with a gambling establishment that does not cooperate with GamStop. The exclusion is not automatically carried across to every gambling service a person might encounter. That gap helps explain why searches for a non-GamStop casino UK can lead to offers framed as unrestricted access. The wording is commercial; the practical point is that the GamStop block may not apply there. That is not a recommendation to use such a site, and it does not mean the site offers equivalent safeguards.
Casino Sites Outside GamStop: UK Rules Explained
Reports by neconnected.co.uk also describe attempts to register using another person’s personal details. This is not simply a technical workaround: it involves misrepresenting who is opening the account and can expose another person to consequences they did not agree to. It may also fail if the operator checks identity or later asks for evidence connected to an account. The fact that a route has been reported does not establish how often it works, or that it will work in any particular case.
The same reporting describes anonymising tools, including VPNs, anonymous proxies and the TOR browser, as ways people may try to disguise their connection. The distinction matters: masking a connection does not remove an exclusion, change the underlying identity, or make a gambling account part of GamStop. A site may still apply its own access and verification checks. Describing these methods is not an instruction to use them; their relevance is that exclusion can be undermined when a person actively tries to conceal information.
From the operator’s side of the counter, those cases look less like a clean system failure than a collision between controls and behaviour. A registration screen can block an account that matches an exclusion record. It cannot, by itself, stop someone seeking another route, using another identity, or gambling in a setting that is outside the online service’s reach. The boundary is real. So is the possibility of evasion.
A specialist report may also mention cryptocurrency gambling services that do not require registration and client-data checks as a possible route around GamStop. That description should be treated as a report, not as a settled account of the market: services and their procedures can change. Where a service does not establish who is using it, a self-exclusion tied to a registered identity may not stop access in the same way. That does not make the arrangement safe or reliable. In particular, cryptocurrency transfers can be irreversible, and a mistake in a wallet address may mean permanent loss.
Third-party details
Registering using another person’s personal details to misrepresent identity.
Anonymising tools
Using VPNs, anonymous proxies, or the TOR browser to disguise a connection.
Cryptocurrency services
Using gambling services that do not require registration or client-data checks.
There is a separate route that is not circumvention at all: waiting for the chosen exclusion period to finish. GamStop restrictions cannot be shortened or cancelled before the selected term ends. Once it has ended, the person can unsubscribe; that is different from defeating the restriction while it remains active. Treating the two as interchangeable blurs an important line. One is a time-limited commitment reaching its endpoint; the others are attempts to get around it.
Gambling in person is another distinct case. Reports identify land-based establishments as a way someone might continue gambling while an online restriction is in place. That does not switch off the online exclusion or make it ineffective within its intended scope. It shows instead that a restriction covering participating online operators cannot, on its own, prevent every form of gambling. The setting has changed; the underlying risk may not have.
This distinction is useful when reading language such as “unrestricted” or “no limits” in material about a casino not on GamStop UK. Those phrases can make a lack of connection to the exclusion scheme sound like a feature. In practice, the same separation that allows access can also mean the scheme’s block is not there to interrupt a decision made in a vulnerable moment. An advertised route around a barrier is not evidence that the barrier was unnecessary.
If gambling continues despite an active exclusion, the fact that a route exists should not be mistaken for proof that the exclusion has failed in every respect. It may still block access at participating operators; it cannot guarantee that a person will not seek alternatives. My conclusion is plain: the gap is not protection.
What a Casino Review Can—and Cannot—Establish
A page headed “best” or “top” Casinos not on GamStop can look like a comparison, but the label does not tell much about how the entries were selected. In my experience, the useful question is not which site occupies the first place. It is what evidence sits behind each claim, and whether the page separates evidence from sales language.
“Trusted” is an impression, not a finding. “Secure” can refer to the connection to a website, account processes, or simply the tone of the copy. Neither word establishes that a casino provides the consumer protections associated with a UK Gambling Commission licence. Playing on a site that is not part of GamStop is not itself a criminal offence, but that does not make the site equivalent to a UKGC-licensed operator.
A review can help organise information. It can describe what the reviewer says they checked, identify the operator named in the site’s terms, and point to the licence details the operator displays. Those are starting points, not proof. A polished page, a high rating or a prominent badge cannot verify a licence by itself.
What to check behind a licensing claim
A licensing statement should be checked against the relevant regulator’s official database, rather than accepted from a review or copied from a casino’s own page. The details need to correspond: the licensed business, the status shown by the regulator, and the casino website being assessed. A mismatch, an expired or unclear entry, or a licence claim that cannot be found in the official register is a reason to treat the review’s conclusion cautiously.
Verify Licensing Claims
Check the regulator
Find the official database of the regulator mentioned by the casino or review.
Match the details
Ensure the licensed business name and the status shown by the regulator correspond exactly to the casino website.
Confirm the record
Verify that the license is current and not expired or unclear before trusting the review.
This check has limits. A listing in a regulator’s database can establish what that regulator records; it does not show that every claim in a review is accurate, or that the protections match those under UKGC regulation. The distinction matters. A reviewer may accurately repeat a licence claim while drawing a much broader conclusion than the record supports.
I have seen how a single checked detail can lend authority to a page that makes many unchecked claims around it. The licence badge becomes the headline; the terms, exclusions and limitations disappear into a confident adjective. That is presentation, not verification.
How affiliate language changes the reading
A review that earns commission when a reader follows a link has a commercial relationship worth disclosing clearly. That relationship does not automatically make every statement false. It does affect how rankings and recommendations should be interpreted, particularly where the page uses emphatic labels such as “best” without explaining the criteria or showing evidence for them.
A disclosure should be visible and understandable, not buried where it is unlikely to inform the reading. The review should also distinguish editorial assessment from paid placement. If that distinction is absent, a ranked list may reflect commercial priorities as well as the stated comparison. A ranking is not an audit.
The same care applies to claims about responsible-gambling features. A specialist review may report that a particular non-UK site offers deposit limits, self-exclusion or reminders. That report is not evidence that the features are mandatory, consistently available, or backed by the UKGC framework. The detail should be attributed to the review’s findings and treated as something to verify with the operator, not as a general assurance about Casinos not on GamStop.
My test is straightforward: separate what the page documents from what it encourages the reader to believe. Confirm licensing claims with the official regulator, look for a clear affiliate disclosure, and read “best” as an editorial label rather than a safety standard. When the evidence stops, the claim should stop there too.
Offshore Licensing: The Jurisdiction Is the Important Detail
A licence is not a general certificate of safety. It identifies the regulator whose rules an operator has agreed to follow, and those rules depend on the jurisdiction. Non-UK casinos may hold licences from places such as Malta, Gibraltar or Curaçao. Seeing one of those names tells me where a licensing claim is meant to lead; it does not tell me that the operator is regulated to the UK standard.
Curaçao Casino Licence in the UK: What It Means
The word “regulated” can sound reassuring. In practice, its meaning is limited: a regulator may set requirements for the businesses it licenses, but the requirements and the routes for resolving disputes are not automatically the same as those under the UK Gambling Commission. A European licence is still a licence from a particular jurisdiction, not a substitute for UKGC authorisation. The same distinction applies to a Curaçao-licensed casino not on GamStop.
That distinction matters because a foreign licence does not bring UK consumer protections with it. Casinos licensed outside the UK are not required to integrate with GamStop, and their licensing arrangements do not provide the protections associated with a UKGC licence. An international operator’s licence may establish that it has a relationship with an overseas regulator; by itself, it does not establish that the site is authorised to serve the British market or that a British customer would have the same protections as at a UK-licensed casino.
Foreign Licences
An overseas licence does not establish that a site is authorised to serve the UK market or that British customers have the same protections as at a UKGC-licensed casino.
I have seen licensing presented as a badge, with the jurisdiction left in small print. That reverses the useful order of inspection. The jurisdiction is the substance; the badge is only the presentation. A claim of an overseas licence should be checked against the relevant regulator’s official records, including whether the named operator and site match the record. A logo on a casino page is not independent confirmation.
None of this makes every foreign regulator identical, or establishes that every operator under one jurisdiction behaves the same way. It does mean that “licensed” alone cannot support a like-for-like comparison with UKGC regulation. The protections attached to one system should not be assumed to exist in another.
For someone searching for an unrestricted online casino, the licensing jurisdiction is therefore a boundary, not a recommendation. A foreign licence may explain which authority oversees an operator in its own market. It does not erase the difference between that framework and the UK one. The label is not the safeguard.
Outside GamStop Does Not Mean Outside the Law
A player’s legal position and an operator’s legal position are not the same. Using a casino outside GamStop is not, by itself, a criminal offence for a UK player. That does not make the operator’s business lawful in the UK.
The dividing line is the service being offered. An online casino that takes UK residents as customers must hold a valid licence from the UK Gambling Commission. If an operator offers gambling to people in the UK without that licence, it is acting illegally, even if it holds permission from a regulator elsewhere. The operator’s overseas location does not remove that obligation.
This distinction is easy to blur in casino marketing. A site may describe itself as available to UK players, or point to an overseas licence, as though those details settle its legal status. They do not. A foreign licence concerns the authority that issued it; it is not a substitute for the UKGC licence required to serve the British market.
I have seen the same legal distinction disappear in casual descriptions of a casino outside GamStop UK. The label describes a relationship with an exclusion scheme; it does not confer permission to operate in Britain. Nor does the fact that a player may be able to use a site transfer the operator’s licensing responsibility to that player.
The careful reading is therefore two-sided. A UK player is not committing a criminal offence simply by gambling on a non-GamStop site. The operator, however, may be breaking the law if it provides online gambling to UK residents without the required UKGC licence. Those are not contradictory statements; they concern different parties and different responsibilities.
This matters when claims about “legal” casino sites outside GamStop are presented without qualification. The word may refer only to the operator’s status in the country where it is based. It does not establish authorisation to serve UK customers. A site being reachable, or accepting a registration, is not proof of that authorisation.
The distinction is narrow, but consequential. Player liability is not the same as operator compliance. No permission by implication.
Do
- Understand that using a non-GamStop site is not a criminal offence for the player.
- Check for a valid UKGC licence if you require official consumer protections.
Don’t
- Assume a foreign licence allows an operator to legally serve UK residents.
- Mistake a site’s accessibility for legal authorisation to operate in Britain.
UK Players and the Limits of Access
A website loading from a UK connection is not proof that its operator is entitled to serve the British market. “Accepting UK players” can describe a practical fact—a registration page lets someone enter a UK address or the site remains available here. It does not establish legal authorisation. I separate those two things whenever I assess what access actually means.
UK players may be able to reach online casinos licensed outside Great Britain. But an operator offering gambling services to UK residents without a UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) licence is acting illegally. A foreign licence does not replace the UKGC licence required to serve this market. The distinction is important: availability is not permission.
The same applies to casinos not on GamStop. A site may accept a registration even when the person is in the UK, but that does not make it a UK-regulated casino or place it under the UKGC’s consumer-protection rules. Its terms, complaint route and safeguards may operate under a different framework. The protections associated with a UKGC licence are not carried over simply because a site is easy to access.
Support can be another practical gap. Someone using a site outside the UKGC system may not have access to UK-based gambling support services through the operator, or to the same routes for raising a complaint that apply to a UK-licensed business. Before treating a help link as meaningful, it matters who runs the service, where a complaint goes and which regulator has authority over the operator. A support page is not the same as a local remedy.
“Available to UK players” is therefore a narrow claim. It may mean only that the site has not blocked access or registration. It says nothing by itself about whether the operator may legally serve the UK, what protections apply, or whether a dispute can be resolved through UK channels. That distinction can disappear in promotional copy, where access is presented as a benefit and the regulatory position is left in the background.
I would not read access as approval. A site can be reachable and still sit outside the UK framework. That is the limit.
Reading Non-GamStop Casino Reviews Without Mistaking Promotion for Proof
When I read non-GamStop casino reviews, I separate what the operator advertises from what the reviewer has actually checked. “Safe”, “trusted” and “player-friendly” are conclusions, not evidence. A page can repeat them without establishing who regulates the site, whether a stated licence is current, or what recourse a customer has if a dispute arises.
A licensing claim is a checkable detail. I look for the named regulator and the exact operating company, then compare them with the regulator’s official register. The casino’s name alone may not be enough: the company listed should correspond to the site being reviewed. A badge or copied licence number is not verification. If the details cannot be matched in the regulator’s own records, the review has not established the claim.
That distinction matters for a non-GamStop casino for UK players. A foreign licence does not bring a site into the UK Gambling Commission’s framework or provide the consumer protections associated with a UKGC licence. Playing on a non-GamStop site is not itself a criminal offence, but that does not make the protections equivalent. A review that blurs those points is selling reassurance, not explaining the position.
Reviewing Non-GamStop Casinos
- Cross-reference the licensing claim with the regulator’s official register.
- Verify that the operating company name matches the website.
- Check for a clear affiliate disclosure regarding commissions.
- Distinguish between voluntary responsible-gambling tools and mandatory requirements.
Responsible-gambling features need the same scrutiny. A specialist review may describe deposit or loss limits, session controls, or reality checks as available at a particular site. That report does not show that the tools are mandatory under the operator’s licensing rules, nor that they work like safeguards required of UK-licensed operators. The wording “responsible gambling tools” can sound comprehensive while leaving their status unclear. Details matter.
I also check who paid for the page. If a review earns commission when readers register or deposit, that commercial relationship should be disclosed plainly. Affiliate funding does not automatically make every statement false; it does give the page an incentive to turn a qualified feature into a selling point. I weigh specific, verifiable information more heavily than star ratings, rankings or confident adjectives.
Good non-GamStop casino reviews UK readers can use should make uncertainty visible: identify what was checked, distinguish operator claims from independent verification, and state the limits of the protection described. If the review cannot do that, its polished presentation proves very little. Appearance is not evidence.
Offshore Casinos and the Responsible-Gambling Gap
A responsible-gambling menu can look reassuring: deposit limits, loss limits, session timers, reality checks and a self-exclusion option. But the presence of a control is not the same as a duty to provide it, or evidence that it works like the protections attached to a UK Gambling Commission licence.
A specialist review reports that some non-UK sites offer limits, reminders or self-exclusion voluntarily, even where their regulator does not require those tools. That distinction matters. A voluntary feature may depend on the operator’s own rules; it does not place the casino inside the UK framework or connect its controls to GamStop. Casinos not on GamStop therefore should not be treated as equivalent to UK-licensed operators on the strength of a settings page.
I have seen how product language can blur this line. “Player protection” may describe a feature the business has chosen to offer, while leaving unanswered how quickly a limit takes effect, whether it can be changed, or what happens when a customer asks to close an account. The label is not the mechanism.
Non-GamStop Curaçao Casino Sites: UK Checks
An offshore site operates outside the UKGC regulatory framework, where responsible-gambling requirements may differ. A UK player using one may also lack access to UK-based gambling support services through the operator. That is a material gap, not a footnote.
The practical distinction is simple: a tool may be present, but it is not necessarily mandatory, consistent or connected to UK safeguards. A list of features cannot establish equivalence. Controls on screen. Different framework.
Bonus Terms and Withdrawals: The Conditions Behind the Headline
A bonus headline is only the entry point. The terms decide whether the offer can be used and what happens to any winnings. A non-GamStop casino review may describe a bonus as “generous”; that says little until the wagering rules and restrictions are clear.
A specialist review describes wagering requirements of roughly 30x to 40x as an industry average, and requirements above 50x as generally predatory. Treat that as a review’s benchmark, not a guarantee about every offer. Check which games count towards wagering: table games may contribute less than slots, or not count at all. Terms can also set a maximum stake while wagering, a deadline for completing it and a cap on withdrawals from bonus winnings. Each can change the practical value of the promotion.
Withdrawal rules are separate. They govern identity checks, processing and payment methods; meeting bonus conditions does not remove them. Specialist reviews advise completing KYC checks early, since outstanding verification can delay a withdrawal. They describe e-wallet payouts as generally faster than card payments, with casino processing sometimes taking up to 24 hours. That is not a promised arrival time: payment-provider handling can add time.
Cryptocurrency may move quickly, according to specialist reviews, but speed comes with a distinct risk. Its value can change before winnings are converted, and crypto transfers are irreversible. A mistake in the wallet address can mean permanent loss.
I have found the small print more revealing than the headline. Check the actual terms before treating a bonus as cash.
Are casinos that bypass GamStop illegal for UK players to use?
No, using a non-GamStop casino is not itself a criminal offence for a UK player. However, an operator offering gambling to UK residents without a UKGC licence is acting illegally, and its customers do not receive UKGC consumer protections.
What gambling sites are not on GamStop?
Sites outside the UKGC-licensed system may not participate in GamStop, including casinos licensed in jurisdictions such as Malta, Gibraltar or Curaçao. Being outside GamStop does not establish that a site is authorised to serve UK residents.
What are casinos not on GamStop?
They are gambling sites that do not apply GamStop exclusions, generally because they operate outside the UKGC regulatory system. Their absence from GamStop does not mean they offer equivalent safeguards or are legally entitled to serve UK residents.
How can players get around GamStop?
Trying to get around a self-exclusion can undermine the restriction you chose. GamStop does not cover every gambling site, so the safer course is not to seek access elsewhere and to maintain your exclusion for its selected period.
What is GamStop?
GamStop is a self-exclusion service for UK residents that blocks registered users from gambling with participating UKGC-licensed operators for a selected period.
How does GamStop work?
UKGC-licensed operators must participate and apply the exclusion to registered users during their chosen period. The service does not automatically cover gambling websites outside the UKGC system.
What exactly does GamStop block?
It blocks registered users from gambling with participating establishments licensed by the UK Gambling Commission. It is not a universal block on every gambling website accessible from the UK.