Online gambling Barbados - perspectives

Prospects for legalizing online gambling in Barbados

1) Starting conditions: what is already regulated by laws

Today, Barbados' legal framework covers offline segments in detail - national lotteries/bingo, pool betting, slot machines and halls, including licenses, fees and controls. These provisions are enshrined in the Betting and Gaming Duties Act, Cap. 60 (betting/fees and administrative procedures), and at Betting and Gaming Act, Cap. 134A (licenses for slot machines, halls, "approved premises," bans for minors, etc.). A separate online mode for casinos and interactive games has not yet been highlighted, and the classic Gambling Act, Cap. 134 still describes basic bans on illegal gambling houses and police procedural powers.

Important tax detail: Cap. 60 directly regulates pool betting, including cases when the promoter (operator) is outside Barbados - in this case, the duty debt arises from the local representative accepting the rates. The Appendix sets rates up to 60% of the amount of bets for "external" pool betting, as well as high licensing fees for slot machines and halls. This demonstrates the state's readiness to impose even cross-border forms of rates, but so far through an "offline-oriented" methodology.

2) Political signal: heading for a new frame

The government publicly outlined a plan to bring a new regime for online games to parliament: in March 2023, Minister in the Ministry of Finance Ryan Straun announced the imminent introduction of a bill, emphasizing the risks for the financial sector and consumers due to the rapid growth of online and the need for monitoring tools (together with the telecom industry). As of October 2025, open messages on the adoption of a comprehensive "online act" have not been published, but the vector for the formalization of the industry has been confirmed.

3) "Gray Zone" online and player behavior

A number of industry reviews indicate that online casinos do not have local licensing, and residents' access to foreign platforms is not actually pursued, which de facto forms an "unregulated" consumer practice. This strengthens the arguments for legalization: player protection, AML/CFT control, local fiscal benefit, and leveling business conditions. (Industry digests and reference books agree on this description, but refer to the lack of a specialized online act.)

4) Drivers of legalization

Consumer protection and responsible play (RG): need for KYC, self-exclusion, deposit/time limits.

AML/CFT and reputation of the jurisdiction: transparency of payments, reporting of operators and payment service providers.

Fiscal revenues: instead of "leakage" of offshore rates - fees/taxes on local licenses, by analogy with existing duties in offline segments.

Tourism and the digital economy: iGaming's convergence with entertainment and sports (betting), cross-marketing with the hospitality sector and events. (Inference based on general income diversification policy; there are no special norms.)

5) Risks and barriers

Social costs: ludomania, debt burden, protection of vulnerable groups - will require funding for RG programs. (Usually fixed by mandatory contributions/funds.)

Supervisory capacity: the regulator will need IT monitoring, RNG/content certification, provider audit, work with telecom operators.

Payment infrastructure: clear rules for cards, e-wallets and crypto assets; integration with anti-laundering regimes.

6) Possible legalization models (comparative view)

1. Limited monopolistic operator (state/state controlled) with a focus on lottery + sports betting; casino content is limited. Pros: fast launch, full control; cons: limited competition/innovation. (Scenario analysis based on practices of other countries.)

2. Open license for B2C operators (multiple licenses, clear technical requirements, content auditing, local servers/replica, RG/AML obligations). Pros: investment and competition; cons: higher burden on supervision.

3. Hybrid: open betting/poker/casino license, but with restrictions on advertising and "white-list" game/payment providers. (The most popular balance sheet in small island economies.)

These options are logical to rely on the current Cap fiscal architecture. 60 (fees, charges) and institute licenses/" approved premises" from Cap. 134A, adapting them to remote access/online channel.

7) Tax and licensing approaches: what the law can come to

B2C (online casino/sports) licence: fixed annual fee + share from GGR (gross gaming income).

Reporting on GGR/cutting the "turnover tax": the international trend is to impose GGR instead of rates/payments, but Cap. 60 demonstrates that Barbados is already accustomed to working with rate duties and fixed fees; a hybrid formula is possible.

Incentives for localization: Rate/fee reduction when placing part of the state, R&D or data replica in the country. (Scenario sentence.)

8) Advertising, player protection and compliance: basic checklist of the future framework

CCM/onboarding, verification of age, sources of funds; deposit/session limits; "cool-off" and self-exclusion.

Mandatory RNG/platform certification, independent auditors, transaction logging.

Advertising restrictions (time/channels/tonality), prohibition of "dark patterns."

AML/CFT policies and reporting, staff training, MLRO assignment.

Responsible play policy, hotline/assistance program funding. (These elements logically follow from the state's "risk-based" approach to online.)

9) Realistic scenarios until 2030

Scenario A - "Pilot 2026-2027": narrow launch (sports betting + online lotto) through a single license/operator, IT monitoring test, strict advertising limits.

Scenario B - "Open Model 2027-2029": multi-licensing of casinos/bets/poker, white-list providers, mandatory local reporting for GGR.

Scenario C - "Status quo with point measures": strengthening control of payments/banks without a full-fledged online act (the most risky to protect players/budget).

The choice will depend on the readiness of the regulator and the priorities of fiscal policy; 2023 political signals support the course towards a new betting & gaming frame.

10) What it means for stakeholders

State: the ability to "whitewash" demand, consolidate budget revenues, reduce social risks.

Operators and providers: readiness for strict RG/AML and technical requirements is required, the transition to GGR reporting.

Payment players/banks/telecom: a key role in monitoring and geo-filtering; collaborative standards and API integrations.

Players: formal guarantees of honesty, self-control tools and protection of funds.

As of October 11, 2025, Barbados does not have a separate, effective online casino law: offline heritage applies (Cap. 60, Cap. 134A, Cap. 134), and the government previously announced the preparation of a new framework for online. On the horizon until 2030, a milestone launch is most likely: first a narrow model (lottery/sport), then open multi-licensing with strict requirements for RG/AML and advertising policy.

Sources: Cap official text. 60 (taxes/duties), Cap. 134A (licenses/machines/halls), Cap. 134 (procedures and prohibitions), a statement by the Ministry of Finance on the upcoming online regulation; industry guides on the current grey area for online gaming.