IGaming Regulatory TOP-10

1) UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) - UK

Known: a standard of strict consumer protectionism and "point-of-consumption" logic.

Requirements: strict KYC/AML, affordability/sofia-checks, centralized RG mechanisms, strict control of bonuses and advertising, mandatory audits of providers.

Pros: highest level of trust; clear law enforcement practice; strong ADR system.

Risks: high compliance rate, restrictions on promo and creative; media campaigns under strict filters.

To: brands with a focus on trust and sustainability, ready for a mature compliance stack.

2) Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) - Malta

Known: European hub for B2C and B2B; a balanced model that is convenient for operators and content providers.

Requirements: RNG/RTP certification, modular license system (verticals), KYC/AML policies, reporting, RG tools, GDPR compliance.

Pros: flexibility, industry recognition, developed ecosystem of providers, clear procedures.

Risks: increased requirements for RG/AML and advertising, the need for strict management of partner traffic.

To: international operators/aggregators, EU multi-markets and beyond.

3) Spelinspektionen - Sweden

Known: a rigid model of "sewage," a centralized register of self-exclusion (Spelpaus), strict advertising.

Requirements: strong RG framework, promo limits, high KYC/AML standard, payment and provider control.

Pros: stable, solvent market, high confidence of players.

Risks: limitation of bonus activity, tight supervision, serious sanctions for violations.

To: operators with a focus on "fair defaults," transparency and LTV debt.

4) Spillemyndigheden - Denmark

Known: a pragmatic, technological regulator with strong analytics and advertising control.

Requirements: KYC/AML monitoring, content certification, RG tools, strict communication and sponsorship rules.

Pros: predictability, digital maturity, channelization working models.

Risks: high cost of compliance for young brands; low-key promo frames.

To: operators with a focus on a sustainable unit economic profile.

5) Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ) - France

Known for: replaced ARJEL; strict control of advertising, rates and protection of vulnerable groups.

Requirements: marketing approval, RG procedures, KYC/AML, restrictions on promotions and communications, transparency of chances.

Pros: large market, high brand visibility subject to the rules.

Risks: tight regulation of promotions, the need for detailed media plans, taking into account restrictions.

To: large operators and networks with strong localization and legal support.

6) Kansspelautoriteit (Ksa) - Netherlands

Known: very strict control of marketing, support and work of affiliates, active blocking of illegal immigrants.

Requirements: strict RG, KYC/AML, control of attraction channels, clear standards for content and payment providers.

Pros: transparent supervision practice, high level of sewerage.

Risks: sharp sanctions for violations in advertising/affiliate, high cost of error.

To: disciplined operators with mature partner politicians.

7) Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego (DGOJ) — Испания

Known: strict framework of promo and communications, focus on RG and advertising with age filters.

Requirements: vertical licenses, KYC/AML, certification, reporting, content and media sensitivity.

Pros: large Spanish-speaking market, high regulatory certainty.

Risks: limitation of bonuses/creatives, the need for fine localization of UX/copyright.

To: brands with a long-term strategy and strong local expertise.

8) Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli (ADM) - Italy

Known for: historically strict advertising discipline, step-by-step admission of content and payment methods.

Requirements: clear vertical rules, RG/AML control, local technical integrations and reporting.

Pros: mature market, high license value for partnerships and trust.

Risks: bureaucracy of procedures, duration of approvals, conservative framework of promo.

To: operators with patience for processes and resource for deep compliance.

9) Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) - Germany

Known: federal (land) regulator, unifying the online segment; strict limits and functional control.

Requirements: deposit/playing time limits, technical limitations of some mechanics, strict KYC/AML and RG rules.

Pros: access to Europe's largest economy; high predictability in compliance with standards.

Risks: functional limitations of product design; complexity of marketing and onboarding.

To: brands ready to customize the product for regulatory frames (especially in the slot vertical).

10) Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission (GSC) / Gibraltar Gambling Commissioner / Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC) — «Коронные юрисдикции»

Known: as international hubs with a strong B2B ecosystem, content certification traditions and transparent procedures.

Requirements: fit-and-proper for beneficiaries, KYC/AML, RNG/RTP certification, provider audit, reporting.

Pros: reputational capital, flexibility for multi-territorial strategies, developed relations with providers.

Risks: the need to prove compliance with local rules of consumption markets (PoC logic, taxes, advertising).

To: international operators and aggregators building a "gateway" to many markets.

💡 Note: outside Europe, the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (Canada), AGCO/iGaming Ontario (Canada), New Jersey DGE (USA) and a number of Latin American regulators are also significant - they set the tone for local markets and increasingly converge with European practices RG/AML.

What they have in common (and what are the differences)

Common core:

Multilevel KYC/AML (identity verification, transaction monitoring, source-of-funds).
Responsible Gaming set: deposit/time/loss limits, self-exclusion, reality checks.
Content certification (RNG/RTP), control of releases and changes, logging of events.
Advertising and promo under strict rules: age filters, prohibition of misleading promises, control of affiliates.
Regulator reporting and access to data, storage and protection of personal data (GDPR in the EU).

Key differences:

The severity of marketing restrictions (from "restrained" to an almost complete ban on external promo).
Depth of RG affordability/social checks and behavioral triggers.
Tax logic (PoC, GGR vs turnover rate, license fees).
Server/data localization requirements and depth of integration with public services.
Approach to crypto payments (from prohibition to regulated integration with Travel Rule).

Operator Jurisdiction Selection Checklist

1. Target markets (where the player is): do you need a PoC tax model and a local license.

2. Verticals (slots, bets, poker, live): what are available and on what terms.

3. Compliance capacity: team, processes, budgets for KYC/AML/RG/audits.

4. Marketing and affiliates: valid channels, partner verification requirements.

5. Payments: white providers, limits, KYC source of funds, crypto policy.

6. Technical architecture: logs, encryption, real-time reporting, regulator access.

7. B2B chain: status of providers/aggregators, their certification and jurisdictions.

8. Terms and cost: license, annual payments, taxes, audit.

9. Sewer strategy: how to provide UX and promo so that players do not go into the "gray" zone.

10. Expansion plan: license compatibility with future markets (passport solutions).

A "strong" license is not just a logo on a footer. It is a commitment to uphold strict standards of player protection, transparency and financial sustainability. UKGC and MGA set the bar, northern European regulators strengthen RG and marketing discipline, southern European ones tighten promo and auditing, and crown jurisdictions provide international flexibility for B2B/B2C models. When choosing a regulator, the operator essentially chooses the architecture of the business: from product mechanics to billing, marketing and behavior analytics.