Skip to content
The Refusal Index

Written and checked by Ingrid HalvorsenTerms editor

The Philippines, counted

Two of the eight documents naming the Philippines are near-twins

Eight published exclusion documents name the Philippines. Two of them run to thirty-eight countries each and share thirty-seven of those entries, which says something about who drafts these papers.

Eight names, drawn from a narrower group than it looks

Eight restricted-country schedules name the Philippines, each read on 26 August 2026 from an archived copy of the address printed beside it.

OperatorWhere the clause was readRead
7Bit Casino7bitcasino.com/terms-and-conditions26 Aug 2026, archived
Bitdreamsbitdreams.com/terms-and-conditions26 Aug 2026, archived
CryptoLeocryptoleo.com/terms26 Aug 2026, archived
Miraxmiraxcasino.com/en-AU/terms-and-conditions26 Aug 2026, archived
Nine Casinoninecasino.com/terms26 Aug 2026, archived
Oshi Casinooshi.io/en-CA/terms-and-conditions26 Aug 2026, archived
Slotumslotum.com/en-CA/terms-and-conditions26 Aug 2026, archived
Bitkingzbitkingz.com/de/terms-and-conditions26 Aug 2026, archived

Thirty-eight entries each, thirty-seven of them shared

CryptoLeo and Nine Casino are two brands with two websites, two logos and two sets of terms. Their schedules of excluded countries run to thirty-eight names apiece, and thirty-seven of those names match. The whole divergence between the papers is a single line: Latvia appears in one, Samoa in the other.

Two documents agreeing on thirty-seven of thirty-eight entries were drafted from one source. That leaves either of them no less binding on a player who signs up — a clause is enforceable whoever typed it — but it changes the arithmetic of this page. The eight rows above represent something closer to six independent positions on the Philippines, and possibly fewer, since the remaining six come from a shelf of brands sharing a platform lineage that bars at least 95 countries apiece.

Nobody publishing these papers describes the drafting, so the overlap is the only evidence available. It is printed because it is checkable: both addresses appear in the table, both were read the same day, and anyone can compare the two texts line by line.

The practical consequence for a reader is modest but real. Eight brands say in writing that they exclude the territory, which is worth knowing before an account is funded rather than after a withdrawal is requested. Whether those eight represent eight companies is a separate question, and the documents suggest they do not.

It also explains why a figure like this moves in steps rather than smoothly. When a platform amends the schedule it supplies to its brands, every brand on that platform changes at once, and a country’s count can shift by five in a single revision without any of those five businesses having thought about the market separately. A page built on brand counts alone would report that as a wave of refusals. A page built on rosters reports it as one amendment, republished five times, and the second description is the accurate one.

The absence that is easiest to over-read

PlayAmo’s schedule reaches 96 of the 122 countries this site lists, and the Philippines is absent from it.

That absence is tempting to convert into a welcome, and it earns nothing of the kind. It places PlayAmo in the middle group, alongside twenty-nine other operators whose published paper was read and whose text left the country out. What the middle group supports is one sentence: on 26 August 2026, this document made no mention of the Philippines.

The distance between that sentence and an assurance of access is filled by things terms pages leave out. Payment providers apply territory rules of their own. Verification arrives at withdrawal, and an account that opened smoothly can meet its first real check months later. A schedule read in August can be reissued in October with names added, since these documents are amended by notice on the operator’s own website rather than by agreement with anyone.

Four of the twelve operators compared in the table below fall into that same middle group. Stake’s document at stake.com/licenses names one country, Shuffle’s names fifteen, Cloudbet’s two, and Bets.io’s forty-two. The Philippines appears in none of the four.

Sixty-two documents that were never read

Sixty-two names in the library keep a restricted-country schedule that has stayed shut: pages moved, terms hid behind a sign-in, archives held nothing usable.

That group outweighs the first two combined, and its size is printed rather than quietly rounded away. An unread paper supports one statement, which is that it has yet to be read. The methodology page holds the definitions and the conditions under which a blank cell would be filled.

Every figure on this page comes from contract text: schedules operators write to manage licence conditions, payment relationships and their own appetite for a market, revised on their own timetable and published without explanation.

Philippine statute rests on instruments this reading never touches, and the question stays open here. The distinction is easy to lose, because a country printed in a clause acquires an official air on a screen while remaining one company’s private call.

Along the same shelf, eight documents also name Indonesia and eight name Thailand, while Turkey reaches ten from a roster including both near-twins discussed above. The country index holds the rest of the spread.

What each operator publishes about itself: the company named on the licence, the permit number and where it was read, how many countries the operator excludes in its own terms, and when identity documents are demanded. The country count is the length of a list the operator published, not our estimate of where it will accept you. An empty cell means the document was not read — it is not a zero, and it is not a permission.

Vavepaid placement
  • OperatorTechOptions Group B.V.
  • LicenceCuraçao no number
  • Countries barredlist not read
  • Before ID checkcase by case
Visit
Stake
  • OperatorMedium Rare N.V.
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred1
  • Before ID checkcase by case
Shuffle
  • OperatorNatural Nine B.V.
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred15
  • Before ID checkcase by case
BC.Game
  • Operatornot published
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred0
  • Before ID checknot published
Roobet
  • Operatornot published
  • Licencenot published
  • Countries barred0
  • Before ID checknot published
Rollbit
  • Operatornot published
  • Licencenot published
  • Countries barred0
  • Before ID checknot published
Duelbits
  • OperatorLiquid Entertainment N.V.
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred0
  • Before ID checknot published
Bets.io
  • OperatorTechno Wave Systems S.R.L.
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred42
  • Before ID checkcase by case
Cloudbet
  • OperatorHalcyon Super Holdings B.V.
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred2
  • Before ID checkcase by case
MyStake
  • Operatornot published
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred0
  • Before ID checknot published
TrustDice
  • Operatornot published
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred0
  • Before ID checknot published
BetFury
  • OperatorUniverse B Games B.V.
  • LicenceCuraçao Gaming Authority
  • Countries barred0
  • Before ID checknot published

Vave

Coins
90
Visit

Questions people actually type

How many operators name the Philippines in a restricted list?
Eight, from thirty-eight readable schedules opened in one pass on 26 August 2026, and all eight Philippine entries were taken from archived captures. Thirty readable schedules leave the country out. A further sixty-two documents were never opened, and that is recorded as unopened rather than as anything more.
Why do two of the eight documents look the same?
CryptoLeo and Nine Casino each publish a schedule of thirty-eight countries, and thirty-seven of those entries are identical. One carries Latvia where the other carries Samoa. Two brands publishing the same paper under different names is common on shared platforms, and it means a count of brands overstates the number of separate decisions behind it.
One of the longest documents in the library omits the Philippines. What does that mean?
It means the country was absent from that published text on the day it was opened, and nothing more. Access still depends on the payment provider behind the cashier and on verification at withdrawal, neither of which is settled by a terms page.
Does this page say whether offshore play is lawful in the Philippines?
It says nothing either way. Every count here comes from a commercial contract published by an operator about the service it offers. Philippine law has separate sources and this site leaves the question to them.