Stake.com's own list runs to one country

Stake.com's clause: one country

The territorial clause published at stake.com/licenses was read for this index on 26 August 2026 from an archived capture. It names the United States, and it names nothing else.

One is the shortest published exclusion list in a library of a hundred operators. It is short for a commercial reason rather than a virtuous one: a company can arrange its licensing and payment relationships around a single large refusal instead of a long roll of small ones, and this one has. The paragraph number was not recorded in this reading; the address and the date were.

That single line also explains why the American half of this subject keeps producing confusion, which the United States page takes up at length and the state-by-state page takes up from the other end.

The wider count: 38 lists over 122 countries

Of the hundred operators behind this site, 38 publish a territorial list. All 38 were read on 26 August 2026. Sixty-two keep a document this reading has not opened.

Crossed with the 122 countries covered here, those 38 lists produce 1,139 country-by-country refusals — an average of 9.3 lists naming any given country. The distribution is lopsided rather than even.

Six countries reach 20 or more. Forty-eight reach ten or more. Sixty-seven sit between one and nine. Seven are named by none of the 38 at all: Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Canada, Kuwait, South Africa and New Zealand.

Grouped by the reason the entry appears

The lists are not one kind of document with one kind of motive inside it. Set two of them side by side and three distinct reasons separate out.

Sanctions and payment risk. Bets.io publishes the longest list in the compared set: 42 countries, read from www.bets.io/en/terms-and-conditions on 26 August 2026 through an archived capture. Its shape is unmistakable — Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Russia, Myanmar, Libya, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Eritrea. Exactly one western European market appears anywhere in the 42, and that is Belgium. This is a list drafted around sanctions exposure and the demands of banks and payment processors, and it says nothing about gambling regulation in the countries it names.

A local licensing regime the operator does not hold. Shuffle's list runs to 15 countries, read live from shuffle.com/info/terms on the same day, and it is shaped by the opposite force. Nine of its entries appear on no equivalent line of the Bets.io list, and the group is immediately recognisable: Australia, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Singapore. Each of those is a market with a national licensing regime and a regulator that runs it — the Gambling Commission in Britain, the Kansspelautoriteit in the Netherlands, the DGOJ in Spain, the GGL in Germany, Spelinspektionen in Sweden, the SRIJ in Portugal, the Gambling Regulatory Authority in Singapore, and in Australia the ACMA under the Interactive Gambling Act. Those bodies are named here so a reader knows where the question belongs; none of their registers has been opened for this index.

The operator's own jurisdiction, and plain commercial choice. Both lists print Curaçao, and both operators are licensed there — Shuffle under Curaçao Gaming Authority permit OGL/2024/1337/0628, Bets.io under OGL/2024/1178/0479. An operator excluding the country that issued its permit is following a condition of that permit, not making a judgement about anybody's law. The Cayman Islands on Shuffle's list, and Jersey and Sint Maarten on Bets.io's, sit in the same category. So, quietly, does a good deal of the rest: a market can be left out because it is small, because a payment partner declined it, or because nobody at the company got round to it.

The two lists overlap on six entries only: Cuba, Curaçao, Iran, North Korea, Syria and the United States. Forty-two against fifteen, and six names in common. That is the clearest evidence on this page that list length measures an operator's licensing and banking posture rather than any country's strictness — and Cloudbet, with a published list of exactly two, Australia and Belgium, makes the same point from the other direction.

What an absence does not mean

Fourteen published lists leave Spain out. Eleven leave the Netherlands out. Six leave out the United States. None of that is a permission.

An absence is a fact about the wording of one document on one date. Schedules get lengthened and shortened commercially. A regional version of the terms may carry wording the international version does not. The cashier behind an account works to rules the terms page barely mentions, and a verification clause sits over the whole arrangement, keeping the operator's judgement in reserve for the moment an account opens and again for the moment money leaves.

And 62 documents in this library were never opened here at all. Those operators carry an empty cell rather than a zero — an empty cell enters no total, moves nobody up any ranking, and answers nothing. How we read sets out why the blanks are printed as blanks.

Where the legal question goes

Everything counted above is contract text, and this page ends where the contract ends. What any country's law permits a reader there has other authors, other documents and other regulators, and none of them are read here.

The same reading, run country by country, is what the rest of the site is made of: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada each carry their own count with every address and reading date attached, and the operator table holds the compared rows behind them.