Payment Blocking and ISP Blocking of Illegal Gambling Sites

Every licensing system has the same weakness: operators without a licence can still reach players over the internet. To protect the regulated market, and players who may not realise a site is illegal, regulators increasingly try to cut unlicensed operators off at the infrastructure level. This guide explains the main tools and how they compare as of October 2026. For spotting illegal sites yourself, see spotting unlicensed and black-market operators.

The three main levers

1. Access blocking: ordering internet service providers to block domains by DNS, IP address or URL, usually based on a blacklist published by the regulator
2. Payment blocking: requiring banks and payment institutions to refuse transactions with listed operators
3. Ecosystem pressure: acting against advertisers, affiliates, app stores, game suppliers and hosting providers that support unlicensed operators

Comparison table

Country	Website blocking	Payment blocking	Notes
Norway	DNS blocking since 1 January 2025	Since 2010	Supports the state monopoly model
Italy	ADM blacklist with mandatory ISP blocking, in place since the mid-2000s	Yes	One of the oldest blacklist systems
France	ANJ can order blocking administratively, without going to court, since 2022	Yes	Also targets mirror sites
Switzerland	DNS blocking under the Money Gaming Act since 2019	Limited	Blocklists maintained by the federal regulator and the inter-cantonal authority
Poland	Register of prohibited domains with mandatory blocking	Yes	Payment providers must block listed domains
Australia	ACMA has directed ISPs to block illegal sites since 2019	Credit-card ban for licensed wagering since 2024	Large and growing blocklist
Germany	Access-provider blocking curtailed by a 2025 court ruling	Payment blocking orders under the State Treaty	GGL focuses on payments, hosts and advertisers
United Kingdom	No statutory ISP blocking	No statutory payment blocking	Works with payment firms, search engines and social platforms
Belgium	Gaming Commission blacklist; ISPs redirect to a warning page	Limited

Access blocking: how it works and where it fails

DNS blocking stops a domain name resolving to the operator’s server, usually redirecting to a warning page. It is cheap and widely used, but easy to bypass by switching DNS provider or using a VPN. IP blocking is harder to bypass but risks “overblocking” innocent sites that share the same server. Operators also use mirror domains, which forces regulators to update blacklists constantly.

The German court setback

Germany’s joint regulator, the GGL, tried to order internet access providers to block Malta-licensed sites. In March 2025 the Federal Administrative Court ruled for the provider. Under the State Treaty’s reference to the Telemedia Act, a pure access provider was not responsible for the content and could not be ordered to block it. The State Treaty’s blocking provision was held to be exhaustive. The GGL has since concentrated on payment blocking, hosting providers and advertising, and the issue feeds into the ongoing evaluation of the treaty.

Payment blocking: following the money

Payment blocking requires banks and payment institutions to refuse transfers to and from listed operators. Norway pioneered the approach in 2010. Effectiveness depends on:

• Merchant coding. Gambling transactions should carry the correct card merchant category code, but unlicensed operators often disguise them.
• Intermediaries. E-wallets, payment facilitators and voucher schemes can hide the end merchant.
• Crypto. Crypto-only operators bypass the banking system entirely.

The most effective regimes combine payment blocking with cooperation from card schemes and enforcement against payment intermediaries.

Ecosystem pressure

Regulators increasingly target the businesses that make illegal operations possible:

• Suppliers: licences such as Sweden’s B2B regime can bar game studios from supplying unlicensed sites (see B2B supplier licensing).
• Advertising and affiliates: most regimes make it an offence to advertise unlicensed gambling, and platforms are asked to remove ads and influencer content.
• App stores and search engines: removing apps and limiting search visibility.
• Hosting providers: notice-and-takedown requests, sometimes backed by court orders.

Measuring success

Regulators often judge blocking by “channelisation”, the share of gambling that stays with licensed operators. Estimates vary widely depending on methodology, and industry and regulator figures frequently disagree. Blocking is best seen as one part of a strategy that also needs an attractive licensed offer and strong enforcement.

Why it matters for players

Unlicensed operators are not bound by local rules on fair games, fund protection, self-exclusion, age checks or complaints. Players who are self-excluded on a national register are a particular target for offshore marketing. Blocking can protect people at a vulnerable moment, but it is not watertight. If you want to stop gambling, combine national self-exclusion with personal tools such as gambling blocking software and bank gambling blocks, which work regardless of where a site is licensed.

What to watch

• How Germany adapts its blocking powers after the 2025 ruling
• Whether the UK gives the Gambling Commission statutory blocking powers, which has been debated but not legislated as of October 2026
• Growing cooperation between regulators and payment schemes on disguised gambling transactions
• New markets, such as Brazil, which has used blacklists and blocking against unauthorised betting sites since its regulated market opened

This article is general information. For legal questions about blocking orders, consult a qualified lawyer.