USA Casinos for UK Players: Licensing and Payouts

Updated October 2026

Licensed

Available in GB

Fast payouts

18+ Only

A US-facing label does not establish UK authorisation, and access alone says little about safeguards or whether a withdrawal will be reliable.

The UK–US Label Does Not Settle the Licensing Question

“USA casinos for UK players” describes a search category, not a legal status. A site may present itself as American-facing, use US terminology, or advertise games and payment arrangements associated with the United States. None of those details establishes that the operator is permitted to provide gambling facilities in Great Britain.

In the UK market, an offshore casino is identified by the relationship between the operator and the customer, not by the design of the website or the nationality suggested by its branding. It is an online gambling business that accepts British customers without holding an operating licence from the UK Gambling Commission. Such operators work outside the UKGC regulatory system. They may hold a licence from an offshore authority, but that licence does not become a British authorisation simply because the site is available in English or carries a US-friendly label.

Casino Sites in the UK: Deposits, Licences and Access

That distinction matters because “US casino” can mean several different things. It might refer to a business targeting customers in the United States, a platform using dollar-based presentation, a casino whose games or marketing have a US theme, or simply a site described by affiliates as suitable for players looking for an American-style experience. These descriptions concern positioning. They do not answer the licensing question for a customer located in Britain.

The relevant test is narrower: does the operator hold the UK Gambling Commission licence required to offer remote gambling to customers in Great Britain? A licence issued elsewhere does not replace it. The location of the company, the currency displayed on the cashier, the appearance of the games lobby and the wording used in promotional material cannot alter that requirement.

This is why “USA-friendly online casino” is a weak compliance description. It says that the operator has chosen to present itself as open to a particular audience. It does not show that the operator is authorised to serve that audience under British rules. A site can be internationally branded and still be offshore in the UK sense. Conversely, an American reference in the branding does not turn an offshore operation into a US-regulated or UK-regulated one.

The licensing label also needs to be read precisely. “Licensed offshore” is not the same as “licensed in the UK”. The former indicates that some external authority has issued a licence or approval to the operator. The latter means that the business holds the relevant permission from the UK Gambling Commission. Those are separate regulatory relationships with different scopes. A foreign licence may govern the operator in the jurisdiction that issued it; it does not give the operator authority to operate in Britain.

Safe Online Casinos in the UK: Licence and Checks

The Santeda example shows why branding should not be treated as evidence of how a gambling business is organised. Santeda held a Curaçao licence, but that licence did not authorise operations in either the UK or the US. The geographic wording attached to the brand therefore could not expand the licence beyond its actual scope. A Curaçao-based authorisation remained a Curaçao-based authorisation.

There was also a documented commercial connection between Santeda and SIS that illustrates another point: the visible casino brand may not reveal the full revenue structure behind it. Under the arrangement, SIS was entitled to a share of revenue generated by losing bets made through Santeda’s brands. That is not a detail that can be inferred from a logo, a country reference or the front page of a casino website. It is a contractual relationship affecting the flow of money behind the consumer-facing name.

Ownership, commercial partners and revenue-sharing arrangements deserve separate attention for the same reason. A website can make itself look national, international or tailored to a particular group of players while the underlying operator, licence holder and commercial beneficiaries sit elsewhere. The brand is the wrapper; the licence and contracts determine what the business is actually authorised to do and who may benefit from its activity. Wrappers are inexpensive.

Acceptance language describes the operator’s stated customer policy; it does not confer regulatory permission.

For anyone assessing a USA casino for UK players, the sensible starting point is therefore not the label “US”, “American” or “USA-friendly”. The material questions are who operates the site, which legal entity holds the stated licence, where that licence applies and whether the operator has UKGC authorisation. If the answer to the last question is no, the site is offshore from the British market’s perspective, regardless of how closely its presentation resembles a domestic or American product.

The same rule applies to claims about “USA online casinos accepting UK players”. Acceptance language describes the operator’s stated customer policy; it does not confer regulatory permission. A casino may identify British customers as part of its intended audience while remaining outside the UKGC framework. That combination is precisely why nationality-based branding and regulatory status must be kept separate.

A reliable assessment consequently requires more than checking the country named in the site’s title or the flag displayed in its marketing. The licence number, issuing authority, licensed entity and permitted territory carry more weight than a US-facing description. Santeda’s Curaçao authorisation demonstrates the practical limit of that distinction: a licence can exist, be genuine within its own jurisdiction and still provide no permission to operate in the UK or the US.

When a Site Says It Accepts UK Players

A website may state that it accepts customers from Britain, but that statement describes the site’s access policy, not its legal authority. A registration page, a country selector or an account that can be opened from a UK address does not amount to permission to provide gambling facilities in Great Britain.

For online gambling, the relevant question is whether the operator holds a current licence from the UK Gambling Commission. Remote operators selling gambling to customers in England, Scotland and Wales must have that licence, regardless of where the business is incorporated or where its servers are located. A site presenting itself as a USA casino accepting UK players may therefore be available to British visitors while still lacking the authorisation required to operate lawfully in Great Britain.

Foreign Casinos for UK Players: Licensing and Risks

That distinction matters because an offshore operator’s own wording is not an independent regulatory check. “UK players accepted” can mean only that the website has not placed a technical restriction on British registrations. It does not confirm that the operator is permitted to advertise in the UK, provide gambling facilities to UK customers or apply the protections attached to a UKGC licence.

The legal position falls on two separate sides. An unlicensed operator cannot lawfully offer gambling services to customers in Great Britain, and it cannot legally advertise those services in the UK. The individual player is in a different position: the restriction concerns the operator’s conduct, not a criminal penalty imposed on a person for opening an account. That distinction does not turn an offshore site into a UK-authorised casino; it simply prevents the two issues from being confused.

Access controls can add to the confusion. Some casinos licensed outside the UK are expected to block British visitors under their own licensing or commercial rules. A report by gambling.com says that many such sites do not consistently enforce those blocks. The result can be a practical mismatch between the operator’s stated restrictions and what appears on screen from a UK connection.

Technical availability is not proof of acceptance in the regulatory sense. A site may load, display registration fields and permit a deposit without having the right to serve Great Britain. It may also rely on a user changing the apparent location through a VPN. That is not a recommendation or a route to lawful access. It is simply one reason that a functioning webpage cannot be treated as evidence of authorisation.

The more useful distinction is between three claims that are frequently compressed into one:

• The site is technically reachable: its pages can be opened from a British connection.
• The site says it accepts UK customers: its terms or registration process do not reject British residents.
• The site is authorised in Great Britain: the operator holds the relevant UK Gambling Commission licence.

Only the third claim addresses lawful provision of online gambling in England, Scotland and Wales. A US-facing label, an international licence or the absence of an access block does not substitute for it.

A non-UK licence may regulate the operator under another jurisdiction, but it does not become a UKGC licence by being displayed on the website. Offshore casinos operate outside the UK Gambling Commission’s regulatory system, so they do not carry the same UK framework for customer protection, complaints oversight or mandatory affordability checks. The site’s statement that British accounts are welcome cannot change that status.

This is why lists of USA online casinos accepting UK players need careful wording. A list based only on successful registration would measure accessibility, not legality or suitability. The same applies to USA gambling sites or slot sites that appear open to British customers: the visible invitation is evidence of what the operator allows technically, not evidence that the operator may lawfully offer gambling in Great Britain.

Access Is Not the Same as a Reliable Payout

A website loading from Britain proves only that the website is accessible. It does not prove that winnings will be paid, that the operator is accountable to the UK Gambling Commission, or that a dispute can be taken to an effective British enforcement body.

That distinction matters when assessing USA-facing casinos that accept customers from the UK. The label may describe the site’s intended audience, its branding or the jurisdiction discussed in its marketing. It does not create a UKGC licence. An offshore casino remains outside the UK Gambling Commission’s regulatory system, and it does not provide the same protection as a licensed operator serving Great Britain.

The financial risk appears at the point of withdrawal. Depositing money is a completed transaction: funds leave the customer’s account and enter the casino’s system. A withdrawal is conditional on the operator approving the request and releasing the balance. If that approval is refused, the customer may have no practical route to compel payment.

This is not a claim that every offshore site refuses winnings. It is a narrower and more important point: the protection depends on the operator’s willingness to honour its own terms when a claim becomes expensive. A report by gambling.com describes cases in which unlicensed sites refused to pay winnings, leaving customers without effective legal recourse. That possibility changes the calculation behind any offer labelled as real-money play for UK customers. The advertised balance is not the same thing as money securely available outside the platform.

Attention Financial risk appears at the point of withdrawal. If an operator refuses to approve a request, you may have no practical route to compel payment.

Why the operator’s location matters

A UKGC-licensed casino operates within a British regulatory framework. An offshore site does not. If a dispute concerns an unpaid withdrawal, the customer cannot assume that the UK Gambling Commission can order the foreign operator to settle it or apply UK enforcement measures against that business.

The same applies to the language used around a “US casino”. A site may present itself as American-facing while being licensed offshore, with its contractual relationship formed under another jurisdiction’s rules. That makes the operator’s identity, licence and terms more relevant than the country named in the brand.

A payment method does not remove this exposure. An e-wallet, bank transfer or cryptocurrency transaction may record that money was sent, but the transaction record is not a payout guarantee. It shows movement of funds, not the operator’s continuing obligation being enforced in Britain. Once a withdrawal is disputed, the customer may be left dealing with the operator’s stated complaints process and whatever remedies exist in the licensing jurisdiction.

What can leave a balance stranded

The problem is not limited to a casino disappearing. A withdrawal can become contested over account ownership, identity checks, bonus conditions or alleged breaches of the site’s terms. Where the operator is outside UKGC oversight, the customer cannot treat a refusal as a routine service complaint with a guaranteed escalation path.

This is also why a large displayed balance can be misleading. The relevant question is not simply whether an account can be opened or whether a deposit is accepted. It is whether the operator has a credible obligation to release winnings and whether an independent authority can act when it does not.

Offshore operators are not subject to UKGC enforcement and do not offer UKGC-mandated affordability checks. Those missing safeguards are part of the same broader distinction: acceptance of a British customer is a commercial decision by the site, not evidence of the protections attached to a licensed British gambling service. For a customer comparing overseas casinos, the payout risk therefore sits behind every promise of access and every balance shown on screen.

Welcome Bonuses: Calculate the Turnover Before the Headline Amount

A large welcome package is not free money. It is a contract in which the promotional amount becomes useful only after a defined amount of gambling has taken place. The headline figure comes first; the turnover calculation decides what it is worth.

Turnover Calculation

Step 1

Identify the bonus amount: £100.

Step 2

Identify the wagering requirement: 35x.

Step 3

Multiply the amount by the requirement: £100 × 35 = £3,500.

A specialist affiliate review reports that foreign casinos serving British customers can advertise larger welcome packages because they are outside the UK Gambling Commission’s restrictions on bonus wording, wagering requirements and promotional terms. That difference explains why USA-facing casino sites may display offers that look more generous than those available from UKGC-licensed operators. It does not make the operator UKGC-regulated. An offshore casino remains outside the Commission’s regulatory system, and it does not provide the same framework of UKGC-mandated controls, including affordability checks.

The main formats are straightforward in name but less straightforward in cost:

• Deposit matches add bonus funds in proportion to a qualifying deposit.
• Free-spins packages attach a specified number of spins to a deposit or another promotional condition.
• No-deposit bonuses provide bonus funds without the same initial deposit requirement, although they still carry terms.
• Cashback offers return a stated portion of qualifying losses or play under the operator’s rules.

The format matters less than the conditions attached to it. A deposit match can require wagering on the deposit, the bonus, or both. Free spins can produce winnings that must be wagered before withdrawal. Cashback may be limited to particular games, dates or balances. The promotional label is therefore only the first line of the calculation.

Consider a 100% match bonus of £100 with a 35x wagering requirement. The arithmetic is:

£100 × 35 = £3,500

That means £3,500 in qualifying bets must be placed before the bonus funds convert into withdrawable cash. This is turnover, not a guaranteed loss: the final result depends on the games, stakes and outcomes. It is still the amount of activity required by the term, and it creates exposure that the headline £100 does not show.

The phrase “qualifying bets” also matters. A casino may exclude some games, count certain games at reduced contribution rates, or impose a maximum stake while the bonus is active. A bet that does not qualify does not reduce the required turnover, even though it uses real funds. Other terms can include an expiry condition, a maximum cash-out, restricted payment methods or a requirement to complete identity checks before withdrawal. Each condition can change the practical value of the offer.

The calculation should therefore start with the wagering multiple, eligible games and any stake restriction, not the advertised amount. If the required turnover is incompatible with the intended budget, the bonus has no useful value regardless of how large the banner looks. That is accounting, not pessimism.

New-Site Claims Need More Than a Launch Date

A newly launched site with a US-facing design can look more current than an established operator, but launch timing says nothing about its suitability for British customers. A fresh logo, a new domain and a prominent American theme describe the presentation. They do not establish who operates the casino, which regulator issued its licence or whether it may lawfully offer gambling facilities in Great Britain.

The relevant distinction is between an offshore licence and a UK Gambling Commission licence. Sites in this category are licensed offshore and are not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission. A licence from an overseas authority may explain the operator’s stated legal basis in another jurisdiction, but it does not replace the licence required for remote gambling operators serving consumers in England, Scotland and Wales.

What to check before registration

The operator’s licensing information should be treated as a claim requiring verification, not as a badge that settles the matter. The casino should identify the legal entity behind the website, the licensing authority and the applicable terms. Those details should be consistent across the footer, terms and conditions, privacy policy and registration process. A vague reference to “international regulation” gives no useful answer about accountability.

Affiliate material can describe offshore platforms as licensed and regulated by reputable authorities. That is a description found in a specialist affiliate review, not independent proof that a particular new site is authorised for the British market. The licence must be considered separately from the marketing language and from the site’s US-facing branding.

Identity checks are another basic test. A legitimate registration process should explain what identification is required to comply with regulations and when those details are collected. The information may include documents confirming identity and other account particulars. A site that presents registration as entirely frictionless, then introduces unclear verification demands later, has supplied a poor account of its own conditions. Convenience at sign-up is not a regulatory credential.

The distinction also matters for consumer safeguards. An offshore operator does not provide the UKGC framework, including UKGC-mandated affordability checks. The absence of that requirement should not be mistaken for a streamlined service; it means a British customer is outside that specific layer of protection.

A launch date can therefore be recorded as a fact about the website’s history, but it cannot serve as evidence of licensing, transparency or suitability. The useful assessment starts with the operator’s legal identity, the stated offshore licence and the identity-verification terms. Branding comes after those checks, where it belongs.

Withdrawal Timelines: E-Wallets, Banks and Operator Delays

Payment method has a direct effect on how quickly a withdrawal can reach a UK account. For offshore casinos marketed towards British players, e-wallets such as Skrill and Neteller are generally the quickest documented route. A specialist casino review reports that most foreign casinos clear these transactions within 24 hours, with many completing them in under 12 hours.

Non-GamStop European Casinos: UK Rules Explained

That timing should not be mistaken for a same-day payment promise. It describes the expected processing of the payment route, not a binding commitment from every operator. The casino may place the withdrawal into a pending queue, request identity documents, or carry out its own internal checks before releasing the funds. Any of those steps can extend the wait, even when the chosen e-wallet normally moves money quickly.

Bank transfers operate on a slower timetable. A specialist casino review reports that they often take five to seven business days, and that some foreign casinos add an operator-side delay before the banking process begins. The total wait can therefore contain two separate stages: the casino’s approval and release of the withdrawal, followed by the bank’s processing time.

The distinction matters when a site uses language such as “instant” or “same-day”. Such wording may refer to the time after approval, rather than the period from the withdrawal request to cleared funds. It may also describe a possible processing speed instead of a contractual service level. A fast payment method cannot remove an operator’s pending period or verification requirement.

Terms differ substantially between offshore operators. Withdrawal limits, pending periods and identity-verification procedures are not standardised across the market. One site may send an approved e-wallet withdrawal promptly, while another may retain it during its stated pending period. A bank transfer may then take its own business-day timetable after release. The payment badge says little about the operator’s internal queue.

The practical comparison is therefore straightforward:

• Skrill and Neteller: a specialist review reports clearance within 24 hours at most foreign casinos, and under 12 hours at many of them.
• Bank transfer: the same type of review reports five to seven business days in many cases, with possible operator processing time added.
• Same-day wording: a claim about possible speed, not an assurance that every withdrawal will arrive that day.

These services are offered by offshore casinos outside the UK Gambling Commission’s regulatory system. Their payment terms should be read as operator-specific conditions, not as UKGC-backed standards. A claimed fast withdrawal remains dependent on the casino’s verification process, pending rules and stated limits.

Acceptance Does Not Restore GamStop Safeguards

GamStop is tied to the UK-licensed gambling system. A self-exclusion registered with the scheme blocks access to every operator licensed by the UK Gambling Commission, so moving between British-licensed casino brands does not remove the restriction. The exclusion applies across that licensed network rather than to one account or one website.

British Casinos Not on GamStop: Rules and Risks

A foreign casino sits outside that network. This remains true whether the site presents itself as a US casino accepting UK players, uses a US-facing brand, or operates under an offshore licence. Such an operator is not covered by GamStop and has no connection to the exclusion record created within the UK system. Registration there therefore does not reinstate the barrier that applies to UKGC-licensed sites.

An affiliate review reports that a person who has self-excluded through GamStop may be able to open an account at a foreign casino within minutes and deposit without the safeguards attached to the UK scheme. The important point is not the speed of registration. It is the disappearance of a control that was deliberately put in place to prevent gambling accounts being used during the exclusion period.

That gap can affect the whole sequence: account creation, identity checks, deposits and continued access to gambling products. A foreign operator may request identification for its own compliance process, but that does not make it part of GamStop or cause the self-exclusion to be recognised. Identity verification and self-exclusion are separate controls; one cannot be treated as a substitute for the other.

The same separation applies to affordability protections. Offshore operators are not subject to UKGC enforcement and do not provide the UK Gambling Commission’s mandated affordability checks. A site may describe its security, verification or responsible-gambling procedures in favourable terms, but those statements do not recreate the protections attached to a UK-licensed account.

For someone who has chosen GamStop, a US-facing casino that accepts British registrations is therefore not an alternative route around the exclusion in any protective sense. It is a route outside the system. The account may exist, and deposits may be technically possible, while the central safeguard is absent. That distinction matters more than the label on the homepage or the operator’s claimed geographical identity.

No-Deposit Offers Still Have Conditions

A no-deposit bonus can look more attractive than a deposit match because no initial payment is required to activate the offer. That does not make the bonus free cash. It is promotional credit, and the conditions determine whether any resulting balance can be withdrawn.

An affiliate review identifies four recurring offer formats at foreign casinos serving UK players:

• deposit-match bonuses;
• free-spins packages;
• no-deposit bonuses;
• cashback offers.

The format changes, but the accounting question remains the same: what must be done before the promotional balance becomes withdrawable?

A no-deposit offer may attach a wagering requirement to the bonus amount, winnings generated from it, or both. The wording matters. “Wagering requirement” is not a description of a benefit; it is a turnover calculation. If the terms apply a 35x requirement to a £20 bonus, the calculation is:

£20 × 35 = £700

That means £700 must be staked in qualifying bets before cash-out is available. The £20 shown in the promotion is therefore not equivalent to £20 that can simply be transferred to a bank account. It is the starting figure in a condition that creates £700 of required turnover.

“Qualifying” is also important. The terms may define which games or bets count towards the requirement. A balance can appear to be moving while the qualifying turnover is progressing at a different rate, depending on the stated rules. The exact treatment belongs in the offer conditions, not in the headline.

Other restrictions can affect the practical value of a no-deposit promotion. The operator may require account verification, and the offer may be limited by eligibility rules, expiry provisions, or a maximum amount that can be withdrawn. Those details can determine the final cash value even when the wagering arithmetic appears straightforward.

The regulatory position remains separate from the promotional packaging. A foreign casino offering this type of bonus is outside the UK Gambling Commission’s system and does not have a UKGC licence. It is therefore not subject to the same UKGC framework as a licensed operator, including UK-mandated affordability checks. A large no-deposit figure should not be read as evidence of stronger protection or easier payment.

The sensible comparison is between the cash value after all conditions and the amount of qualifying play required to reach withdrawal eligibility. Once the £20 becomes £700 of turnover, the headline has already stopped being the useful number.

Fast and Instant Payout Claims Have a Trade-Off

A US-facing label does not make a withdrawal instant. At a foreign casino serving British customers, the payment method, the operator’s internal queue and the account’s verification status all affect when funds become available. “Fast payout” is therefore a description of a possible route, not a promise attached to every transaction.

Crypto is the quickest documented option in this comparison. An affiliate review reports that crypto withdrawals at foreign casinos can clear in under an hour, making them faster than fiat payment methods. That timing should not be read as a guaranteed completion period. The operator may still need to approve the withdrawal, check the account or apply a pending period before releasing the transaction.

Crypto withdrawals can clear in under an hour, but they are subject to exchange-rate volatility.

The speed also comes with a separate financial risk. A cryptocurrency balance can change in value while the withdrawal is being processed or transferred. The amount received in pounds may therefore differ from the value expected when the withdrawal was requested. A short wait does not remove exchange-rate exposure; it merely reduces the time during which it can arise.

What “instant” leaves out

Withdrawal limits, pending periods and verification procedures differ considerably between operators, according to an affiliate review. A site may advertise instant withdrawals while retaining a review stage, applying a transaction ceiling or requiring identification before approving payment. Those conditions matter more than the label on the cashier page.

Verification can also interrupt an otherwise rapid route. An account may need identity documents or other details before funds are released. This is not the same as a guaranteed same-day service: the advertised processing speed may refer only to the operator’s payment stage, not to the complete journey from withdrawal request to receipt.

Crypto also requires attention to the destination wallet and network details. A mistake can create a separate transfer problem, while the value of the currency remains outside the operator’s control. The speed calculation is consequently incomplete unless both timing and value are considered.

These sites operate outside the UK Gambling Commission system. They do not provide UKGC-mandated affordability checks, and the presence of a crypto cashier does not add that protection. A fast transfer can be technically successful while the wider arrangement remains outside British regulatory oversight.

For anyone comparing overseas casinos marketed to UK players, the useful question is not whether the site uses the word “instant”. It is whether the published terms state the withdrawal limit, pending rule and verification process, and whether the financial effect of cryptocurrency volatility is acceptable. Without those details, “instant” is packaging rather than a payment term.

International Casinos for UK Players: Legal and Payment Risks

Recommended online casinos

1. NightWin
   Bonus: £900 + 400 free spins · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
2. Britsino
   Bonus: Welcome Package – Get your £2,200 + 2,000 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
3. BeOnBet
   Bonus: 100% up to €500 + 100 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
4. SpinFormula
   Bonus: 550% Up To £15,000 + 550 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
5. SlotoSport
   Bonus: 500% up to £ 10 200+ 777 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
6. Revery Play
   Bonus: 100% up to€1,000+ 100 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
7. WinBeast
   Bonus: €5000 + 500 FS + €650 Freebet · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
8. Chanze
   Bonus: Slots Welcome Bonus #1 200% up to €500 · Payout speed: 1-3 business days

Can a UK Resident Play at an Overseas Casino?

Yes. UK law does not make it a criminal offence for an individual to place bets with a casino licensed outside the United Kingdom. That includes an overseas or USA-facing online casino, provided the question is limited to the player’s own act of gambling.

The legal position is different for the operator. A company offering remote gambling to customers in Great Britain must hold the appropriate UK Gambling Commission licence, regardless of where the company is based or which foreign licence it holds. An overseas casino without that UKGC licence cannot lawfully provide gambling facilities to customers in England, Scotland or Wales. The restriction falls on the business’s supply of gambling, not on the individual customer’s decision to place a bet.

That distinction matters because “legal for the player” does not mean “regulated in the UK”. An offshore casino is outside the UKGC system and does not receive UKGC supervision or enforcement. It also does not provide UKGC-mandated affordability checks. A foreign licence, where one exists, does not turn the operator into a UK-licensed casino.

There is also no separate UK income-tax bill on gambling winnings. UK gambling profits are not treated as taxable income for the player, whether the casino holds a UKGC licence or operates under an overseas licence. The tax position therefore does not change because the gambling account is with a USA-facing or other foreign operator.

The practical legal summary is straightforward:

• a UK resident is not prohibited from betting with an overseas operator;
• the overseas operator must have a UKGC licence to lawfully offer gambling facilities to customers in Great Britain;
• an offshore licence is not a substitute for that British licence;
• gambling winnings are not subject to UK income tax.

This is a division between player liability and operator obligations, not an endorsement of an offshore site. A site may be accessible to British customers while still operating outside the UKGC framework. Its acceptance of registrations does not establish that it is authorised to serve Great Britain.

Responsible Gambling