# Non-GamStop European Casinos: UK Rules
::: hero-subtitle
A casino’s location, UK-facing licence status and participation in GamStop are separate questions.
:::
## How GamStop Changes the Meaning of “European Online Casino”
“European online casino” sounds like a geographical description. In practice, it tells very little about the rules that apply to a site serving someone in the United Kingdom. A business may be based elsewhere in Europe, use a European brand identity or accept customers from several countries. None of that, by itself, explains whether its UK-facing gambling service is licensed here or covered by GamStop.
I find it useful to separate two questions that advertising often blurs: where an operator is based, and which regulatory system governs the service offered to a British customer. For remote gambling sold into the British market, the operator must [hold a Gambling Commission licence](https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-to-licensing-authorities/part-1-primary-legislation), regardless of where the company is located. A European address is not a substitute for that licence, and the word “European” does not establish that a casino participates in a UK self-exclusion scheme.
GamStop is the national online self-exclusion scheme for Great Britain. It is designed to work across multiple operators, rather than applying only to one website. Participating licensed online gambling websites and apps are connected to the scheme, so an active registration can block access across those services. That shared reach is the important difference between a multi-operator scheme and a label attached to an individual casino.
::: top-operators
For UK readers considering non-GamStop European casinos in 2026, payout timing is one practical detail to check. The entries below note the payout speed available for each operator.
### 1. Amunbet
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Amunbet lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 2. Dieselwin
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Dieselwin lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 3. Zombillion
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Zombillion lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 4. BeOnBet
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
BeOnBet lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 5. NightLuck
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
NightLuck lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 6. Jetsetspins
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Jetsetspins lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 7. x3bet
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
x3bet lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 8. Britsino
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Britsino lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 9. SlotoSport
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
SlotoSport lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
—
### 10. Revery Play
**Payout speed:** 1-3 business days
Revery Play lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days.
:::
There is a clear regulatory reason that GamStop matters when assessing an online European casino for the UK market. From 31 March 2020, online operators were required by the Gambling Commission to take part in GAMSTOP. Before that date, the scheme was not compulsory for online operators in the same way. The date marks a change in the operating framework: participation became part of what was expected of online operators within the UK licensing system, not merely a feature some businesses could choose to advertise.
That does not make “European online casinos” one uniform category. Gambling regulation is not determined by a continent-wide label. A company may run a website for different national markets, while the permissions and obligations relevant to British customers depend on the UK-facing service. When I read claims about a casino being “European”, I treat the word as a description of reach or presentation, not as evidence of UK licensing or GamStop coverage.
This distinction also explains why a casino online with a European identity can still be outside the scheme’s coverage. GamStop applies across participating licensed websites and apps; it is not a universal technical barrier to every gambling website with a European connection. The scheme’s name should therefore be understood as referring to its defined network, rather than as a guarantee that every site a British user can encounter is included.
$$LINKCARD non-gamstop-curacao-casino-sites$$
The practical point is easy to miss because the word “casino” makes the service sound like a single product. Online operators may offer several gambling products through the same account and app, but GamStop’s relevance is about the operator’s participation and the scheme’s multi-operator scope. It is not a separate European standard, nor does a site’s country of origin alone tell a customer what protections are in place.
In the industry, wording such as “international access” can sound reassuring while leaving the key regulatory question unanswered. It describes availability, not the status of the operator in Britain. Likewise, calling a site one of the “[best European online casinos](/choosing-a-casino/top-10-highest-paying-online-casinos-uk/)” says nothing on its own about whether the site is authorised to serve British customers or connected to GamStop. Those are separate matters, and they should not be inferred from promotional language.
The UK framework makes the distinction sharper. Remote gambling operators serving the British market need [the relevant Gambling Commission licence](https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-to-licensing-authorities/part-1-primary-legislation) even if their business is established abroad. Within that regulated online market, GamStop participation is compulsory for operators. So the phrase “European casino online” cannot sensibly be used as a shortcut for “covered by UK safeguards”; the actual relationship between the operator, its British service and the licensing system matters.
$$LINKCARD online-casino-with-malta-mga-licence-uk$$
I would read “European” as geography or branding, then assess the UK regulatory context separately. GamStop is a cross-operator self-exclusion scheme for participating licensed online services in Great Britain, and operator participation became mandatory in 2020. Those points give the phrase a more precise context without turning Europe into one gambling jurisdiction. The label is broad. The obligations are specific.
## Roulette Access Does Not Override a Self-Exclusion
Roulette is a game category, not an exception to a self-exclusion agreement. If a person has excluded themselves from a gambling business, switching from slots to roulette does not change the agreement or restore permission to gamble there. The same applies whether the table is labelled European roulette, whether it is live or automated, or whether the site presents itself as premium or VIP.
That distinction is easy to miss in casino advertising. A page may put a particular roulette format front and centre, describe its tables as “exclusive”, or emphasise access to a dedicated room. Those descriptions are about the product and presentation. They do not alter the operator’s responsibility towards someone who has self-excluded. In practice, the label on the game has no bearing on the exclusion.
Self-exclusion is a formal agreement not to gamble with the business concerned. The player remains responsible for keeping to that agreement, while the gambling business must refuse service to customers who have excluded themselves from its venues or websites. Gambling businesses must also make self-exclusion available by law. This is not a courtesy attached to a particular account tier or game.
I separate two questions when looking at a roulette offer: what the table provides, and whether the person is permitted to access the gambling business at all. The first might concern game rules, interface or table presentation. The second is settled by the exclusion agreement. A European roulette table cannot answer it. Neither can a premium label, a VIP invitation or a promise of a different experience.
$$LINKCARD non-gamban-casino-uk$$
That is why searches for the best European roulette casino in the UK can lead to the wrong question for someone with an active exclusion. A recommendation about game selection, even if it were well supported, would not make the operator an appropriate place to gamble. Nor does a casino become suitable because its roulette tables seem more polished than those elsewhere. A product comparison cannot cancel a personal restriction.
The same principle holds when the offer uses “VIP” language. That word describes a marketing position, not an exemption from an exclusion. If a business has agreed to exclude someone, access to its roulette tables should be refused regardless of whether the customer previously held a high-value account, received personal service or used a particular section of the site. Commercial status does not outrank the agreement.
There is also a practical difference between a table being visible and a player being entitled to use it. Promotional pages and game menus can present roulette as available, but the existence of the game does not establish that every visitor may gamble. An excluded customer should not treat a working link, an accessible lobby or an invitation to sign in as proof that the agreement no longer applies. The exclusion governs the relationship; the interface does not.
Where the agreement covers a business, trying another roulette table within that same business is not a workaround. Opening another account elsewhere to get around an exclusion is not a safe response either. Non-GamStop casinos may fall outside the scheme’s coverage, but playing there could still breach the terms of an active self-exclusion. The sensible boundary is broader than one game: exclude from every place where there may be a temptation to gamble, and do not use a change of game or site as a route back in.
$$LINKCARD online-casino-no-registration-uk$$
This matters because roulette is often presented as a contained choice: one table, one format, one session. The framing can make access seem separate from the wider gambling relationship. It is not. A self-exclusion is about not gambling with the business, rather than avoiding only a named product. If the agreement applies, choosing European roulette instead of another casino game does not make the activity fall outside it.
For a person already excluded, the useful test is therefore not whether a site offers the preferred roulette format, or whether a table is described as premium. It is whether the gambling business is one from which that person has self-excluded. If it is, service should be refused. Seeking a different table or a different account changes the route, not the agreement.
The regulator cannot provide refunds for money spent gambling. That is another reason not to treat access as a harmless test of whether an exclusion still works. A visible roulette lobby is not permission. A VIP label is not permission. The agreement remains the point.
## Casino Sites and the Limits of a Single-Site Exclusion
A self-exclusion request to one gambling business has a defined scope: it asks that business to prevent the customer from gambling with it. It does not, by itself, register the person with a multi-operator scheme or create a universal block across unrelated websites. That distinction matters when comparing European casino sites: a site’s location or branding does not tell a customer which other businesses a single-site request will cover.
$$LINKCARD online-casino-with-no-sister-sites-uk$$
Gambling businesses must offer self-exclusion by law. For an individual online casino, the request is normally made through the site’s Responsible Gambling or Safer Gambling section. The instructions there explain how to submit it. If the route is not clear, customer services can be contacted to ask how to make the request. The customer may need to provide personal details so the business can identify the correct account; the essential point is to obtain confirmation that the request has been recorded.
From the operator side, the distinction is practical, not just a matter of wording. A single business can act on an exclusion covering its own service. A multi-operator scheme is designed to carry an exclusion across participating businesses. Those are separate routes, with different reach. A customer who has excluded themselves from one site should not assume that another European casino, including a new European casino, will automatically be covered by that individual request.
Nor should a person open another account elsewhere to get around an exclusion. A fresh registration does not cancel the agreement already made with the first business, and gambling at a different site may conflict with an active self-exclusion commitment. The sound approach is to exclude from every place where gambling may be tempting, using the relevant business-level request and any wider scheme that fits the intended scope. **Scope matters.**
This is why claims about the best European casino sites or top European casino sites do not answer the key question for someone relying on a single-site exclusion. Casino rankings, European casino bonuses, and descriptions of [European slots or slot sites](/choosing-a-casino/slots-casino-sites-uk/) say nothing about whether a particular business has received an exclusion request from that customer. Promotional labels are not exclusion records. The business relationship and the request made to it are what determine the boundary.
$$LINKCARD jackpot-mobile-casino-uk$$
The same principle applies when a site is described as a non-GamStop European casino. That description does not extend a single-site request to another operator, and it does not make the original agreement disappear. The practical task is to know which gambling businesses were included in each request, rather than infer coverage from a site’s name or advertising.
A single-site exclusion can be appropriate when the concern is confined to one business, but it should not be mistaken for protection everywhere. If the risk spans several sites or venues, the exclusion arrangements need to cover those places too. Self-exclusion is a formal agreement not to gamble; its usefulness depends on matching its scope to the places where gambling could take place. If a business fails to follow its obligations, a complaint can be raised through its process, but the regulator cannot refund money spent gambling. **No shortcut.**
## No-Deposit Bonuses Do Not Change the Exclusion Rules
A “free” offer can sound separate from ordinary gambling: no initial payment, no immediate commitment, just a promotional balance or access to games. That wording does not alter a self-exclusion agreement. The relevant issue is not whether a promotion requires a deposit. It is whether the gambling business has agreed to exclude the customer.
In Britain, gambling businesses must provide self-exclusion. Once an agreement is in place, the business must close the customer’s account, return any funds remaining in it and remove the customer’s details from its marketing databases. A no-deposit promotion cannot be treated as permission to keep the account available, send offers or invite the excluded customer back.
I have seen promotional language do a lot of work in a small space. “Complimentary” describes the offer; it does not create an exception to the operator’s obligations. Nor does a promotion change the meaning of an exclusion because it is labelled a free bonus, a welcome offer or a reward. The label is not the rule.
That distinction matters when a message arrives after an exclusion has been agreed. It may be an automated campaign, a delayed email or wording that presents an offer as separate from the account. Whatever its appearance, marketing to an excluded customer is not a way to reopen the relationship. The customer’s details should be removed from marketing databases as part of the required account handling.
### Why a bonus is not a workaround
Searching for European casinos with no-deposit bonuses can appear to offer a route around a block: the offer suggests access without the usual first step. But a promotion does not cancel an active self-exclusion. Do not open another account elsewhere to work around it; playing at non GamStop casinos could breach the terms of the exclusion. Exclude from all places where gambling may be tempting, rather than treating a different offer as a safe alternative.
The distinction between account funds and gambling losses is important. Funds still held in the excluded account must be returned under the agreement. That does not mean money already spent gambling can be recovered through self-exclusion, and the regulator cannot provide refunds for gambling losses.
$$LINKCARD no-id-verification-withdrawal-casino-uk$$
If an offer or marketing message appears after an exclusion, keep a record of it and raise the matter with the gambling business through its complaints process. The promotion itself is not evidence that the exclusion has ended. The operational question is whether the business has honoured the agreement: closed the account, dealt with its remaining funds and stopped marketing to the excluded customer.
A no-deposit label changes the pitch. Nothing more.
## What “Not on GamStop” Means for a Self-Excluded Player
“Not on GamStop” describes a casino that is outside the scheme’s coverage; it does not mean an active self-exclusion has been cancelled. The distinction matters. A player who has agreed not to gamble should not treat a different website, a European address or a new account as permission to resume.
When someone registers with GAMSTOP, access is blocked across UK Gambling Commission-licensed gambling platforms for the chosen exclusion period. Since participation became compulsory for UK-licensed online operators in 2020, regulated casinos in the UK have had to block self-excluded players. That protection has a defined reach: it is not a universal switch that changes the status of every gambling account worldwide.
The practical risk is that seeking access elsewhere can conflict with the terms of an active self-exclusion. Self-exclusion is a formal agreement with the gambling business or scheme involved, and the player remains responsible for sticking to it. A site’s marketing label does not rewrite that agreement. “European” is a description of geography, not proof that a casino is suitable for someone who has excluded themselves.
There is also a separate regulatory issue. Remote operators offering gambling to customers in Great Britain must hold a [UK Gambling Commission licence](https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/guide/what-we-regulate). A casino outside that system is not a UK-licensed alternative, even if its website is available in English or accepts customers from the region. Availability is not the same as regulatory protection.
From inside an operator, the difference between a blocked account and a site beyond a scheme’s reach is operational, not a judgement that the exclusion no longer matters. A business covered by the scheme must act on the exclusion. A player who turns to a casino outside that coverage may not receive the same block, but that does not make the decision safe or consistent with the commitment already made.
I have seen “more choice” used as if it were a neutral benefit. In this context, it can obscure the central point: opening another account to get around an exclusion is not a responsible workaround. Non-GamStop European casino sites should not be treated as a route back to gambling while an exclusion remains active. Playing there could breach the terms of that exclusion.
The safer course is to avoid opening accounts elsewhere and to exclude from all places where there may be a temptation to gamble. Gambling businesses must provide self-exclusion, but the existence of another site does not remove the need to honour an existing agreement. If money is lost, the regulator cannot provide a refund for gambling losses. That boundary is firm.
## Assessing Casino Claims Without a “Best” List
A “best” label is a judgement, not evidence that a casino will respect an existing self-exclusion. I would not treat a [ranked European casino list](/choosing-a-casino/) as a reliable safeguard: a ranking can compare advertised features, but it cannot establish how an individual business will handle an excluded customer. That distinction matters more than the position on a page.
The standard that can be checked is narrower. Gambling businesses must offer self-exclusion by law and take reasonable steps to prevent a self-excluded customer from gambling with them. The wording “reasonable steps” describes an obligation on the business, not a promise that every system will work perfectly in every case. A glossy claim about responsible gambling is not, by itself, proof of how the process operates.
$$LINKCARD trusted-uk-casino$$
When reading a casino’s claims, the useful question is whether they explain the exclusion process clearly and make it possible to use it. A responsible-gambling page should not bury self-exclusion beneath promotional material or imply that a different game, account route or offer changes the status of an exclusion. The detail behind the headline is what counts.
“Best European casinos” can also blur an important boundary. A site’s location or branding does not establish that it is authorised to serve customers in Great Britain. Remote operators selling into the British market need [the relevant Gambling Commission licence](https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/guide/what-we-regulate). A ranking that treats all sites described as European as equivalent is not a sound basis for judging their obligations or protections.
Nor does a list of European casino games tell anything useful about whether a business will prevent an excluded customer from gambling. Slots, roulette and other games are features of the product; compliance is a matter of the operator’s conduct. Mixing those categories makes the recommendation look more complete than it is.
$$LINKCARD best-casino-apps-uk$$
I have seen how marketing language can make a basic process sound like a special benefit. “Player protection” may be a headline, while the practical measure is whether the business recognises an exclusion and blocks access. The label is not the test. The action is.
A person with an active exclusion should not open another account elsewhere to get around it. Playing at a non-GamStop casino could breach the terms of that exclusion, and seeking access through a different site does not make the agreement disappear. It is safer to exclude from every place where gambling may be tempting, rather than use a ranking to find another route in.
So there is no defensible “best” recommendation here. A list can describe what operators advertise; it cannot replace the duty to take reasonable steps or establish how a particular case will be handled. When exclusion is the issue, the relevant measure is whether the business prevents access—not whether its casino, games or marketing claim has been ranked highly.
## UK Players: Who Can Block Access Across Licensed Sites?
For a UK player, GamStop is the service that applies a self-exclusion across participating online gambling businesses rather than at a single casino. Registration blocks access to existing gambling accounts and prevents [new accounts being opened](/choosing-a-casino/no-account-casino-uk/) with online operators across the UK. The service is free.
That reach matters when a site is described as a European casino for UK players. A casino’s location, branding or range of European slots does not determine whether GamStop applies. The relevant point is whether the gambling business is within the UK online operator network covered by the scheme. UK-licensed online casinos must offer self-exclusion, and GamStop lets a person make that choice across operators through one scheme.
In my experience, the distinction between “one account” and “all accounts” is easy to miss in promotional copy. A customer may think a block applies only to the site where it was requested; a GamStop registration has a wider effect across UK online operators. It is intended to prevent access to current accounts as well as account creation, so switching between covered casinos is not a way around the exclusion.
The reach is broad, but it should not be read as a universal block on every gambling business in Europe. Nor does the phrase “European casinos that accept UK players” establish that a site is covered by GamStop or authorised to serve the British market. A casino outside the scheme’s coverage does not cancel an active self-exclusion. Opening an account elsewhere to get around one is not a safe response; gambling there could breach the terms of the exclusion.
A self-exclusion is a formal agreement with a gambling business or scheme, and the obligation to stick to it rests with the person who made it. Businesses must take reasonable steps to prevent excluded customers from gambling. In practical terms, that means checking the intended reach before registration and including every place where gambling may be tempting, rather than relying on a single account restriction.
This is not a route to recover money already spent. The Gambling Commission cannot provide refunds for gambling losses. The point of the block is to limit further access, not reverse earlier transactions. A short distinction, with real consequences.
## Crypto Does Not Make an Active Exclusion Disappear
A crypto payment changes how money may reach a gambling account; it does not rewrite an existing self-exclusion agreement. I have seen payment methods presented as if they create a separate route around ordinary account controls. That is a claim about the transaction, not the exclusion. The agreement concerns the decision not to gamble with the business involved, and the person who made it remains responsible for observing it.
The same distinction matters when a site is described as a European crypto casino. A label, a currency or a different payment route cannot establish that the site is outside an exclusion’s terms. Nor does searching for a top European casino or a European roulette site turn an active agreement into permission to play. “Alternative” is marketing language; it does not settle the status of the exclusion.
Gambling businesses must provide a way to self-exclude, and self-exclusion should cover every place where gambling may be tempting. Opening an account elsewhere to get around an existing exclusion is not a safe solution. Playing at a non-GamStop casino could breach the terms of the exclusion, even if the site accepts a different form of payment or presents itself as separate from familiar UK services.
There is a separate regulatory point. A foreign location or crypto option does not make an operator licensed to serve the British market. Remote gambling businesses serving that market need a [UK Gambling Commission licence](https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/guide/what-we-regulate); sites outside that system do not gain one through their payment arrangements. That question is distinct from the personal agreement, but neither can be answered by looking only at the deposit method.
If gambling has become difficult to control, the practical step is to maintain the exclusion and block access to other places where the same temptation may arise. The regulator cannot refund money already spent gambling. A different payment rail does not reverse the decision.
## Real-Money Accounts After Self-Exclusion
Once a self-exclusion agreement is in place, the gambling business must close the customer’s account, return the funds held in it and remove the customer’s details from its marketing databases. These are separate account-handling duties, not optional gestures attached to a particular type of offer or game.
I have seen account closure treated in customer-facing language as if it were merely a restriction on logging in. That misses the point. The agreement changes what the business is supposed to do with the account and with the personal data used to send promotional messages. A closed account should not remain a channel for gambling communications.
The balance point needs equal care. Returning funds means returning money still held in the account; it does not mean reimbursing money already spent gambling. The Gambling Commission cannot provide refunds for gambling losses. The distinction matters when a customer asks what happens to a remaining balance after exclusion: account funds and past losses are not the same thing.
Nor should a self-exclusion be treated as a request that the customer must keep renewing through marketing preferences. The business must remove the customer’s details from its marketing databases as part of the agreement. A promotional message arriving after exclusion is therefore not simply an inconvenient reminder; it runs against the required account handling.
Gambling businesses must offer self-exclusion by law. For a UK-licensed European real-money casino, the relevant question is not whether a welcome banner advertises responsible gambling, but whether the business carries out the practical steps once the agreement has been made. Account closure, return of the balance and removal from marketing records are the substance.
There can still be a difference between the customer’s view of an account and the operator’s internal processing: an account may appear inaccessible while its balance or records are being dealt with. That does not change the duties. If the account remains open, funds are not returned, or marketing continues, the customer can raise the matter through the business’s complaints process. UKGC-licensed operators must also provide access to an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution service.
The operating standard is plain. Exclusion changes the account relationship. It is not a pause in advertising, and it is not a promise to recover losses.
## When a Casino Is Outside GamStop’s Coverage
GamStop is not a universal block on every gambling website with a European connection. Its reach is tied to participating online operators; self-exclusion from an individual gambling business is a separate agreement with that business. The distinction matters because a block registered through one route should not be assumed to cover every casino.
At an individual site, self-exclusion means asking that gambling company to stop the customer betting with it for an agreed period. The request applies to the business involved, not automatically to unrelated operators. The UK rules also require gambling businesses to make self-exclusion available. That obligation does not turn a single-site request into a market-wide restriction.
I have seen the wording around “not covered” treated as if it meant “safe to use”. It does not. A casino outside GamStop’s coverage may still be beyond the scope of that scheme, but seeking it out to get around an active self-exclusion can breach the terms of the agreement already made. Opening another account elsewhere is not a sound workaround. The practical safeguard is to exclude from every place where gambling may be tempting, rather than relying on one registration to block every possible route.
There is a separate regulatory point. A remote operator selling into the British market must hold [a Gambling Commission licence](https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-to-licensing-authorities/part-1-primary-legislation), wherever it is based. A casino’s absence from GamStop does not establish that it is authorised to serve UK customers. Nor does it change the effect of an existing agreement with another gambling business.
Self-exclusion is a commitment not to gamble with the business named in the agreement. Its boundary should be read carefully: which company accepted the request, and which sites or services it covers. It should not be mistaken for a universal technical barrier, or treated as permission to continue gambling elsewhere.
If gambling has continued despite an exclusion, the regulator cannot refund money spent gambling. That is a hard limit. The agreement is about preventing access through the business involved; it is not a mechanism for recovering losses or cancelling the exclusion by choosing a different casino.
::: faq
## How does self-exclusion work?
You identify the gambling businesses or venues you want to exclude yourself from, provide information to confirm your identity, choose a duration and receive confirmation. The businesses you exclude yourself from must refuse you service; for online gambling, you can use GamStop for participating operators or contact an individual casino.
—
## How do I return from self-exclusion?
For GamStop, contact the scheme directly to request removal. A 24-hour cooling-off period applies, and after removal it may take operators another 24 to 48 hours to update your status.
—
## How does GamStop benefit me?
GamStop lets you exclude yourself, free of charge, from participating online gambling operators across the UK with one registration. It blocks access to existing accounts and prevents you from opening new ones with those operators.
—
## Can a self-excluded player use a non-GamStop casino?
GamStop does not block every gambling website: it covers participating licensed online services, not sites outside its network. But self-exclusion remains a formal agreement with the businesses you excluded yourself from, and you are responsible for sticking to it.
—
## What are casinos outside GamStop, and are they legal for players in the UK to use?
They are casinos that are not covered by GamStop, but that does not establish whether they are authorised to serve customers in Great Britain. Operators offering remote gambling to the British market must hold a Gambling Commission licence, regardless of where they are based.
—
## How does a non-GamStop casino handle self-exclusion?
You can contact the casino directly or use its Responsible Gambling or Safer Gambling instructions to request exclusion from that business. Once an agreement is made, the business must close your account, return your funds, remove you from its marketing databases and take reasonable steps to prevent you from gambling.
:::
[Responsible Gambling](/responsible-gambling/)