Is GamStop Actually Effective?

GamStop is undoubtedly a vital barrier between vulnerable players and online gambling, but critics argue it could end up pushing self-excluded users toward unscrupulous offshore operators advertising themselves as ‘not on GamStop’.

The question isn’t so much whether GamStop works, but whether modern regulation can contain the markets operating outside UK jurisdiction.

What GamStop Actually Does?

Before GamStop existed, self-exclusion was quite fragmented. A player could exclude themselves from one betting site, while still having instant access to dozens of others.

That’s a really important distinction, because gambling harm is often closely tied to impulsive behaviour^[1]. That means that creating some friction or delay can play a significant role in interrupting harmful patterns. That’s exactly what the centralisation of GamStop does. One registration now blocks access across all UK-licensed operators for a chosen exclusion period.

The numbers also suggest the tool is being actively used. GamStop reported registrations were up 19% year-on-year during the first half of 2025, with more than 10,000 new registrations recorded in both April and May alone. Particularly striking was the continued rise among younger adults aged 16-24.^[2]

While these numbers don’t prove that GamStop is effective, they do show that the UK public are:

• Increasingly aware of GamStop
• Keen to take action to curb problematic gambling behaviour

The Offshore Problem

We know that within an entirely regulated market, GamStop could stop all voluntarily self-excluded people from accessing gambling sites. However, the debate becomes more difficult outside the regulated market.

GamStop is only mandatory for operators licensed by the UK Gambling Commission. It has no authority over offshore gambling sites operating beyond that UK regulatory perimeter.

That unlicensed/grey market/black market gap has allowed some distasteful marketing to creep in. This ecosystem is built around phrases like ‘not on GamStop’, in other words, casinos deliberately targeting self-excluded users ^[3].

A self-exclusion system like GamStop can only ever be as strong as the market surrounding it. If illegal operators remain highly accessible through search engines, affiliates, social media, mirror sites, crypto payment rails, or messaging platforms, then vulnerable users can still find routes back into gambling.

One of the biggest problems with this is that offshore sites are generally less safe than UKGC-licensed ones. So not only are vulnerable consumers unable to access safe sites, they’re able to access unsafe ones. Perhaps, ones without responsible gambling tools, identity checks, or other safeguarding measures. 

The UK is Not Alone in Building Systems Like GamStop

It’s important to remember that GamStop is not some uniquely British experiment. In reality, regulators across Europe are moving towards centralised self-exclusion.

The Netherlands introduced CRUKS, a national exclusion register covering licensed operators across the Dutch market ^[4]. Germany operates the OASIS exclusion system ^[5], while France has continued modernising its nationwide gambling exclusion framework through regulator ANJ.

All three systems reflect the same underlying regulatory idea: self-exclusion works best when it operates across an entire licensed market rather than on an operator-by-operator basis. Interestingly, those countries are now encountering many of the same offshore challenges facing the UK.

That matters because it changes the framing of the debate entirely. The growing adoption of GamStop-style systems suggests regulators broadly agree that centralised exclusion has value.

In that sense, GamStop may actually be highlighting weaknesses elsewhere in digital enforcement.