Clause 3.4 in full, and the names added since April 2025

The thirteen added between the two copies

The equivalent passage in the earlier document sat at clause 2 of the Terms of Service, under the heading Your Obligations as a Player, in a capture dated 24 April 2025. It named 24 places.

Comparing the two captures of the operator’s own text gives a result that can be dated to the day. Thirteen names stand in the later copy and are absent from the earlier one:

• Belgium
• Denmark
• France
• Iran
• Lithuania
• Malta
• Myanmar
• North Korea
• Portugal
• Puerto Rico
• Serbia
• Slovakia
• Slovenia

Twenty-four became thirty-seven. Across the same fifteen months, the number of names that left the list is zero.

Thirty-seven is a middling figure in the company this site keeps. Ten of the comparison operators publish a territorial clause of their own, the counts run from one name to seventy-four, and the 129 places they name between them include not one that all ten agree on — the spread is set out at ten territory lists.

That is the single movement this comparison can demonstrate, and its shape is worth holding on to. The list grows. An account opened while a country was absent from it sits under a contract that may name that country later, and the operator carries zero obligation to say so. Both copies quoted here were captured by an archive rather than announced by anybody.

Nor is the list the only thing that moved between the two captures. Eight numbered sections became seventeen, the governing law moved from Curaçao and Lithuania to Costa Rica, and two protective sentences present in 2025 are absent from the edition in force — the whole comparison, document against document, is at two dated copies of one contract.

Whether a longer list exists today is unknown here. What we hold is a capture from 9 August 2026, and the argument of this page applies to that capture as much as to the ones before it.

What the clause states happens

The third sentence of 3.4 sets out the consequence, and it is quoted here as the operator wrote it:

If you attempt to access our services from any of these jurisdictions, including by using false information, VPNs, proxies, or similar tools, your Account may be restricted. It is solely your responsibility to ensure that your use of the Website complies with the laws of your country of residence or location.

The Netherlands, and why the source matters

The Netherlands appears inside the quotation above, in the operator’s own list, which is the only reason this site says anything about it.

Separately, on 2 September 2026, four legal addresses under the operator’s domain were requested from a machine in the Netherlands and each returned the same 391-character refusal screen, naming that country. The wording of that screen appears inside the operator’s own translation bundle as two strings, so it is the operator’s geo-block component rendering rather than an intermediary’s error page.

Even so, the reach of that observation ends where it began: one request, one address, one date. Building a statement about who an operator refuses on top of a screen served to a single machine would be an error of a kind this desk has committed before, and the rule now is to keep the two apart. The contract names the country. The screen records a request.

What this page leaves to somebody else

A restricted-territory clause settles one question: whom the operator declines to serve, according to the operator. It carries zero authority over the law where a reader lives, and the two are separate matters with separate sources.

So this page prints the clause, dates the copy it came from, counts what changed and stops. Anything about legality belongs to a lawyer working from statute rather than from a contract, and anything about routes around an operator’s territorial rules is absent here in every framing.

The other three movements between the same two copies are on the comparison this site is built on.