Clause 3.4 in full, and the names added since April 2025
One clause, two dated copies
Clause 3.4 of the Terms and Conditions, in the copy captured on 9 August 2026, names 37 places. The equivalent passage in the copy captured on 24 April 2025 named 24. Thirteen names were added across those fifteen months, and the count of removals is zero.
| Casino | Operator | Licence | Countries barred | Withdrawal limit | Visit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vavepaid placement | TechOptions Group B.V. | Curaçao no number | list not read | from 50,000 USDT in instalments cl. 8.8 | Visit |
| Gamdom | not published | not published | 37 | not published | |
| Rocketpot | Danneskjold Ventures B.V. | Curacao | 34 | not published | |
| Bitcasino.io | Moon Technologies B.V. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 1 | not published | |
| Wild.io | Stack Gaming Ltd. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 45 | not published | |
| Wild Fortune | Metlait SRL | Anjouan Gaming Board | 47 | not published | |
| Instant Casino | Igloo Ventures SRL | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 48 | not published | |
| CoinCasino | Igloo Ventures SRL | Anjouan Gaming Board | 36 | not published | |
| Bets.io | Techno Wave Systems S.R.L. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 42 | not published | |
| Playbet.io | Bitx Operations N.V. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 30 | not published | |
| CryptoLeo | Uno Digital Media B.V. | Curaçao Gaming Authority | 74 | not published | |
| BetPlays | not published | not published | 15 | not published |
The clause, printed whole
Clause 3.4 carries the heading JURISDICTION. Here it stands whole, from the capture dated 9 August 2026, opened on 2 September 2026:
You may not register or use the Website or its services if you reside in, or are temporarily located in, any jurisdiction in which online gambling is restricted or prohibited. At this time, we do not offer services to individuals who are located in or residents of: Aruba, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bonaire, Curacao, Denmark, France, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Germany, Guernsey, Gibraltar, Greece, Hungary, Isle of Man, Iran, Jersey, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Martinique, Mayotte, Myanmar, North Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Reunion, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom.
A line-break marker sat between the colon and the first name in the source string and has been dropped. Everything else stands as printed, including the operator’s own spelling of Curacao without its cedilla, and the phrase at this time, which is doing more work than it looks.
The sentence in front of the list
The list is the second sentence. The first one is a condition, and it works differently.
It bars anyone who resides in, or is temporarily located in, any jurisdiction in which online gambling is restricted or prohibited. Thirty-seven names follow it, but the condition sits above them and reaches further. A reader who checks the list, fails to find their country and concludes they are inside the contract has answered only half of the sentence.
What makes it a condition rather than a list is that the reader has to evaluate it. The operator supplies a test — is online gambling restricted or prohibited where you are — and supplies zero names against it. The test can be satisfied in a place the list omits. It can also be argued over, since restricted and prohibited are words with edges rather than entries in a register.
So the clause holds two instruments at once. One of them can be checked in a second by a reader who scans for their own country. The other cannot be checked at all without an answer about local law, which the contract declines to give and which this page also declines to give. Turning that open condition into a longer roster of countries would invent something the operator wrote down nowhere.
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.
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.
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 network 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.
How the two captures were obtained, and five places where this reading is weak, sits on the method behind these dates. The other three movements between the same two copies are on the comparison this site is built on.