Eight sections became seventeen, and 24 territories became 37

The territory list gained thirteen names and lost none

The earlier file bars residents of twenty-four named places. The later one bars residents of thirty-seven. Each of the original twenty-four survives the rewrite, and thirteen arrivals join them, named one by one on the territories page alongside the clause quoted whole.

The composition of those arrivals says something the count alone hides. Eight of the thirteen are European Union member states, and two of those — Malta and Lithuania — run gambling regulators that issue permits of their own rather than merely policing play. Three more are states under broad international sanctions. Read that way, the additions look less like a change of appetite than like a contract being brought into line with the map of Europe’s own licensing regimes.

Thirteen in, none out.

Direction is the other half of the finding. Thirteen arrivals against zero departures across fifteen months describes a document that tightens only, and the newer clause opens with a category wider than any roster of countries: residence or temporary presence in any jurisdiction where online gambling is restricted or prohibited, which the reader is left to apply to themselves.

The governing law moved country

Section 16 of the current edition places the contract under the laws and regulations of Costa Rica, gives the Costa Rican courts exclusive jurisdiction, and declares that all services are deemed to be provided from within Costa Rica.

A caveat belongs with that number, in the open. The heading arrived in the export separated from the paragraph beneath it, and the two were reunited here on the strength of content: the bundle carries a single governing-law paragraph and a single heading of that description. Quotation exact, section number deduced, and our record flags the deduction as such. The same flag sits on the section discussed under the complaints procedure, where the reasoning is spelled out at length.

Payments used to answer to a third country

The earlier edition split the question. Participation in the games was governed by the law of Curacao; the part relating to payment collection and transactions was governed by the law of Lithuania. A second sentence in the same file put the whole document under Curacao law and the Curacao courts.

So across fifteen months the answer to “whose courts” went from two European and Caribbean answers to a single Central American one. What that movement means for the operator’s permit is stated in neither copy, and this site infers nothing about it: the licence cells for this row are printed empty for exactly that reason.

Three dates, one of them in brackets

The current bundle carries three “last updated” strings and each behaves differently.

The Terms and Conditions read 1st October 2025. That string sat apart from the body in the export, and while it is the only unattached date of its kind and reads as the date of the terms, nothing printed beside it confirms the attachment. The Refund Policy states its own date plainly: last updated 1st October 2025. The Privacy Policy reads “Last updated [27.11.2019]”, and the square brackets are the operator’s own — the placeholder marks of the template it was drafted from, still standing in a copy captured in August 2026, seven years after the date they hold.

A policy dated October 2025 that still trades Steam skins

The Refund Policy is the sharpest illustration of what a date on a document is worth. In the copy captured on 9 August 2026, carrying its own October 2025 stamp, the text still describes trades in Steam skins, bots that deliver them, commission taken in skins, and withdrawals to QIWI, WebMoney and Yandex Money wallets.

This is the operator’s own current text and it is quoted as evidence of how the document reads, rather than as a description of what the site does today. Its substantive rules are equally worth knowing before a deposit: a refund is considered only within twenty-four hours of the deposit, or within thirty days on a sworn statement that another person or a minor used the account; funds already played cannot be refunded; and where notarised identification is demanded and goes unsupplied for thirty days, the policy states the account shall be closed and the balance forfeited, with the decision final and beyond appeal.

Sentences that left, and one name that did

Two protective sentences present in 2025 are absent from the edition in force, and this site declines to carry them forward. One closed a minor’s account immediately on identification. The other set a minimum self-exclusion of six months during which reopening was impossible; the current text names durations of one, five and eight days in a help-centre answer instead, with anything longer routed through support.

One name also changed status. The 2025 footer string hard-codes a company and a Willemstad address into the sentence; the 2026 version of the same string replaces both with placeholders, so that copy names no company at all. Which corporate body stands behind the site today is a question neither file answers, and it stays on our open list rather than being resolved by guesswork.

Where the two captures came from, and what may be built on them, is the subject of the reading rules. The payout section of the edition in force is examined in the payout clauses, and the operators publishing a ceiling of their own are gathered on the shortlist. The movement between the captures also frames the table itself.

One further record was rebuilt the same way and over the same period: the list of game suppliers, assembled from archived addresses with a count behind every name.