They choose to exclude themselves from gambling with the EPIS list: a growing phenomenon
•
4 Aug 2025 •
Reading time: 2 minutes In Belgium, an unprecedented phenomenon is taking hold: never before have so many players chosen to voluntarily withdraw from gambling via the EPIS system. Thanks to easier digitalisation via the Itsme app, requests for exclusion are skyrocketing, to the point of tipping the figures recorded by the Gaming Commission.
EPIS: understanding the system and its protective role
The EPIS system (Excluded Persons Information System) is a central database managed by the Gaming Commission (GC). It brings together different categories of people who are banned from gambling: those who have self-excluded and those who have been excluded due to a court decision, excessive debt or an administrative ban.
The tool checks in real time, as soon as a player attempts to gamble online or enters a casino, that the person is not banned.
The boom in self-exclusions via Itsme: figures and context
Since 2022, the introduction of the Itsme service has radically simplified the self-exclusion procedure. All it takes is a few clicks on a smartphone, computer or tablet to voluntarily ban oneself.
The result is spectacular: in 2023, 49,698 self-exclusions; in 2024, 56,458; and already 63,913 as of 1 August 2025.
The scale of the phenomenon: nearly 190,000 people excluded
In total, the EPIS list includes 188,893 people registered as of 1 June 2025, all statuses combined.
These data demonstrate a collective awareness: more and more Belgians recognise their vulnerability to the risks of pathological gambling and are taking action to protect themselves.
Who are the excluded? Voluntary, judicial or administrative
Among those registered, voluntary self-exclusions represent a growing proportion. But other forms of exclusion remain:
- Automatic exclusions linked to collective debt settlements, which are in sharp decline (100,628 in 2019 → 60,674 as of 1 June 2025)
- Judicial decisions or administrative exclusions (professional or family-related), which are less frequent but just as significant.
Persistent challenges: ineffective sanctions and circumvention
Despite these advances, the Gaming Commission deplores the ineffectiveness of certain measures. For example, the weekly online deposit limit of €200 could easily be circumvented by opening multiple accounts.
Furthermore, although fines are imposed on illegal operators, only around 10–11% of the amounts are actually recovered, resulting in an estimated loss of revenue for the State of several million euros.