Illegal gambling sites attract players with fewer checks: what does this mean for Belgium? 

A player wants to withdraw money but is first asked to provide documents. Another has self-excluded from gambling but is looking for ways to gamble again. A third follows a friend’s recommendation without checking whether the website has a licence. There are different reasons why people use illegal gambling sites. New British research sheds light on these differences. 

On October 20, 2026, the Gambling Commission published research by Yonder Consulting examining the motivations of players who use illegal gambling websites. Seeking operators outside the GamStop self-exclusion system and websites that require little personal information were particularly strongly associated with this behaviour. 

For Belgium, the research is relevant to the debate surrounding EPIS, identity verification and the visibility of illegal operators. However, caution is needed: the British findings do not prove that Belgian players make the same choices. Nor does the research demonstrate that stricter checks automatically lead to more illegal gambling. 

Why players turn to unlicensed gambling sites 

The Gambling Commission’s research into illegal online gambling combines digital research, a survey of more than 4,000 recent gamblers and qualitative interviews. The survey focused on people who had gambled during the previous four weeks. Those who had only participated in lotteries were excluded. 

The researchers wanted to understand which experiences and beliefs are associated with the use of illegal websites. Their analysis goes beyond attractive offers. Trust in companies, attitudes towards regulation and the desire to protect personal information also play a role. 

The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) emphasises that illegal gambling websites are used by a small minority of the overall gambling population. The report therefore does not describe the behaviour of the average British gambler. Instead, it focuses on a specific group to better understand how players end up using illegal services. 

This distinction matters for the Belgian debate. Research into the motivations of illegal gambling users can provide valuable insights, but without additional data, it cannot establish how many Belgian players follow the same path. 

Four player profiles with different motivations 

Yonder identifies four partially overlapping player profiles. These are tools for understanding behaviour, rather than rigid categories into which every player fits perfectly. 

Player profile	Main motivation
Self-Excluders	Use illegal websites to bypass a self-exclusion registered through GamStop.
Skilled Advocates	Deliberately choose illegal operators, seeking greater freedom and more favourable conditions, among other things.
Social Explorers	Discover websites through social connections and offers, without always realising they are illegal.
Accidental Tourists	Generally end up on illegal websites unintentionally and value a convenient user experience.

This classification shows why a single general warning is unlikely to reach everyone in the same way. Someone who does not know a website is illegal needs different information from someone who deliberately chooses to gamble outside the licensed market. 

The role of frustration also varies. Some players find document verification annoying but acceptable. Others see the same checks as confirmation that gambling companies or regulators are treating them unfairly. 

For Belgian policymakers, this provides a useful starting point for further research. The question is not only which rules apply, but also how different players understand and experience them. 

A search term can mean more than bypassing self-exclusion 

One striking finding concerns searches for websites outside GamStop. These searches are not made exclusively by people attempting to bypass their own self-exclusion. 

According to the research, some players also associate such websites with fewer administrative barriers, faster withdrawals and alternative payment methods. References to the absence of GamStop therefore function as a broader term for a particular type of gambling offer. 

These are player expectations, not verified advantages. A website that promises fewer checks does not necessarily provide reliable payouts or adequate protection of personal data. 

The researchers also found that players can encounter similar checks and frustrations on illegal websites as they do with licensed operators. Someone who leaves because of document requests may therefore end up having to submit documents again, but in an environment without the same protections. 

Why this also matters for Belgium’s EPIS debate 

Belgium has its own exclusion system for gamblers, known as EPIS. This system differs from GamStop in both its legal basis and scope. The two should therefore not be presented as identical. 

What they share is the protective purpose of restricting access. When a player is excluded, the restriction is intended to prevent them from continuing to gamble with operators covered by the system. A website that actively promotes the absence of such checks undermines that objective. 

Gambling Club explains why the register exists in its article about how EPIS and gambling exclusion work in Belgium. The British research provides a reason to investigate what Belgian players associate with websites that position themselves outside this system. 

This does not mean that everyone visiting such a page is personally excluded from gambling. The British finding that these terms also create other expectations highlights why search behaviour must be interpreted carefully. 

Verification, privacy and unclear explanations 

The desire to share as little personal information as possible is strongly associated with illegal gambling behaviour in the British research. This makes privacy an important part of the discussion. 

Players may have questions about which information is required, who receives it and why documents are requested again. These questions deserve clear answers. At the same time, a promise to collect less personal information does not automatically make an illegal operator privacy-friendly. 

Players may also perceive different types of verification as the same obstacle. Identity checks, source-of-funds investigations and other financial checks can all feel like barriers to accessing an account or withdrawing money. Without an explanation, players may be left with the impression that the operator is simply making things difficult. 

For Belgian operators, this presents a practical opportunity for improvement: clearly explaining what is being checked and which step remains outstanding. This is a possible lesson from the research, not a proven method for reducing illegal gambling. 

Not every blocked account has the same cause 

An account restriction may feel like a single problem to a player, even though several different causes are possible. These include self-exclusion, a registration error or failure to comply with the terms and conditions. 

Through ConsumerConnect, Belgium’s FPS Economy outlines possible reasons why a player’s account may be blocked. This guidance explains why the reason for a restriction should first be clarified. The government department advises players with questions to contact the gambling operator directly. 

The distinction between an administrative issue and a protective exclusion is essential. An error in personal information requires correction. An exclusion requires compliance with the protective measure. Treating both situations as reasons to continue gambling elsewhere overlooks this difference. 

For customer service, this means that a generic message such as “account blocked” may provide little clarity. Better communication can reduce uncertainty while maintaining necessary checks. 

Trust is also built outside gambling websites 

The British research describes how friends, online communities and recommendations influence the discovery of new websites. This is particularly relevant for players who do not deliberately choose illegal operators. 

A professional-looking website or a recommendation from someone familiar can create a sense of trust. However, trusting the person making a recommendation says nothing about whether the website holds the required licence. 

This issue is also relevant in Belgium. Gambling Club previously examined how Trustpilot profiles can create trust in illegal casinos. That investigation focused on how reviews, company information and links influence the way an operator is presented. 

Awareness campaigns therefore do not need to focus exclusively on a casino’s homepage. The steps leading up to a visit also deserve attention: where did someone first encounter the operator, who recommended the website and what created the impression that it could be trusted? 

The licence remains the decisive distinction 

The difference between legal and illegal gambling services is not determined by how quickly a website loads or how attractive it looks. For gambling services offered on the Belgian market, the required Belgian licence is what matters. 

A foreign licence does not replace this authorisation. Neither a high review rating, a well-known brand name nor a professionally designed registration process changes that requirement. 

Our article on the difference between legal and illegal gambling operators in Belgium provides further background on this distinction. A licensed operator is subject to Belgian regulatory supervision. This does not mean that complaints or errors never occur, but it does mean that a local regulatory framework applies. 

The British research shows why this message needs to be made concrete. A player primarily looking for a smooth withdrawal process may not be sufficiently informed by simply being told that a website is “offshore”. They need to understand what the absence of local supervision means for their position. 

One approach will not reach every group 

The qualitative interviews suggest that Social Explorers and Accidental Tourists may be more receptive to information about illegal gambling. After all, they do not necessarily choose these services deliberately. 

Reaching Skilled Advocates is more difficult. Distrust of companies, government and regulators forms part of their attitude. A warning issued by an institution they already distrust may not change their beliefs. 

The researchers therefore identify several directions for further investigation. Alongside awareness campaigns, attention could be given to enforcement action against illegal operators and to frustrating experiences players encounter with licensed companies. The effectiveness of such interventions has not yet been established. 

For Belgium, the combination of these approaches is particularly relevant. Maintaining protective measures, improving unclear customer service procedures and taking action against illegal operators are different tasks that may all require attention at the same time. 

What the research cannot yet prove 

Fifteen players participated in the qualitative part of the research: seven Skilled Advocates, four Social Explorers and four Accidental Tourists. Self-Excluders were not interviewed because of the potential emotional burden. Their motivations had also been examined in earlier phases of the research. 

The survey and interviews have limitations. The research relies partly on an online panel and self-reported behaviour. Participants may make mistakes, interpret terms differently or recall their experiences incompletely. 

An association between frustration with verification checks and illegal gambling therefore does not prove that those checks caused players to switch to illegal websites. Existing preferences and beliefs may also influence how someone interprets such experiences. 

The Gambling Commission expects to publish the next phase of its research in November 2026, including new measurement data and technical explanations. In the meantime, the current report raises specific questions for further investigation in Belgium: who actively searches for illegal gambling services, who encounters them unintentionally, and what roles do exclusion, privacy, customer service and online recommendations play? 

Only by answering these questions can policies be better adapted to the different groups of players who need protection.