Almost every set of casino terms contains a clause listing countries whose residents the operator says it will not accept. It is the operator’s own document, written by the operator, and it is the one place where a company states in writing what it thinks about a particular country.
Of the 100 brands in our library, 38 publish such a list. Six of those 38 name India. This page sets out which six, what the clause actually says, and what the silence of the other 94 does and does not mean. Terms were read on 26 August 2026.
Which six name India?
| Brand | Countries on its list | Licence number published |
|---|---|---|
| 7Bit Casino | 216 | OGL/2024/1307/0748 |
| Bitdreams | 216 | 8048/JAZ2019-015 |
| Mirax | 220 | OGL/2024/1307/0748 |
| Oshi Casino | 224 | ALSI-202508056-FI2 |
| PlayAmo | 217 | ALSI-202508056-FI2 |
| Slotum | 216 | ALSI-202508056-FI2 |
The six are not six independent decisions. Three of them — Oshi Casino, PlayAmo and Slotum — sit on one Anjouan registration, ALSI-202508056-FI2, and two others, 7Bit Casino and Mirax, share the Curaçao number OGL/2024/1307/0748. So six brand names reduce to three registrations plus Bitdreams.
That pattern runs through the whole library and is set out on our page about one licence number and many brands.
What does the clause actually say?
The wording is close to identical across the six, because the documents share an origin. The operative sentence in five of them reads that users from the listed countries and their territories, defined as the Restricted Countries, “are not allowed to deposit and play real money games”.
Two things are worth noticing in that sentence. It covers depositing as well as playing, so it is not only about withdrawals. And it is phrased as the operator’s rule, not as a statement about anybody’s law.
The operator is describing what it will refuse to accept. It is not describing what a reader may or may not do.
Why are the lists so long?
Because these six publish something closer to a global exclusion list than a short list of problem markets. At 216 to 224 entries, the lists cover most of the world, and India is one line in a very long enumeration.
The contrast with the rest of the library is stark. Across all 38 published lists, the shortest names a single country and the median names 34. Four operators publish a list of exactly one country: Bitcasino.io names Japan, Bitsler names American Samoa, Coins.Game names the Netherlands, and Stake names the United States.
So a list of one and a list of 224 are the same field in the same clause, and averaging them would say nothing at all.
Which countries appear most often?
Across the 38 lists, the United States appears on 32 and the United Kingdom on 29. Then a cluster of jurisdictions that appear on roughly a quarter of them: North Korea and the Netherlands on 27 each, Iran on 26, Curaçao itself and Syria on 25, Spain on 24, France on 23, Cuba on 22.
India, at six mentions out of 38, sits well down that ranking. It is named far less often than the markets with an active domestic licensing regime that operators are excluded from serving without one.
What do the other 32 lists mean by leaving India out?
Nothing that can be relied on. A country’s absence from a restricted list is not a permission, an invitation or an assurance. It records only that the operator did not put the name in that clause at the time the document was read.
Terms are revised without announcement, and the same clause on the same site can differ between language versions of the page. Several of the six lists above were read from region-specific versions of the terms.
What about the 62 brands with no list at all?
Sixty-two of the hundred returned an empty field for restricted countries. That is the single largest empty field in the library, and it needs to be read carefully, because an empty field means the list was not read, never that the operator has no list.
Three separate situations are hiding in that 62:
- The operator publishes a list that our reading did not reach — behind a login, in a downloadable file, or in a page that did not load.
- The operator publishes terms with no country clause in them.
- Nothing about the operator could be read at all. Twenty-one domains in the library returned nothing usable from either a live page or an archived copy.
Treating any of those three as “India is fine here” would be inventing a fact from the absence of one. The distinction between a fact and a gap is the whole subject of our page on what crypto casinos do not publish.
What does a restricted-country clause have to do with Indian law?
Nothing, in either direction. The clause is a private contract term written by a company registered in Curaçao or the Comoros. It is not an interpretation of Indian statute, it has no standing under Indian statute, and an operator’s willingness or refusal to accept an account settles no question about what Indian law permits.
Indian law is a separate document with its own text, and it is set out on our page about the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. Nothing on this page should be read as advice about that Act, and nothing on this page is a suggestion about how to respond to any operator’s country rule.
How to check the clause on a site yourself
- Open the terms and conditions page, not the FAQ or a help-centre summary. The list lives in the terms.
- Search the page for the clause heading — usually “Restricted Countries” or “Restricted Territories” — rather than scrolling for a country name.
- Search the list itself for more than one spelling. Country names in these clauses are not standardised.
- Note the URL, because region-specific versions of the same terms carry different lists.
- Note the date. This is the field that changes most often of any in our library.
The licence number in the same footer can be checked in the same sitting; the method is on our page about checking a casino licence number.