What the regulator enters in the list, and what there is no point seeking
§ 85 of zákon č. 30/2019 Z. z.
The list records addresses, account numbers and application identifiers — not brands and not companies. That is why, for two of the three brands of our ten that stand in it, the provider's name is from 2020 and does not match today's terms.
Three kinds of record, not one
In everyday speech it is called the list of blocked sites — a name about two thirds accurate. Under § 85 the regulator records three kinds of data, each targeting a different third party.
Websites target connection providers. Account numbers target banks. Application identifiers target app stores.
Three branches, three addressees, one file.
The edition of 31 August 2026 holds 1,120 valid records: 977 web addresses and 143 account numbers, each with IBAN and BIC. So almost every eighth line is no domain at all. How to search it, and which formats the regulator publishes, stands in the list of prohibited offers.
Why the account branch is less visible and often harder
A player spots the first branch at once: the site will not open. He spots the second only on trying to pay, because under § 85(12) a payment service provider must block payment to a listed account used for deposits.
So the site may open and the payment fail, or the reverse.
It is not a fault or an inconsistency by the regulator. One entry triggers two separate mechanisms, carried out by two different industries, each in its own time. The third branch, in subsection 13, targets app stores and gives them five days from publication; under § 85(3)(b) the identifier is the executable file's checksum or another unique designation, so renaming cannot get round it.
What you never find in the list
You will find no brand in it. Nor a company as the entry's subject — the provider's name beside a line is a note, not a record.
And not one sentence about terms.
After an entry the verification threshold, the withdrawal cap, the document deadline and the fees all stay as before: they sit in the operator's document, not the regulator's. The numbers that really decide a payout stand in withdrawal limits.
The provider's name is a photograph from the entry year
This is the most practical consequence of entering an address, not a company. The regulator established that name when it made the entry, and it need not match today.
Of the three brands of our ten in the list, the name fails to match for two.
For bitcasino.io the list gives mBet Solutions NV. and mProcessing Solutions Ltd, today's terms Moon Technologies B.V. For playamo.com the list has DAMA N.V. and Friolion Limited, the terms Novatrix SRL. Both entries are from 2020 — six years old. The third, rainbet.com, matches: RBGAMING N.V. in the list and in the terms alike, entry of 16 June 2025.
Two of three, and the difference is the entry's age.
Who you contract with is therefore established from today's terms, not a line six years old. How that looks at the brand with the longest restricted-country list is examined in PlayAmo.
What an entry does not prove, and neither does its absence
The list reads easily as a ranking of risk, and is not one in either direction.
Presence says nothing about size or age. The oldest valid records bear the date 17 July 2017 and belong to two brands nobody in the industry calls marginal. The entry date tells you the order the regulator acted in.
Absence is no clean bill of health. Seven of the ten brands we follow are missing from the file — and none of the ten holds a Slovak licence. Who does stands in who holds a Slovak licence.
An entry says what the regulator has got to. Not what exists.
How an address gets into the list and drops out
An entry is not immediate. § 85(7) sets out the sequence: the regulator publishes a notice of intent and calls on the operator to end provision within ten days; if the site gives no electronic address, it may enter without a call, but no sooner than ten days after publication.
Under subsection 8 the person concerned may object, also within ten days. Under subsection 9 the site is not entered, or is removed, if the supervised entity proves it does not provide the prohibited offer or has stopped.
Ten days for the call, ten for the objection, then the archive.
In our transcript four lines had a deletion date, so they had been removed. Only the archive of earlier editions shows when an address got into the list and what changed between two editions.
The reason stands beside every line, and is not always about a casino
Beside every record stands a reference to § 85(4) and a letter saying why that line is there. Two possibilities, and the difference between them gets overlooked.
Letter a) means operating an internet game without an individual licence, beside 774 records. Letter b) means promoting such a game or enabling access to it, beside 346 records.
So almost a third of the list is not about casinos but the routes leading to them.
That is also the best answer to why the file holds so many addresses with no apparent link to gambling. The list does not map the operators' market; it maps what the regulator treats as a prohibited offer and as making one accessible — two offences with two different addressees.
Who pays for breaching the duty
Whoever the duty belongs to, and the player is not among them. § 80(k) counts other entities among supervised entities to the extent of their duties under § 85(12) and (13), and § 95(1)(g) makes that an offence fined €10,000 to €100,000.
The addressee is a connection provider, a bank or an app store.
The first sentence of § 95(1) defines its own range of persons and a player does not get in; the analysis stands in what the law says.