BC.Game licence check

Licensed operators put a seal in the page footer, and a real seal is a link. Click it and it should take you to the licensing authority's own domain, where a validation record is generated for the domain you came from. If the seal is an image that links nowhere, or links to a page on the operator's own site, you have learned something already.

BC.Game's footer seal leads to the Anjouan Gaming Board's validation endpoint. The URL is constructed from the domain being checked, which means you can validate any domain the same way by substituting it: https://verification.anjouangamingboard.org/validate?domain=bc.game is the record for BC.Game. Read what that page returns rather than what any third party says it returns.

These are the fields the Anjouan validation record produced for bc.game on the date we read it. We have kept the captured text so a later session can check a quote without fetching the page again, but you should re-run the check yourself rather than trust a snapshot - a licence status is a live value and ours is a photograph of one moment.

The most consequential thing on that record is not the status field. It is the sentence stating that the licence "is not valid in, and does not extend to" a named list of jurisdictions: Australia, Comoros, France, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom and the USA, plus FATF-blacklisted countries, sanctioned jurisdictions and anywhere the Anjouan Offshore Financial Authority deems excluded.

That is the licensing authority speaking about the scope of its own permission, on a page the operator links to from its own footer. It is not our reading of a terms document and it is not an inference from a geo-block. When people ask which countries BC.Game covers, this list is the primary answer, and it is worth noticing that the excluded territories include four of the largest online gambling markets in the world.

Read the exclusion for what it is: a statement about the licence, not a verdict about any individual. What it means for a player is a separate question, and our legal page explains why we treat it separately.

A licence check is incomplete if you only look at the current licence, because operators change authorities and stale claims persist for years. BC.Game previously held Curacao licence OGL/2023/118/0060.

Look that number up in the Curacao Gaming Authority certificate register at cert.cga.cw and the register returns it as revoked. Not expired, not superseded: revoked. That does not make the current Anjouan licence any less valid, and BC.Game's current position is the Anjouan one. But it does mean that any page still describing BC.Game as Curacao-licensed is repeating a claim the register contradicts, and it is a useful test of whether a source is checking anything at all.

A practical detail about that register: search it by the domain or the certificate reference rather than by brand name. Certificate URLs there are long encoded strings rather than readable numbers, so the reliable route is the register's own search rather than a link somebody has pasted.

The forty alternatives in our data set divide into four groups by how well their licence claim survives this method, and the groups are instructive in themselves.

Eighteen brands carry a Curacao Gaming Authority certificate we can link to in the register: Duelbits, Wild.io, Metaspins, Bitsler, Bitcasino.io, Shuffle, Thunderpick, Cloudbet, Sportsbet.io, Stake, Playbet.io, BetFury, CryptoLeo, Mirax, KatsuBet, TrustDice, Livecasino.io and BitStarz. Fifteen carry an Anjouan licence number checkable against the Anjouan public licence register: Flush, Rainbet, DuckDice, JacksClub, Rakebit, Bspin, Fairspin, Empire.io, Windice, FortuneJack, CoinPoker, Wild Fortune, Weiss, Betcoin.ag and Chipstars.

Six brands publish a licence number whose only source in our record is the operator's own website rather than a register: Wolf.bet, Rocketpot, LTC Casino, Primedice, Sportbet.one and Bitdreams. That is not an allegation - it means the claim is currently self-attested in our data and should be taken to the relevant register before being relied on. Four publish no licence authority we have captured at all: Thrill, Roobet, Nitrobetting and BetPlays.

• Find the footer seal and follow it. If it does not lead to a regulator's domain, treat the claim as unverified.
• For a Curacao claim, search cert.cga.cw for the certificate reference and read the status field.
• For an Anjouan claim, use the licence register at anjouangaming.com/public-register/license-register/ or the validation URL with the domain substituted.
• Read the excluded-territories statement, not just the status. Two brands can both show valid and cover different maps.
• Note the licensee name, not the brand. The company on the licence is what a register entry actually identifies.
• Re-check before you rely on it. Status fields change, and a screenshot from any source, including ours, ages.

The method above catches obvious problems. These four are the ones that catch people who are already being careful.

First, a shared licence number. In our own data set Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io return the same Curacao certificate OGL/2023/111/0069, KatsuBet and Mirax both return OGL/2024/1307/0748, Fairspin and Weiss both return Anjouan ALSI-202508047-FI2, and LTC Casino and Primedice both cite 8048/JAZ with Bitdreams citing 8048/JAZ2019-015. Master-licence structures make this normal, so a shared reference is neither proof of shared ownership nor evidence of a fake.

Second, a valid licence for a different entity. A register entry identifies a company, and a brand can display a seal belonging to a company that is not the one taking your deposit. Compare the licensee name on the register with the company named in the terms.

Third, a licence that is valid but does not extend to you. This is the BC.Game case exactly: status VALID and seven named territories outside its scope. A status field alone answers half the question.

Fourth, an old claim that was true once. BC.Game's Curacao licence was real before it was revoked, and pages describing it were accurate when written. Every licence fact carries a date, which is why every page here prints the date it was checked.

A validated licence tells you that a named company holds a permission from a named authority, on a stated date, subject to stated territorial limits. That is genuinely useful and it is also all it is.

It does not tell you that withdrawals are paid promptly, that bonus terms are fair, that support answers, or that a dispute will be resolved in your favour. Different authorities impose very different obligations, and a licence from one is not equivalent to a licence from another. Nor does it tell you anything about your own position, which is a matter for you and set out separately on our legal page.

What it does do is convert a marketing claim into a checkable fact, and give you a date to re-check it. On a subject where most published comparisons repeat each other, that is the difference between evidence and consensus.