Non-Gamban Casinos in the UK: What the Label Means
Available in GB
Gamban blocks access on a device, while GAMSTOP links participating licensed operators; neither label alone answers a casino’s legal status.
What “Non-GamStop” Means in a UK Casino Search
Gamban and GAMSTOP are often placed in the same sentence, but they do different jobs. Gamban is a blocking tool: it is intended to prevent access to gambling websites and apps. GAMSTOP is Great Britain’s national online self-exclusion scheme, linking participating licensed gambling operators so that a registered person is blocked across their websites and apps. One concerns a technical barrier on a device; the other is an arrangement between a person and gambling businesses.
That distinction matters when a casino is described as “not on Gamban” or as a place to play without Gamban. Such wording says something, at most, about whether a blocking tool affects access. It does not establish the casino’s legal status, its relationship with GAMSTOP, or whether it is suitable for someone who has chosen to stop gambling. Those are separate questions, and a label that answers one cannot stand in for the others.
Gamban is not the national self-exclusion register. A website being outside a particular blocker’s reach does not mean that it has been formally exempted from British gambling rules. Nor does it show that the site is independent of every other form of control. The phrase “non-GamStop casino” is therefore an imprecise piece of shorthand: it can blur a software setting, an operator’s regulatory status and a person’s self-exclusion into one supposed category. They are not one category.
A blocker is not a licence
In Britain, real-money online casinos serving customers must hold the relevant licence from the UK Gambling Commission. The rule follows the market being served, rather than the country where an operator has placed its offices or computer systems. An offshore location does not remove the requirement to hold a British licence when the business offers remote gambling to consumers in Great Britain.
Non-UK-Registered Casinos: What Regulation Means
This is why “outside Gamban” and “outside UK regulation” cannot be used as interchangeable descriptions. Gamban is a blocking tool, not the regulator and not a register of casino licences. A site may be described by a reviewer, a forum post or an advert as unaffected by a blocker; that claim does not answer whether the operator holds a current UKGC licence. Conversely, a site’s appearance in a search result does not tell anyone whether it is blocked by a particular tool.
The distinction is easy to lose because the public encounters gambling through screens. A logo, an account page and a game lobby can make every site look like a variation on the same shopfront. Yet the legal relationship behind the screen is decisive. A remote operator selling into the British market must be licensed here, even if the business is based elsewhere. An offshore casino without a UKGC licence operates outside the British regulatory system; its accessibility through the internet does not make it a legal UK casino.
Non-UK-Regulated Casinos: What a Licence Means
The boundary is not decorative. British online gambling is legal only through licensed and regulated sites, and a legal online casino serving UK players must have a current operating licence. The Gambling Act 2005 governs gambling in England, Wales and Scotland; Northern Ireland is outside that Act’s scope. These distinctions make “UK casino” a phrase that needs care, especially when a site uses a broad geographic label while its regulatory position is unclear.
A blocking tool cannot certify any of this. It does not issue operating licences, decide where a company is legally established, or turn an unlicensed operator into a licensed one. Its reach is a technical matter. Regulation is a legal one.
GAMSTOP works across participating operators
GAMSTOP takes a different route. It is a multi-operator self-exclusion scheme, designed to block access to participating licensed gambling websites and apps rather than to filter one device in the way a blocking tool does. The Gambling Commission required online operators to join the scheme from 31 March 2020. Since that requirement came into force, UKGC-licensed online casinos have had to prevent customers who are self-excluded through GAMSTOP from gambling with them.
Since 31 March 2020, the Gambling Commission has required UKGC-licensed online casinos to prevent customers who are self-excluded through GAMSTOP from gambling with them.
That makes a claim that a casino is “not on GAMSTOP” different from a claim that it is not blocked by Gamban. GAMSTOP is not a software package installed on a phone or computer. Its purpose is to connect the exclusion to licensed operators across the scheme. Gamban, by contrast, is discussed as a blocking tool, and a statement about its reach does not establish anything about a site’s participation in the national scheme.
The word “participating” is important. GAMSTOP is a scheme operating across licensed websites and apps, not a universal technical filter over every gambling page on the internet. But that does not create a lawful alternative for an operator serving Great Britain without the required licence. The regulatory question remains separate and still applies. Treating a gap between a blocking tool and a website as proof of lawful status confuses what a piece of software can detect with what the law requires of a business.
The dates also tell a small story about how regulation has adapted to online life. A national scheme can only work across operators if the operators are required to connect to it; the Commission’s compulsory participation rule established that obligation for online licensees. It was not a feature of a particular casino brand or a setting a customer had to discover on each site. The point was to make self-exclusion operate across licensed services, rather than leave it as a request made one account at a time.
Casino Sites in the UK: Licensing and Access
What “not blocked” can and cannot tell
A description such as “casinos not on Gamban” may refer to a person’s experience of a device or to someone else’s description of a website. It is not a reliable regulatory category. A site that appears accessible while a blocker is in use has not thereby demonstrated that it is licensed, safe, or outside every self-exclusion arrangement. Likewise, a site being unavailable through a blocking tool does not reveal whether it holds a licence; technical access and legal status are not the same test.
This is also why labels such as “non-Gamban casinos UK” can sound more definite than they are. They suggest a recognised class of British operators, when the phrase may only describe an asserted relationship to a blocking product. There is no licence called a Gamban-free licence. The legally meaningful question for a casino serving British customers is whether its operator holds the required UKGC licence. The separate question of whether a blocking tool affects a particular device does not settle that.
“Best” adds another layer of false certainty. A ranking of casinos said to be unaffected by Gamban would not, by itself, establish the quality or legality of the businesses being ranked. The more useful distinction is between what the term describes and what it leaves unanswered: it may suggest that a blocker does not prevent access, but it says nothing conclusive about licensing or a casino’s obligations under GAMSTOP.
That gap is not a minor wording problem. When a person sees an accessible casino promoted as a solution to a block, the convenience of the description can make it feel like permission. It is neither permission from the regulator nor evidence that an operator is authorised to serve British customers. A search phrase may be brief; the legal relationship it glosses over is not.
Accessing a casino that is unaffected by a blocking tool is not permission from the regulator nor evidence that an operator is authorised to serve British customers.
The terminology around the two services
The names themselves invite confusion. “Gamban” and “GAMSTOP” begin similarly and appear in the same conversations about restricting gambling, but similarity of sound is not similarity of function. Gamban is a blocking tool. GAMSTOP is the national online self-exclusion scheme for Great Britain. One is described in terms of blocking access; the other works across participating licensed operators as a multi-operator exclusion.
The difference can be expressed simply without treating either as a substitute for the other. A blocker concerns whether access to gambling sites or apps is prevented through the tool. GAMSTOP concerns an exclusion recognised by participating licensed online gambling businesses. Neither description answers every question about an operator, and the reach of one should not be used to infer the reach of the other.
For a casino to be genuinely part of the legal British market, the key test is its operating licence, not a claim about whether a particular blocking tool has marked or blocked its website. For an online operator to meet the national scheme requirement, GAMSTOP participation is part of the regulatory framework. These are related because both concern online gambling, but they act at different points: one at the level of access technology, the other at the level of licensed business obligations.
Non-GamStop Curacao Casino Sites: UK Licensing Limits
The language of “without Gamban” can therefore be misleading even when nobody intends to mislead. It makes an absence sound like a status. In practice, it may describe only a claimed technical circumstance. It does not prove that a casino is outside the UKGC system, and it does not prove that a person’s self-exclusion has no bearing there. The distinction is worth keeping plain: blocker, scheme, licence. Three different things.
Top online casinos in the UK
- AmunbetBonus: Join now and get 450% up to 2,700 GBP + 450 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
- ZombillionBonus: Welcome Pack 250% up to £4000 + 200 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
- NightLuckBonus: Welcome Pack + 805% Up To 6400€ + 280 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
- WinBeastBonus: €5000 + 500 FS + €650 Freebet · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
- x3betBonus: Welcome Pack 100% Up to £1.000 + 200 Free Spins · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
- JetsetspinsBonus: 200% Bonus + 100 Free Spins + Free Royal Wheel · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
- SpinFormulaBonus: 550% Up To £15,000 + 550 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
- BritsinoBonus: Welcome Package – Get your £2,200 + 2,000 FS · Payout speed: 1-3 business days
The Self-Exclusion Boundary That a Different Site Cannot Erase
GAMSTOP is not a setting attached to one casino account. It is a multi-operator exclusion for online gambling in the UK: once registered, a person is blocked from accessing existing gambling accounts and from creating new ones with the UK operators covered by the scheme. Registration is free. The boundary is meant to travel across participating platforms, not to disappear when a familiar website is replaced by an unfamiliar one.
That distinction matters when the thought of finding a different place to play begins to look like a solution. A separate account does not cancel an active exclusion. Nor does a site being described as outside a device-blocking tool establish that gambling there is permitted under the terms of a self-exclusion. Gamban and GAMSTOP are not interchangeable controls: a tool that limits access on a device does not rewrite the status of an exclusion registered through GAMSTOP.
For players who choose to exclude themselves from UK-licensed online casinos, GAMSTOP applies across UKGC-licensed gambling platforms for the chosen fixed period. The available periods are six months, one year or five years. During that time, the restriction is not an invitation to test the edges of the system. It is the agreement itself.
Six Months
A fixed period of self-exclusion from UKGC-licensed gambling platforms.
One Year
A fixed period of self-exclusion from UKGC-licensed gambling platforms.
Five Years
A fixed period of self-exclusion from UKGC-licensed gambling platforms.
A different site can look, at first glance, like a technical exception: another login, another brand, another route to a familiar activity. That appearance says little about whether the account can lawfully be opened or whether using it would be consistent with the person’s exclusion. In Britain, remote gambling operators serving the market must hold a UK Gambling Commission licence. A site outside that system is not simply a licensed UK casino with a different name; it sits beyond the protections and requirements that apply to UKGC licensees.
The practical advice is plain: do not open another account elsewhere to work around an active exclusion. Playing at a non-GamStop casino could breach self-exclusion terms. The fact that a site is not blocked by GAMSTOP does not make it a safe exception, and a gap in one form of access control is not evidence that the underlying commitment has been lifted. A door that happens to open is not permission.
This is why lists advertised as the best Gamban-free or non-GamStop casinos are a poor guide to the question that matters during an active exclusion. A ranking can make access sound like a consumer choice, as though the relevant comparison were between interfaces or offers. But the central issue is not which site appears easiest to reach. It is whether gambling is compatible with the exclusion already in force. No catalogue of alternatives can answer that on the person’s behalf.
Non-GamStop European Casinos: UK Rules Explained
GAMSTOP is designed to prevent access to current accounts and the creation of new ones across the UK online operators it covers. A self-excluded customer should expect service to be refused at the websites and venues included in their exclusion. That refusal is not a temporary inconvenience to route around; it is the point of the arrangement. The system is built to make a decision made in one moment hold against the pressure of another.
There is a broader idea behind that design. Gambling accounts are private, but the harm a person may be trying to interrupt does not arrive neatly separated by brand. A scheme operating across licensed operators treats the decision as broader than a request to one company. It recognises that changing the name at the top of a screen can leave the behaviour unchanged. A boundary drawn around one account would be a very thin boundary indeed.
None of this means that every tool has the same reach or that every website is part of the same scheme. It means that those differences should not be mistaken for a release from an active exclusion. A device blocker may affect whether a site can be reached through that device; GAMSTOP concerns access to accounts with covered online gambling operators. Neither distinction turns a search for an alternative into a sound way to manage self-exclusion.
The safest reading of an active GAMSTOP registration is therefore the simplest one: the exclusion remains in force for its chosen period, and another account should not be used to evade it. If the purpose was to stop gambling across UK-licensed online platforms, moving to a site outside the scheme can defeat the purpose and could breach the terms of self-exclusion. The boundary is not erased by a different address.
Opening another account elsewhere to work around an active exclusion could breach self-exclusion terms.
Slots Outside a Gamban Block: Access Is Not an Endorsement
A slot game that remains reachable when Gamban is active has passed one narrow test: the blocking software has not prevented access to it. That says nothing, by itself, about the operator’s status, the game’s safeguards or whether gambling is appropriate for the person trying to play. A technical gap is not a recommendation.
Gamban is a blocking tool; it is not the authority that licenses British gambling businesses. Its reach and a site’s legal status are separate questions. A casino page opening in a browser does not establish that the operator is entitled to serve customers in Great Britain. Remote operators offering gambling to people in England, Scotland and Wales must hold the relevant licence from the UK Gambling Commission. Offshore casinos operating without that licence sit outside the UK regulatory system.
That distinction matters because software access can look like a judgement when it is only a technical outcome. A site may be reachable for reasons that have nothing to do with its standards or suitability. Nor does a slot become safer because it appears in a list of games described as being outside a block. The wording sounds like a category; it is not a mark of approval.
Anjouan Casino Licence in the UK: What It Means
What access can—and cannot—tell anyone
The phrase “slots not on Gamban” can suggest that games themselves carry a dependable label. In practice, a search for a slot or casino site not blocked by the software cannot establish whether a British customer is dealing with a UK-licensed operator. The relevant distinction is not whether a particular title loads, but whether the business providing real-money play is licensed to serve the market.
That is a regulatory question, not a feature of a game screen. The Gambling Commission’s licensing framework applies to remote operators serving Great Britain, wherever those operators are based. A foreign location does not remove the licensing requirement. An offshore casino without a UKGC licence is outside that system, even if its pages are accessible from a British device.
The point is not that every technical opening proves something improper. Access alone simply proves too little. A familiar design, a long game catalogue or a smooth route to a slot cannot substitute for the legal standing of the operator. A polished front end is not a licence.
For someone who has installed a blocking tool to reduce exposure to gambling, the distinction is more personal than administrative. Finding a route to a game may defeat the purpose for which the block was put in place. That does not make the route evidence of safety, and it does not change the meaning of any separate self-exclusion agreement. A software boundary and a formal exclusion are different things.
Technical access to a site through a blocking tool is a software matter and does not establish the operator’s legal status or licensing under the UKGC.
British online slots have limits of their own
The mechanics of online slots in Britain are not entirely left to the pace preferred by a game designer. Each online slot spin must last at least 2.5 seconds, and autoplay is banned. These requirements shape how a game can be played on a UK-regulated site; they are not proof that a slot is harmless or that it is suitable for every person.
The rules slow the cycle and remove a feature that would otherwise let successive spins run without a fresh action. They do not remove the possibility of losing money, nor do they turn play into something risk-free. A regulated product remains gambling. The presence of controls marks a boundary around how the product is offered, not a promise about what an individual experience will be.
That is part of the wider British approach to remote gambling: market access is tied to a licence, and licensed operators have obligations beyond putting games online. Operators must verify a customer’s age before allowing funds to be deposited. New customers must be prompted to set a financial limit before their first deposit, and account-level limit controls must be accessible. These requirements do not certify that a particular session will feel manageable. They place duties on the business.
There are also restrictions on how gambling can be funded. Remote operators cannot accept credit-card payments for gambling, including credit-card funds routed through a money service business. They cannot accept wallet payments where that wallet permits credit-card money to be used for gambling. These rules apply to the regulated offer; a site’s ability to load does not reveal whether it is operating within those requirements.
Online Casinos, Malta MGA Licences and UK Rules
Why “best” is the wrong inference
Descriptions such as “best online slots outside Gamban” combine two ideas that do not belong together. “Best” implies some recognised measure of quality, while “outside Gamban” refers only to whether blocking software prevents access. One does not establish the other. Neither phrase supplies a sound basis for judging legality, consumer protection or personal risk.
A game’s pace, visual style or popularity cannot answer the central questions about the operator behind it. A British player considering real-money gambling needs to distinguish a UKGC-licensed business from an offshore one, rather than treating accessibility as a substitute for that distinction. Online gambling is legal in the UK only through licensed and regulated sites. The regulator’s system is not an endorsement of every game, but it is the legal framework governing operators serving the market.
Nor should the technical rules be mistaken for an invitation to keep testing the edges of a block. Software is one barrier; it is not a permission slip. When a person has chosen to reduce access to gambling, the fact that a particular slot can still be reached does not make that access a sound decision. When a formal self-exclusion is active, trying to reach gambling through another site may also conflict with its terms.
There is a quiet difference between describing what a device can open and saying what ought to be opened. The first is technical. The second involves the person, the operator and the protections that apply—or do not apply—to the transaction. A list of reachable games can blur those distinctions by making availability look like selection.
Do
- Use UKGC-licensed sites
- Verify age before depositing
- Set financial limits
- Use account-level controls
Don’t
- Use offshore unlicensed casinos
- Use credit-card payments
- Use credit-card wallet payments
- Rely on technical accessibility as safety
British slot rules, licensing requirements and payment restrictions all concern the conditions under which gambling is offered. They do not transform a search result into a safety assessment. A slot’s presence beyond a block is not a quality label, and an accessible casino site is not automatically a lawful one. Access is only access.
A Casino Without Gamban Is Not a Self-Exclusion Plan
A casino being accessible without Gamban says something about a device-blocking tool, not about whether a person has formally excluded themselves from gambling. The distinction matters because installing no blocker, removing one, or finding that it does not affect a particular site does not create a self-exclusion agreement. Nor does it cancel one already made with a gambling business.
Self-exclusion is a formal request to a gambling company to stop a person betting with it for an agreed period. It can apply to a single business, rather than to every operator. In Britain, gambling businesses must offer self-exclusion by law. This is an account-level boundary, not a setting on a phone or computer.
For one online casino or gambling app, the relevant route is its Responsible Gambling or Safer Gambling page. The instructions there explain how to submit a request; if they are not available, customer services can be contacted. The process is not simply a change of mood or a promise made privately. It creates an agreement with the business, and the person who enters it remains responsible for keeping to it.
That agreement also carries obligations for the operator. The account must be closed, any remaining balance returned, and the customer’s details removed from marketing databases. Those duties make self-exclusion more than a warning label or a voluntary reminder. It is a formal interruption of the commercial relationship.
A blocker and an exclusion do different work. Gamban concerns access through a device; self-exclusion concerns the gambling account and the company that holds it. A site being available when Gamban is absent does not establish that opening or using an account there is consistent with an existing exclusion. The absence of a software barrier is not permission.
For someone seeking a boundary with one particular business, the direct route is to request self-exclusion from that business and follow its process. Choosing not to install Gamban is not a substitute. Different instruments.
Gamban-Free Sites and the Places an Exclusion Must Cover
A software block and a self-exclusion agreement draw different boundaries. One concerns access through a device; the other concerns a gambling business, scheme or venue agreeing not to accept a person’s custom. A site unaffected by Gamban therefore says nothing about whether a person has excluded themselves there, or whether gambling elsewhere fits the terms of an existing exclusion.
The boundary matters because temptation does not belong to one screen. It may be attached to an app, a casino account, a betting shop or a land-based casino. An exclusion limited to one place leaves other places untouched. The practical question is not simply which sites a blocker can reach, but where gambling might still become an option.
SENSE
Covers land-based casinos.
Bingo Association
Provides a route for land-based bingo venues.
self-exclusion.co.uk
Handles requests relating to multiple bookmakers or betting shops in an area.
For online gambling, self-exclusion can be arranged through GAMSTOP across participating licensed operators, or directly with an individual online casino. A website or app should explain its process on a Responsible Gambling or Safer Gambling page; if those instructions are hard to find, customer services can be contacted. Gambling businesses are required by law to offer self-exclusion. Formal coverage, rather than a device setting, is the point.
Land-based venues require their own attention. A request can be made at a casino’s customer service desk. Separate arrangements exist for other settings: the SENSE scheme covers land-based casinos, the Bingo Association provides a route for land-based bingo venues, and self-exclusion.co.uk handles requests relating to multiple bookmakers or betting shops in an area. The names matter because a casino agreement is not a universal ban on every gambling venue.
A careful exclusion maps the places where gambling could occur, online and in person, then uses the relevant routes for those places. It is not a catalogue of sites to avoid, nor a technical setting that silently settles the matter. The work is administrative, and its limits are geographical and institutional: each arrangement applies to the businesses or venues it covers.
A gap can be quiet. A familiar app may be blocked while another route remains open; a casino agreement may leave a betting shop outside its reach. Coverage needs to match the person’s real pattern of temptation, not merely the device most often used.
“No Gamban Slots” Does Not Mean No Gambling Controls
A slot being reachable on a device without Gamban is a statement about access, not about the rules that apply to the gambling business. A blocking tool and a gambling company’s duties are different parts of the picture. The first may affect whether a site opens; it does not decide whether a customer has formally self-excluded or what the operator must do in response.
In Great Britain, gambling businesses must offer self-exclusion by law. Once an exclusion agreement is in place with a business, that business must close the customer’s account, return any funds held there and remove the customer’s details from its marketing databases. It must also take reasonable steps to stop the excluded customer gambling with it. These are duties attached to the relationship between customer and business, not features of a particular slot.
That distinction matters when a game is described as available without Gamban. A title or website may not be blocked by a device tool, but that does not cancel an exclusion already made with the business, nor turn access into permission. A non-GamStop casino could still be a place where gambling breaches self-exclusion terms. Opening an account elsewhere to get around an active exclusion is not a suitable workaround.
The operator’s part is not simply to display a self-exclusion button and leave the rest to chance. Its responsibilities continue after the agreement: account access, funds and marketing contact all have to be addressed, and reasonable prevention measures must be taken. The point is practical as well as formal. Exclusion is meant to change what the business does, not merely what a customer has promised themselves.
Gamban’s reach, then, is not a catalogue of slots and cannot serve as a test of whether gambling is appropriate or permitted under an existing exclusion. The useful question is not which game escapes a blocker, but whether an exclusion applies and whether the business is honouring it. A technical gap is only a gap.
Outside Gamban, Outside the Exclusion?
A site that remains reachable when Gamban is active has passed a technical boundary, not a test of whether gambling there is permitted. A blocking tool controls access on a device; it does not rewrite a self-exclusion agreement. If a person has excluded themselves through GAMSTOP, moving to a casino the blocker does not affect is not a safe workaround. Gambling there could breach the terms of that exclusion.
The distinction matters because “outside Gamban” describes what a piece of software does or does not block. It says nothing reliable about a person’s eligibility to gamble, the site’s standing under British law, or whether a self-exclusion remains in force. Remote operators offering gambling to people in Great Britain must hold a UK Gambling Commission licence. An offshore casino without that licence is not made lawful by being accessible, or by being absent from a blocking tool. Reachability is not permission.
Self-exclusion is intended to create a boundary at a moment when a person has decided gambling should stop. Looking for a site beyond that boundary turns a technical gap into a route around the decision. That can undermine the purpose of the agreement and may put the player in breach of its terms. Opening another account elsewhere to get around an active exclusion is therefore not a sound course of action.
There is also a difference between ending an exclusion and finding a place where it is not enforced. A person who wants to leave GAMSTOP must contact the scheme directly. The process does not begin simply because a site accepts a registration or because a blocking app is not in the way.
After identity verification is complete, GAMSTOP starts a 24-hour cooling-off period. The exclusion remains active throughout it. Every removal request has the same waiting period; there is no faster route. During that time, the request can be cancelled by contacting GAMSTOP and asking to keep the self-exclusion in place. Once GAMSTOP processes a removal, operators may need a further 24 to 48 hours to update their records. A different casino cannot perform that process on the scheme’s behalf.
Those stages matter in practical terms. An account that appears usable, or a website that loads, does not establish that an exclusion has ended. Nor does an operator’s apparent willingness to accept a customer settle whether that play is consistent with an active agreement. The responsible course is not to test the boundary at another site, but to wait for the scheme and operators to complete the proper status change.
British gambling businesses are required to provide self-exclusion arrangements. That obligation is part of the system’s design: the boundary is meant to be more than a setting on one phone. Where a person has excluded themselves and a gambling business fails to respect that, the matter can be raised through the business’s complaints process and, where applicable, its approved Alternative Dispute Resolution service. The Gambling Commission regulates operators; it cannot refund money already spent gambling.
A casino not affected by Gamban is therefore not evidence that an exclusion has ended, nor proof that gambling there is appropriate. The blocker’s limits and the scheme’s status are separate things. Treating one as an answer to the other confuses access with consent. That distinction is the point.
How does self-exclusion work?
You register with GAMSTOP for online gambling or contact an individual gambling business to exclude yourself there. You provide personal details to confirm your identity, choose a duration and receive confirmation; the business must then stop you gambling with it.
How do I return from self-exclusion?
For GAMSTOP, contact the scheme directly to request removal. A 24-hour waiting period applies, during which you can cancel the request and keep your exclusion; after removal, operators may take a further 24 to 48 hours to update your status.
How does GAMSTOP benefit me?
GAMSTOP blocks access to your existing accounts and prevents you opening new ones with online gambling operators across the UK, free of charge.