The licence record, and how the alternatives compare

Roobet's footer carries a legal line on every page, and it names two companies rather than one. The licence holder is Raw Entertainment B.V., registration number 157205, at Korporaalweg 10 in Curacao. A second company, Raw Entertainment Ltd, registration number HE421735, is named in the same line as the paying and operational agent acting on behalf of the first.

The second company is registered in Cyprus, at Voukourestiou 25, Neptune House, 1st Floor, Flat/Office 11, Zakaki, 3045, Limassol. It is worth recording separately from the licence holder because it is the entity a player's money moves through, and because it sits in a different jurisdiction from the licence.

There is a wrinkle in that arrangement which the documents themselves create. Cyprus appears on Roobet's own list of restricted territories at clause 3.5, and so does Curacao. The licence is held in one restricted territory and the payments are handled from another. That is not unusual in this industry and it is not a contradiction, since a company can be domiciled somewhere it does not accept players from, but it is a fact from the operator's own two documents and it is set out here rather than smoothed over.

OGL/2024/687/0427 belongs to the 2024 series of Curacao numbers issued under the regime that replaced the older master and sub-licence arrangement. Numbers in that series are ordinarily checkable against the Curacao Gaming Authority's certificate service.

On 2026-08-28 that service returned no result for any domain queried against it. Not for Roobet, and not for brands elsewhere in this comparison whose Curacao licences are not in doubt. A register that answers nothing to everything cannot be used to confirm a licence and cannot be used to cast doubt on one either, and any site that reports a null result from it as a failed check is reporting its own tooling rather than the operator's status.

What still works is the certificate identifier. Seventeen brands in this comparison carry a link to a specific certificate on that service rather than a domain search, and those identifiers resolve. Roobet's record carries no such identifier in anything we have read, which is why its number sits in a different state from theirs.

The practical consequence for a reader is small but real: you cannot presently confirm this licence yourself from the domain alone. That is a fact about the register on the day it was consulted, and it is dated for exactly that reason.

Roobet's terms of service set out twenty-five restricted territories at clause 3.5. They are printed below in the order the terms print them, verbatim, including the spelling. The terms write United Kingdoms, with an s, and a quotation that has been tidied up is no longer a quotation.

This list is a term of Roobet's own contract. It is not a statement about anybody's law, it is not a claim about where gambling is permitted, and it is not advice. It is simply what the operator has written down about where it will and will not do business.

The United States is on the list, at position twenty-two. For a reader in a territory the clause names, the question this site answers is what else there is, and the list is not extended to the forty-one alternatives, whose records here carry coins, studios, verification, caps and licence records only.

Clause 3.7 of the same terms names the policies that together make up the agreement, which matters because obligations that a reader expects to find in the terms of service often sit in one of the others. Verification, for example, is addressed both in the terms and in the AML policy.

The seven are the Terms of Service, the Privacy Policy, the AML Policy, the Responsible Gambling Policy, the Bonus and Promotion Policy, the Game and Sportsbook Policy, and the Roobet Chat Rules. Anyone checking a specific obligation should treat the terms of service as the first of seven documents rather than as the whole contract.

Thirty-nine of the forty-one name a licensing authority and carry a licence number. Two, Nitrobetting and BetPlays, carry no authority, no number and no register link in anything we have read.

The set divides almost evenly between two jurisdictions. Seventeen brands are recorded under the Curacao Gaming Authority, each with a certificate identifier on the authority's own service. Fifteen are recorded under the Anjouan Gaming Board, with links into that board's public licence register, and two more are recorded under the fuller formal name of the same jurisdiction, the Government of the Autonomous Island of Anjouan, Union of Comoros. The remaining handful sit under older or one-off names: Curacao eGaming for LTC Casino, Government of Curacao for Primedice, plain Curacao for Rocketpot, Antillephone N.V. for Bitdreams, and M.I.S.A. for Sportbet.one.

Thirty-three of the forty-one carry a status recorded as active or valid. The other eight carry none, which again means unread rather than lapsed, and two of those eight are the brands with no licence record at all. None of the forty-two operators in this comparison, Roobet included, carries a status recorded as revoked, withdrawn or cancelled.

Six brands' records lead only to a page on the operator's own site rather than to a register: Wolf.bet, Rocketpot, LTC Casino, Primedice, Sportbet.one and Bitdreams. A licence claim on an operator's own terms page is the weakest form of the evidence, because it is the operator asserting its own status, and it is scored as such.

Reading forty-two licence numbers side by side turns up something a single review would never show: four numbers are shared between two brands each. That is not evidence of wrongdoing. A single licence commonly covers several brands operated by the same company, and that is the ordinary explanation.

It is worth printing anyway, because a reader comparing two brands on the strength of independent licences should know when the two licences are one licence. Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io share OGL/2023/111/0069. Mirax and KatsuBet share OGL/2024/1307/0748. Fairspin and Weiss share ALSI-202508047-FI2. LTC Casino and Primedice share 8048/JAZ.

That last number is from the older Curacao numbering rather than the 2024 series, and a variant of it appears a third time: Bitdreams carries 8048/JAZ2019-015, the sub-licence form of the same master number. Three brands in this comparison therefore trace to one master licence in a numbering scheme that the 2024 regime replaced.

The two Curacao pairs behave differently under scrutiny, which is why the authority column is printed alongside. Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io share a 2023-series number and each carries its own certificate identifier, so both resolve independently to the same underlying record. LTC Casino and Primedice share 8048/JAZ but are recorded under two different authority names, Curacao eGaming and the Government of Curacao, and neither record links to a register: both lead only to a page on the operator's own site. One shared number is checkable twice over and the other is checkable not at all.

A resolvable licence number tells you that an operator has been through a process and that a record exists which someone outside the company can look at. It does not tell you how a dispute is handled, whether a withdrawal will be paid, or what a regulator will do if it is not.

It also does not tell you whether an operator will accept an account from where you are. That is a separate term in a separate part of the contract, and twenty-five of the forty-one publish a restricted list we have read. Sixteen do not, and for those sixteen the honest position is that we have not read one rather than that they restrict nobody.

The same caution applies to a status recorded as active or valid. That value is read from the record a register or a certificate service returned on the day it was consulted, and a licence can lapse, be surrendered or be withdrawn the day after. It is a snapshot with a date attached, which is why the date is printed with it.

Finally, the difference between a licence number that resolves and one that does not is a difference in what a reader can check today, not a ranking of legitimacy. Roobet's is unresolved because the register was unusable on the day it was consulted. That is recorded, dated, and left as it is.