Belgium Reshapes Its Response to Illegal Gambling Websites

Belgium Reshapes Its Response to Illegal Gambling Websites

Belgium has taken another step in strengthening oversight of its online gambling market by granting its national regulator new powers to restrict access to unlicensed operators. Under a formal cooperation agreement with DNS Belgium, the Kansspelcommissie will now be able to initiate domain and IP blocking measures against gambling websites targeting Belgian consumers without a local licence. The move reflects a broader shift toward technical enforcement tools that operate alongside traditional regulatory controls.

DNS Belgium plays a central role in the country's digital infrastructure, managing national domain extensions such as .be, .vlaanderen, and .brussels. By partnering directly with this body, the Kansspelcommissie gains a more immediate route to address websites that fall outside the legal framework but remain visible to Belgian users. The agreement is designed to reduce the time between detection and intervention, particularly in cases where operators continue activity after receiving regulatory warnings.

Under the new arrangement, the regulator is responsible for identifying websites it considers to be operating unlawfully. These are platforms that offer online gambling services without the required Belgian authorisation and are accessible to players within the country. Once such a site is identified, DNS Belgium notifies the domain holder and informs them that their website violates the registry's rules by facilitating illegal gambling.

This initial notification phase is intended to encourage compliance rather than impose immediate sanctions. Domain holders can address the issue by either ceasing gambling activities or taking steps to comply with Belgian licensing requirements. The structure suggests an enforcement model that prioritises correction before restriction, at least in the first instance.

If the domain holder fails to respond or chooses not to comply, DNS Belgium can escalate the matter by taking control of the domain itself. At that point, access to the website is no longer directed to the original content. Instead, users attempting to visit the site are redirected to an official notice issued by the Kansspelcommissie. The warning page, displayed in both of Belgium's main national languages, explains that the website has been restricted because it offers prohibited gambling services.

The regulator has stated that this cooperation will make it easier to identify and address illegal gambling websites that rely on Belgian domain names. While many unlicensed operators use international domains, some choose national extensions, which can give a misleading impression of legitimacy or local approval. From the regulator's perspective, this creates an added consumer protection concern, particularly in a market where licensing is intended to signal compliance with specific legal and social safeguards.

Blocking measures of this kind are not unique to Belgium. Across Europe, gambling regulators have increasingly turned to technical restrictions as part of their enforcement strategies. IP blocking and domain intervention are often used to limit visibility and accessibility rather than to eliminate illegal gambling outright. These measures are typically combined with other actions, such as fines, blacklists, or public awareness campaigns, to reinforce regulatory boundaries.

In some countries, regulators also have the authority to restrict financial transactions between consumers and unlicensed operators. Payment blocking targets the economic foundation of illegal gambling activity, but it requires cooperation from financial institutions and payment service providers. Belgium's new agreement focuses instead on access and visibility, using domain governance as a point of control.

Despite their growing use, blocking powers remain a contested regulatory area. Concerns are often raised about proportionality and the potential impact on broader internet access rights. In certain jurisdictions, courts have questioned whether administrative bodies should have the authority to restrict access to online content without explicit legislative backing or judicial oversight.