Casinos like Rollbit, grouped by who licenses them

This is the largest group and the one Rollbit belongs to. Its members carry numbers in two visibly different formats, and the difference is a date rather than a hierarchy. The newer OGL/YYYY/NNN/NNNN numbers come from the Curaçao Gaming Authority under the licensing regime introduced there; older numbers such as 1668/JAZ and 8048/JAZ come from the master-licence arrangement that preceded it.

Both appear in this register because both are what the operators themselves publish. Rocketpot names 1668/JAZ, LTC Casino and Primedice both name 8048/JAZ, Bitdreams names Antillephone N.V. 8048/JAZ2019-015, and the remainder carry OGL numbers. Rollbit's own OGL/2024/1260/0494 sits in the newer format.

Two brands in this group publish the same number as each other, which is normal rather than suspicious: Bitcasino.io and Livecasino.io both name OGL/2023/111/0069, and Mirax and KatsuBet both name OGL/2024/1307/0748. Shared licences across brands under one operator are ordinary in this market, and it is one of the few places where a register number tells you something about corporate structure.

The Anjouan Gaming Board licenses seventeen brands here, in a single ALSI- format. Unlike Curaçao, its validation endpoint answered when queried, which makes it the one authority in this comparison where a check produces a result rather than a shrug.

The brands: BC.Game, Wolf.bet, Flush, Rainbet, DuckDice, JacksClub, Rakebit, Bspin, Fairspin, Empire.io, Windice, FortuneJack, CoinPoker, Wild Fortune, Weiss, Betcoin.ag and Chipstars. Two of them, Fairspin and Weiss, publish the same number, ALSI-202508047-FI2.

Rollbit was queried against that endpoint too, on 27 August 2026, and came back as not licensed by the Anjouan authority. That is exactly what its own terms predict, since they name Curaçao and not Anjouan. It is recorded here only so that the absence is never later mistaken for a field nobody checked.

Nitrobetting and BetPlays name no licensing authority in anything we read. That is the single most consequential blank in this whole register, and it is worth stating without dressing it up: there is no named authority, so there is no register to search and no body to complain to. Both remain in the table because removing them would be editing the evidence, and both sit near the bottom of the ordering for exactly this reason.

Sportbet.one names M.I.S.A. and the number G20190045 — the only brand here outside the two main groups. It is neither better nor worse for being unusual; it simply means the check you would run is a different one.

Thirty-nine of the forty-two publish a register link or identifier alongside the number, and thirty-three publish a status. Those two counts are the practical measure of whether a licence claim is checkable at all, and they are why the ordering on this site rewards a register link separately from the number itself.

On 28 August 2026 the Curaçao Gaming Authority's certificate register returned no result for every domain queried against it, including brands whose Curaçao licences are not in any doubt. A register that answers nothing to everything is evidence in neither direction.

So Rollbit's OGL/2024/1260/0494 is recorded here as unresolved, the same label it carries on the page of Rollbit alternatives. Not invalid, not confirmed. A site that reported its own failed lookup as a failed licence check would be reporting the state of its tooling and calling it a finding about an operator, and that is a worse error than admitting the gap.

The same applies to every Curaçao number in the table above. Where a brand publishes a certificate identifier rather than relying on a domain search, the lookup still resolves, and the licence page sets out which ones do.