The evolution and effectiveness of self-exclusion: An analysis of this responsible gambling tool

This year, the global gambling market is projected to hit a size of $665 billion, with online gambling contributing somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of this figure. Pune-based Grand View Research estimates that this industry section will keep growing at a rate of 11.9% until 2030 at least, and the dramatic rise of this sphere has been evident for over a decade, with it kicking into high gear post-2020.

At the start of the 2020s, many regulators worldwide were already wise to the swelling popularity of online gambling and, naturally, feared that its wide accessibility would bring about higher gambling addiction rates. The UK, regarded as one of the world’s most stringently controlled gambling markets, was among the first to implement a mandatory, modern, and universal self-exclusion system named GamStop, which debuted in 2018 but became mandatory for all UKGC-licensed operators starting from March 2020.

For those unfamiliar with self-exclusion, this term refers to a practice that allows gamblers to request a temporary or permanent ban from gambling activity, from a specific venue or site, or multiple ones that tie in together, licensed by the same body or run by the same operator.

After GamStop participation became a prerequisite for UKGC-regulated operators, given the UK Gambling Commission’s reputation as a regulatory trailblazer, this scheme started being copied throughout Europe. Many countries implemented their own similar systems, based on much of the groundwork set by GamStop, and now these nationwide databases/schemes are the norm in developed countries with regulated online gambling. But just how effective are they when it comes to curbing problem gambling? And how big an issue is this disorder in reality?.

How many people are affected by problem gambling?

Many articles covering this subject matter like to repeat a statistic cited by the US Council on Problem Gambling that only around 1% of the population are prone to and develop an uncontrollable urge to gamble. This is an outdated stat, posted years ago at a time when people did not have such easy access to games of chance, card gambling, lotteries, and betting on sports. Moreover, a 2016 study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions highlights that gambling addiction rates varied between 0.12 and 5.8% across different countries a decade ago. A more recent assessment, from 2024, by the World Health Organization presents more worrying data, that 11.9% of men around the globe and 5.5% of women experience some sort of gambling harm during their lifetime.

Though a 2025 UKGC report estimates that 1.4 million Brits have a gambling problem, and a survey conducted by Online Casinos Deutschland points out that as many as 1.3 million Germans are affected by this disorder. So, projections regarding just how many individuals score high on the problem severity index vary by data availability, region, demographics polled and other factors. It is also too difficult to measure all the negative consequences of betting. 

Still, it is an undeniable fact that the number of people gambling is growing, and with that, so is the number of people predisposed to suffering from this affliction getting exposed to this activity.

How have self-exclusion programs changed?

Nowadays, when someone says self-exclusion, online gamblers generally connect this term to a site or system where they can enter their name and get restricted from accessing a distinct website or multiple platforms. But the concept itself actually predates the internet, with the initial self-exclusion program being started in Canada, in the province of Manitoba, when the Great White North opened its first year-round gaming venue. Holland was quick to follow in Canada’s footsteps in 1990, and the US introduced it in 1994, originally in Connecticut. Nevertheless, the state of Missouri was the original United States territory with a self-exclusion system that covered all gaming establishments within its borders.

In the 2000s, online gambling started to get more established worldwide, with many European countries passing laws to regulate it during this decade, even though it was available since the mid-1990s, but in the offshore arena only. In this early 21st-century period, there were no multi-operator schemes, only operator-run ones. The contemporary self-exclusion arena began in the late 2010s, with, as mentioned, the UK leading the way. Sweden’s Spelpaus was a famous GamStop successor, and in 2021, quickly after launching its national gambling landscape, Germany implemented its OASIS system.

Now, many non-European and non-North American countries have made this move as well, with Australia going live with BetStop, a national self-exclusion register that started functioning in August 2023, designed specifically for remote wagering services, online and phone-based ones.

All these systems differ in the durations of their available bans, and some also encompass land-based properties as well as internet platforms. Others, such as GamStop, are an online-only database.

Are self-exclusion systems effective?

The simple answer is yes. But, they are not a complete solution, and their effectiveness primarily depends on how well-imposed restrictions get enforced. A 2019 review of land-based programs showed that people who have signed up for these bans had a gambling reduction rate between 29% and 92%. Unfortunately, the research shows exclusion breaches up to 59%.

In 2023, Spelpaus, Sweden’s self-exclusion program, highlighted that based on individual reports, up to 38% of gamblers excluded from using Swedish Gambling Authority-regulated online casinos continued to gamble at non-Swedish sites. Hence, those who have sizeable trouble controlling their impulses to bet can easily succumb to them, on account of the easy availability of platforms licensed in regions like Costa Rica, Panama, Curacao, Malta, Anjouan, and so on, given that these sites can get access by players from many corners of the globe.

What is also troubling is that Springer-published research shows that only a small number of gamblers actually self-exclude, with the international prevalence being as low as 0.26%, and the one among documented problem gamblers standing at 15.2%. Accordingly, only a few people with this issue actually decide to do something proactive about getting it under control. This is why consulting and education on this topic are so critical.

Self-exclusion systems are effective harm-reduction tools, but they seldom are able to stop addicted individuals from relapsing on their own. Such gamblers first have to have the motivation to stop, and then take initiative using multiple methods to ensure they don’t go back to betting once they have said enough is enough.