Everyone assumes that large offshore casinos like Stake operate in Canada the same way provincial platforms do. Let's be blunt: they do not. Ontario's regulated market, delivered through iGaming Ontario (iGO) under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), changed the rules of engagement. This case study walks through the context, the challenge, the approach regulators and platforms took, how blocking happened in practice, and what the measurable outcomes were — with hard lessons and practical takeaways for operators, regulators, and players.
1. Background and context
What changed in Ontario in 2022 and why does it matter? On April 4, 2022 Ontario launched an open, regulated iGaming market. The province created a framework where iGaming Ontario negotiates operating agreements and AGCO enforces compliance. The aim was simple: migrate gambling activity from the unregulated offshore market into a locally regulated environment with stronger consumer protections, mandatory anti‑money laundering (AML) checks, verified age controls, and problem‑gambling resources.
Stake is an example of an offshore, crypto‑centred casino operator that primarily held non‑Canadian licenses (for example, Curacao) and relied on geolocation workarounds and payment rails to reach customers globally. That business model collides with Ontario’s new regime because operators who want to serve Ontario need an agreement with iGaming Ontario and to comply with AGCO rules — not simply “operate and hope.”
2. The challenge faced
What was the core issue for Stake and other offshore operators? Put plainly: market access versus regulatory compliance. Stake faced three interconnected challenges.
- Regulatory legitimacy: Without an iGO operating agreement, an operator is considered unregulated for Ontario residents. Commercial friction: Ontario required operators to implement enhanced KYC, AML, consumer‑protection policies and to accept provincial oversight — a material change to business processes that benefits licensed incumbents. Access enforcement: Regulators and local stakeholders wanted to reduce exposure of Ontario players to unregulated operators. That meant making it harder to bet on offshore sites from Ontario IP addresses or via Ontario payment methods.
So the choice for Stake was fundamentally this: adapt and enter the regulated market with the obligations that brings, or continue to serve Ontario at the risk of access restrictions, reputational damage, and commercial limitations.
3. Approach taken
How did the regulated market respond, and what tactics were used to restrict access to unlicensed sites like Stake? The Ontario model combined regulatory design, commercial pressure, and targeted technical measures. The goal was not necessarily to make sites impossible to reach worldwide, but to make it materially harder for Ontario residents to use unlicensed services.
Key strands of the approach:
- Licensing and operating agreements: iGaming Ontario made clear that operators must sign agreements and meet AGCO standards to be considered authorized in the province. Payment and advertising controls: Regulators worked indirectly with payment processors, advertising platforms, and app stores to reduce the offshore operators' ability to accept fiat payments, advertise locally, or offer apps in Canadian storefronts. Network‑level interventions: Where commercial levers were insufficient, regulators and industry partners encouraged ISPs and payment processors to enact blocks or filtering against specific domains and IPs tied to unlicensed operators.
Did authorities simply “order a shutdown”? Not typically. The pressure model used legal and commercial incentives: cut off the money flow and the market becomes unreachable for most ordinary users, even if tech‑savvy users can still bypass restrictions.
4. Implementation process
What did implementation actually look like on the ground? Implementation was multi‑layered and incremental. Here’s a practical breakdown of steps taken and how they affected Stake’s availability to Ontario users.
Mapping and identification: Regulators and commercial partners mapped the offshore operator infrastructure — domains, payment processors, app packages, and advertising flows tied to the operator. Payment rail restrictions: Banks and payment processors were urged to block transactions associated with unlicensed gambling operators and to flag suspicious flows. This undermined the ability to deposit via standard Canadian payment methods. Advertising takedowns: Advertising platforms and social channels were pressured to remove ads and restrict targeted campaigns in Ontario, reducing the operator's customer acquisition capability. Store and app removal: App stores complied with rules or pressure, removing apps or restricting distribution in Ontario regions. ISP level blocking: In targeted cases, ISPs applied domain name system (DNS) blocking, IP blocking, or SNI/IP filtering to make direct access from Ontario more difficult. These measures were selective and focused on the most visible offshore operators. Public communication: Publicly, regulators communicated lists of licensed operators and warned consumers about unlicensed sites — moving demand toward regulated alternatives.Between these technical and commercial moves, ordinary Ontario users experienced a rapid decline in straightforward access to offshore platforms like Stake without resorting to VPNs, crypto rails, or alternative payment methods.
5. Results and metrics
What were the measurable outcomes? Numbers vary by source and timeframe, but patterns are clear. The combined enforcement and commercial pressure produced concrete behavioral and market effects.
- Traffic decline from Ontario: Industry observers estimate a substantial drop in direct Ontario traffic to major offshore casinos after enforcement measures were applied. For some operators, traffic from Ontario fell by a majority — in the range of 60–90% for mainstream channels — within months of coordination between iGO, payment processors, and ISPs. Deposit friction: Reports and payment data showed a marked decline in fiat deposits originating from Ontario accounts to non‑iGO operators, as card and e‑transfer rejections increased and risk teams flagged transactions. Consumer migration: Licensed Ontario operators experienced traffic and revenue gains as players migrated to platforms that offered regulated guarantees, local support, and easier deposits. Growth among licensed incumbents varied, but many reported double‑digit increases in new account signups in the months following the launch of the regulated market. Enforcement efficiency: A small number of targeted ISP/domain blocks yielded disproportionate impact — they removed the frictionless path for mainstream users and raised the technical bar for bypassing restrictions.
Keep in mind these are aggregated trends. Exact percentages are estimates based on industry reporting, traffic analysis, and payment processor intelligence, not publicly audited financial statements. But the directional takeaway is robust: making the regulated path the easiest option works.
6. Lessons learned
What can operators, regulators, and players learn from this episode? Several intermediate lessons emerge beyond the obvious “get licensed or get blocked.”
- Regulatory certainty changes commercial incentives: When a large jurisdiction like Ontario creates a clear, accessible licensing regime with enforcement teeth, operators must reassess cost–benefit calculations. Compliance costs are real, but so is the market access they buy. Pressure points matter more than blunt force: Cutting payment rails, ad distribution, and app availability often achieves objectives more cleanly than trying to engineer nation‑wide internet censorship. The market is sensitive to financial and acquisition barriers. Technical blocking is effective but imperfect: DNS/IP blocks reduce casual access but are circumventable by motivated users with VPNs or alternative crypto rails. Blocking is a deterrent and a sorting mechanism, not an absolute wall. Transparency and consumer protection drive demand: Operators that offer verified KYC, clear dispute resolution, and local support attract consumers who value certainty and safety — especially after regulators publicly flag unlicensed sites. Coordination multiplies impact: Regulatory credibility combined with cooperation from payment processors, app stores, and ISPs amplifies results far beyond what any single actor could do alone.
7. How to apply these lessons
So what practical steps should each stakeholder take? Whether you run an operator, work in regulatory policy, or are a consumer, here are actionable recommendations grounded in this case.
For operators considering market access
- Ask: Do we want long‑term market access or short‑term arbitrage? If the former, budget for licensing, implement KYC/AML properly, and design age‑verification flows that meet AGCO expectations. Don’t ignore payment strategy: Establish compliant settlement partners and localized payment rails. The inability to accept local payments is a commercial death knell. Prepare compliance resources: Engage legal counsel, AML officers, and a local presence if needed. The compliance check is not a one‑time cost but an ongoing operational discipline.
For regulators and policymakers
- Ask: Are we using proportionate tools? Combine clear licensing paths with targeted commercial pressure to minimize collateral damage to internet openness while protecting consumers. Prioritize public messaging: Make it easy for consumers to identify licensed providers and understand the risks of unregulated sites. Measure outcomes: Track traffic, complaint rates, and problem‑gambling metrics to iterate on enforcement strategy instead of assuming blocking equals success.
For consumers
- Question safety: Are you using a licensed, regulated platform with dispute resolution and local support? If not, be wary. Expect friction from unlicensed operators: Declining payment acceptance and service changes are common — and can mean funds are harder to recover. Ask for proof: Licensed operators will display odds, RTPs, and basic regulatory information prominently. If you can’t find that, ask questions before depositing.
Comprehensive summary
What’s the blunt summary? Ontario’s regulated market — via iGaming Ontario and AGCO — changed the commercial environment such that offshore operators like Stake either needed to accept obligations or face meaningful barriers to serving Ontario customers. The strategy was not to “ban everything” but to apply coordinated commercial and technical pressure: payment rail restrictions, advertising and app distribution limits, and selective ISP blocks. These measures significantly reduced ordinary access to unlicensed operators for Ontario residents, nudging players toward licensed alternatives and increasing the commercial viability of operators that complied.
Did this stop all access? No. Determined users with VPNs, crypto wallets, or alternative payment methods can still reach offshore sites. But for the mass market — the typical player who uses local banks, app stores, and search ads — the regulated path became the path of least resistance. That is the practical success metric regulators sought.
What should stakeholders read into this? Operators: licensing is a strategic choice, not just a compliance checkbox. Regulators: combine clarity, commercial levers, and targeted technical measures for maximum effect. Consumers: prioritize licensed platforms if you value deposit protection, KYC safeguards, and local recourse.
Final question: If you run or rely on an offshore model, do you want to keep patching access or AML oversight in crypto gambling do you want to shape your future with the regulator at the table? The Ontario experience shows the regulator has the upper hand when the objective is protecting consumers and focusing market access through a compliant corridor. That’s not ideology — it’s practical market mechanics.
Are you prepared to adapt or are you planning to out‑engineer regulation? That question separates short‑term arbitrage from sustainable market participation.