Entain Casinos, Bingo and Betting Sites

🔑 Four accounts, one group

Most guides to this operator describe a single company. The public files describe four, and only one of the four has a website on it. Search either high street name and three of them answer. The fourth is reached only by searching the group name itself, and that search returns exactly one result.

The four are not variations on a theme. One sells to players. One runs shops. One is a dormant charity file. The last sells to other operators rather than to anybody who gambles, which is why it has no brand name and nothing to open.

That fourth file is the only one in the group whose company name carries the word Entain, and all but one of its five permissions cover supply rather than sale: hosting the bingo or the betting that another brand puts its name to, and building the software behind it. An account with nothing to sell direct has no brand to file and no address for a browser to open, which is why every one of its tables comes back blank.

🔢 Every web address on the online file

Fifteen web addresses are filed on the online licence, thirteen of them live and two dormant, which reconciles against the counter of fifteen. Sixteen trading names sit beside them, fourteen live and two dormant.

Two live names hold no address whatsoever: gala, and gala coral. That makes Gala the most heavily filed name on the account, five entries against three addresses, and gala coral is the only line anywhere here welding two brand names together. coral.co.uk is the sole .co.uk address among the thirteen, every other live one ending .com. Two names are written as two words where the sites themselves write them as one, sporting bet and game bookers, so a name search using the on-screen spelling comes back empty for both.

One outside confirmation lines up with that. The 2022 announcement described the online licensee as running thirteen websites. Four years on, the file still shows thirteen live addresses, so the shape of this account has held.

⏰ When each permission started

Three of the four files hold permissions, and the dates on them are the most useful thing there, because they show which part of the business came first.

The ancillary remote permission is the odd one out across all three files. It authorises gaming by remote equipment sited entirely inside a single set of premises, which covers a terminal standing on a shop floor rather than a handset out in the street, and it belongs cleanly to neither the websites nor the counter. It is also the newest permission anywhere on the shop file.

Set the two trading files against each other and the order is clear. Betting over a counter has been licensed here since the first day of 2009 and bingo and casino online since November 2014, both on the shop file, while every permission on the file that actually holds the websites dates from July 2019.

🔍 Two addresses that open somewhere else

Typed into a browser on 9 August 2026, two of the thirteen live addresses did not open sites of their own. galaspins.com landed inside galabingo.com, on its spins section, and the page it reached did not call itself Gala Spins. foxygames.com landed inside foxybingo.com, on its games section, and the page there did still carry the Foxy Games name. galacasino.com, by contrast, answered on its own address with a navigation of its own.

Both redirect addresses stay separately live on the file, and both keep their own live trading names. A filed address answers a licensing question, which is whether this licensee may trade under that address, and it goes on answering yes long after the address stopped being a site in its own right. What the file records is whether the permission is live, not whether anybody is home. It works in reverse too: a dormant address can go on resolving for a while after the paperwork stops. That is why a count of addresses and a count of brands are two different numbers on this account.

⚠ Two settlements, and two counters that show none of it

Zero is what the actions counter reads on the online file, and zero again on the shop file, while the actions list returns nothing under any company name or any brand name in the group. Two settlements have nonetheless been announced against companies here, worth £22.9m between them.

The 2019 findings published three customers by way of example. One lost £98,000 across thirty months, had 460 attempted deposits declined and had asked to stop receiving promotions, with no social responsibility contact at any point. One staked £1.5m over two years and ten months with source of funds never once requested, averaging ten logins a day through a single month in which £64,000 was lost. One deposited over £140,000 in the first four months of holding an account.

The 2022 findings ran across both sides of the business. On the online side they recorded £742,000 deposited in fourteen months with source of funds never adequately checked, £186,000 in six months by a customer known to be living in social housing, and £524,501 deposited between December 2019 and October 2020 before the account was closed for want of evidence. They also recorded a single chat interaction with a customer who gambled for long periods overnight across an eighteen-month window in which £230,845 went in, and the source of wealth of another customer resting on open-source searches while £140,700 was deposited over the same period.

In the shops they recorded £29,372 staked and £11,345 lost inside one month with no escalation, £168,000 staked on shop terminals across eight months before any due diligence, a delivery driver never escalated after losing £17,000 in a year, and a further customer left unescalated after staking £173,285 and losing £27,753 across that same year.

One figure has moved since. In August 2022 the shop licensee was described as running 2,746 gambling premises; the counter reads 2,683 today. Both are printed here because they are four years apart and neither cancels the other as a record of its own date.

Neither settlement reached the Gambling Commission as a fine. Money from 2019 was paid in lieu of a penalty and by divestment, and money from 2022 went to socially responsible purposes under a settlement. An actions list records what currently stands against an account that currently holds a licence, so an empty page describes the state of the file rather than the conduct of the operator, and a reader who takes the two zeroes for a clean record is wrong by £22.9m.

🔒 Where a block actually reaches

The regulator licenses the company and not the logo. Thirteen live addresses answer to the online licensee, so an arrangement reached with that licensee is an arrangement reached with the company behind every one of the thirteen.

The 2022 settlement published a worked example of that failing. A customer blocked at one brand after spending £60,000 in twelve months without evidencing source of funds moved to a second brand on the same licensee the same day, and £30,000 went through it inside twenty-four hours. Letting customers under enquiry or restriction open accounts with other brands on one licensee was itself recorded among the social responsibility failings, and the added licence conditions above followed from it.

The shops are a separate question, because they are a separate company. Anything agreed with the online licensee concerns the websites on that file; the premises sit with the shop licensee on a file of its own. A national scheme covering remote operators works across every licensed remote business in Britain rather than across this account specifically, so it is not a feature of this licence structure and should not be described as one.

📜 Entries that are filed but no longer trading

Four entries across these files are recorded and out of service, and several of them still show up as live in older sister-site round-ups.

Dormant is a state and not a deletion. These rows stay on the file as a record, which is exactly why an address that no longer resolves can still be counted in a total. The platform file has nothing here at all, live or dormant, because it never filed a name or an address in the first place.

❓ Checking any of this yourself

Every figure above comes from the public business file for each of the four companies, plus the two announcements. Search the business side of the public list by company name or by web address, then open the domain, trading-name and actions tables on whichever file comes back. It takes about a minute.

Searching by address narrows things faster than searching by name, though not always to a single result. foxybingo.com returns two companies, because a second licensee still files that same address as dormant. Searching by name is looser again: coral returns five companies, gala returns three and foxy returns four, and in each case most of what comes back has nothing to do with this group.

One caution about the announcements themselves. Public statements stay online for three years from the date of issue, so the detailed statement behind a settlement can be gone while the news article about it remains. The statement behind the 2022 case now redirects to the statements index. Everything cited here came from a page that still resolved on 9 August 2026.

🔗 Reading on

See Entain on the casino sister sites index.