Jumpman Gaming Casinos & Bingo Sites

🎲 The covered brands

Seven of the names on the file have dated pages on this site: Wild West Wins, Space Wins, Star Wins, HeySpin, Great Britain Casino, the BGT Games entry and the Immortal Wins record. Six are below; the seventh closed this summer, and its closure sits in the section on the eighty stopped rows.

📊 What the status column says

Most descriptions of this licence present Jumpman as a maker of themed casinos: dozens of shopfronts, one platform underneath. The licence file tells a more precise story, and it sits in a column most readers never open. Of the 229 rows, 18 carry the status Active, 131 are marked White Label, and the remaining 80 read Inactive.

A business with eighteen live addresses of its own and one hundred and thirty one operated on behalf of other people is not mainly a chain of casinos. It is a platform renting out a licence, a cashier and a game library to anyone who wants a brand of their own, the same arrangement covered on the White Hat Gaming record, though Jumpman files roughly five times as many addresses. A White Label row is not a smaller or less regulated site; it sits under the same conditions as the eighteen Active ones, and the partner can move its name to another platform, as HeySpin has just done in the opposite direction.

Where a brand sits in that column says whose business a player is dealing with when something goes wrong. It does not change how far a decision travels: every row runs on one licence, so a verification outcome or a self exclusion reaches the whole network either way. What changes is who answers the email. It also explains why the sites look alike: one platform sits behind all of them, and the differences a player can act on are the promotional mechanic, the terms and which partner handles support.

📄 The company file, line by line

The Gambling Commission licenses every company selling gambling to British players, and its public file on Jumpman Gaming Limited is the source for this page. The partner arrangement itself is openly filed: on a White Label row the partner supplies the name, the marketing and usually the customer service, while Jumpman supplies the payment rails, the games and the regulated responsibility.

One licence reference governs the entire operation, so there is no second permission to fall back on: a regulatory decision reaching it would reach all 229 addresses at once. Nothing on this file may lawfully take a sports bet, however many of the addresses carry a name that sounds like a bookmaker.

The file is not consistent about how it writes addresses down. At the 17 August read, 28 of the 229 rows carried a www prefix where the rest did not, up from 26 a week earlier, and one row is recorded complete with protocol and trailing slash, as https://www.heyspin.com/, the only entry written as a full web address rather than a bare domain. A search of the public record for heyspin.com in fact returns two licensees at once: the old AG Communications file holding the bare domain and the Jumpman file holding the full address, the trace of the 2026 operator move visible from both ends. And because not one of the 229 addresses contains the word jumpman, a search by company name reports no matching domains, while a search by any brand finds the company through a domain row; each route misses the other.

📜 The May 2022 settlement

An announcement dated 17 May 2022 put Jumpman Gaming Limited down for £500,000, a sum directed not at the regulator but at the National Strategy to Reduce Gambling Harms. The investigation behind the figure identified failings in both money laundering controls and customer protection, and the company had 243 websites on the file then. Progress Play Limited appeared alongside it at £175,718 across 201 sites, taking the announcement to £675,000 in all. Leanne Oxley, then Director of Enforcement and Intelligence, said operators failing those obligations would always be clamped down on.

The shape of the outcome is easy to misread as a fine. The money was not paid to the regulator and was not described as a financial penalty; a regulatory settlement is agreed rather than imposed, and it is directed at harm reduction work. Because it attached to the licence, every branded address then on the file sat inside it at once, and nothing published names individual brands. What Jumpman was actually found to have done was published separately, and that document has since been withdrawn; the withdrawal is itself on the record.

In January 2026 a member of the public asked under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of the action. The refusal came under section 21 of that Act, on the ground the material was reasonably accessible elsewhere, and it pointed towards web archives. The refusal notice, dated 23 January 2026, is still published; the statement it points to is not. The announcement itself records no formal warning, no divestment, no costs order and no extra condition placed on the licence.

🔑 Where a complaint reaches

Because one licence sits behind all 229 addresses, the routes out of a dispute are shared. A self exclusion set at any address on this file applies across the network rather than at the single site where it was set, and the same is true of a closed or restricted account: the decision follows the customer, not the brand. Safer gambling tooling for the network is published at jumpmancares.co.uk, and GAMSTOP covers the whole network as it covers any British licensed remote operator. Where a complaint cannot be settled with the site, it moves to eCOGRA once the complaints process is done or eight weeks pass, and only then to the regulator, which licenses the company but does not arbitrate individual disputes.

🚫 The eighty that stopped

Eighty rows on this file read Inactive, more than four times the number still Active. Names among them include dealornodeal.co.uk, onlinebingo.com, dreambingo.com, eaglespins.com, atlantiswins.com and immortalwins.com, so a licensed address can carry a very well known title and still be out of service.

One comparison separates closures from address changes. On some licences an Inactive domain is an address change rather than a closure, with a live twin filed under a different ending; on the White Hat Gaming file that pattern accounts for three of its eight Inactive rows. Comparing all 229 rows here by their stem, ignoring the ending and any www prefix, finds no such pair anywhere, re-run at the 17 August read. Not one Inactive address on this file has a live counterpart under another ending. On this licence, Inactive means gone.

Immortal Wins is the clearest current example, and its migration was documented rather than silent: the file marks immortalwins.com Inactive, the address itself serves a closure notice, and the notice names Rainbow Spins, which the file marks Active. File, site and successor all agree.

• ✅ Safe: Treating any two names on this file as one operator, one cashier and one exclusion list, whatever the branding says.
• ❌ Costly: Reading the licence file as a history. It is a snapshot of today, and the May 2022 settlement no longer appears anywhere on it.

🔍 Check this yourself

Two primary sources on the 2022 case are open to anyone. The announcement of 17 May 2022 carries the settlement the licence file no longer shows, and the Freedom of Information response of 23 January 2026 is the refusal that outlived the withdrawn statement, a document nothing else on this site uses. The licence file itself sits on the public record the regulator publishes, found by searching the company name.