Multiple casino accounts in Belgium: three situations, three answers

“Can I have more than one account?” The question sits on almost every Belgian casino’s help page, and the answer you find there is one word long: no. That answer is correct, but it holds for only one of the three situations the question covers.

Registering with several operators, opening a second account with the same one, or ending up with two accounts at a single brand because it runs two sites: these are three distinct cases, and only one of them is settled explicitly by a Belgian text. I have read what the texts provide, and what the terms and conditions set out for the seven operators I publish the ranking by trust score for.

Multiple casino accounts with several operators: the law writes it in the plural

The first case turns on a single letter. The Royal Decree of 25 October 2018, which sets out how online games may be run, deals with deposits in its article 6. It states that a player may fund “his online player accounts” up to a given amount per week.

That plural is not a drafting flourish. It has been in the text since 2018 and it survived the 2022 amendment. The legislator therefore wrote the ceiling rule on the assumption that a player is registered on several sites at once.

Nothing in any of the texts I read forbids or even discourages registering with two, five or ten holders of a Belgian licence. The only mechanical consequence is that the weekly deposit ceiling applies site by site, which is worth knowing before you multiply your registrations.

One account per licence: why a brand may ask you for two

The second case is the only one the law settles explicitly, and it is recent. Article 4 of the Act of 18 February 2024 inserts a short, plain sentence into article 27 of the gambling Act: “It is forbidden to use the same player account in order to take part in games of chance operated on the basis of different licences.”

The same provision adds that “it is also forbidden to carry out transactions between different player accounts”, and separately prohibits holding several supplementary licences of distinct classes on one and the same domain name. The text was published on 1 March 2024 and has applied since 1 September of that year.

The practical consequence is the one that catches most players out. Because one brand can run two sites under two licences, each falling under a different class, the registration made on one does not carry over to the other. This is neither a technical oversight nor a commercial tactic: the licence class sets the rule, and two classes call for two accounts.

Two accounts at the same casino: what the texts do not say

That leaves the third case, which is usually what the question means: opening a second account with an operator you are already registered with, under the same licence.

I went looking for the provision that forbids it and I did not find one. Not in the Act of 7 May 1999, which organises licences and access to gaming establishments without ever setting a number of accounts. Not in the 2018 decree, which covers deposits, the accessibility of the terms and the age check. Not in the Act of 18 February 2024, whose article 4 concerns different licences only. Nor in the Act of 7 May 2024, which does forbid anyone to play using “personal data that do not belong to them”: a second account opened in a relative’s name is therefore forbidden by law, while a second account in your own name is not forbidden by these texts.

The only public position of the Gaming Commission I have been able to read on this point appears on its page about the implementation of the Act of 18 February 2024. There it writes that it is “not recommended” for a player to be able to create several accounts through the same registration process. That is a recommendation, and it is addressed to operators about their registration form, not to the player.

I stop there, and I will not decide the law’s meaning in its place: my survey covers the texts I have just cited and those alone. What I can state is more modest and more useful. The single-account rule at a given operator does not come from those texts. It comes from the contract.

What the Belgian casinos’ contracts say about the single account

Across the operators I have been through one by one, all seven state the rule. No exception, and no nuance as to its scope.

The wording varies more than the substance. Fortuna, Oria and Golden Palace, which share the same publisher, condense it into an equation: “one person = one player account”. BeCasino writes in its article 4.2.4 that “only one account is allowed per Player”, then has the player undertake, in article 7.7, to “register only one account”. Ladbrokes specifies in article 4.4 that the player account is held in the holder’s name and may not be entrusted to a third party, “not even free of charge”. PlayOne targets, in article 6.1, “each natural person” and the “direct or indirect” control of several accounts. Madison, whose terms are drafted in English, allows “only one active user account”.

What that changes for a reader is simple. Whether or not the rule appears in a piece of legislation, it appears in the contract accepted at registration, and it is that contract which will be raised against you in a dispute. Where it comes from is an interesting question; it does not make the rule optional.

What it costs you if a second account is found

It is on the penalty that these contracts genuinely part ways, and the gap is considerable for an identical act.

Fortuna, Oria and Golden Palace state the rule and stop there: their text provides for no consequence at all, no closure, no freeze, no retention. Those same three had nonetheless put a precise figure on the point at which they take control back, as I found when setting out what becomes of an account you stop opening; here it is the penalty box they leave blank.

BeCasino announces that all the player’s accounts and the related transactions will be blocked “until the problem is entirely resolved”. It is the only one of these documents to describe a way out. Madison closes the surplus accounts without prior warning, and specifies that credits attached to the deleted account are not carried over to the one that remains.

PlayOne reserves the right to block the accounts and the sums held in them, and for that it need only “reasonably suspect” that one person controls several. No duration is stated, and no condition for lifting the block either.

Ladbrokes goes furthest. Its article 4.4 provides for the closure of the duplicates “as well as the original account with no refund of stakes or payment of winnings”. Its article 6.7 adds that winnings on the additional account will not be paid. And its article 13.1 places the creation of several accounts among instances of fraud, alongside identity fraud and the use of a virtual private network.

From complete silence to the loss of everything, the legitimate account included: five regimes for one and the same fact, and it is the document nobody reads that decides which one applies.

In every one of these cases, it is the player who has broken the contract. When the fault lies with the operator and its licence is withdrawn, other rules take over, and the guarantee it lodged does not protect players the way one might think: I have set out what the law provides when a licence is withdrawn.

How a second registration gets spotted

The rule would stay a statement on paper if nothing made it checkable. Two things make it effective.

The first is the national register number. Ladbrokes names it in article 4.5 among the details to be supplied when the account is opened, and PlayOne explains on its help page that the number serves to guarantee that the account is unique. The same number therefore cannot carry two registrations without that showing. And because it begins with the date of birth, it is also how the legal age to gamble online gets checked. The same help page gives the reason that operator puts forward: a second account would make it possible to get around playing limits.

The second is more recent. Since 1 May 2025 the timing of what identity verification requires before you play has changed: the check comes before the first deposit, and no longer only before the first withdrawal. A second account can therefore no longer lie dormant for months before being seen, since it is matched against an identity already on file before it has even been used.

What you are reading here, and what you will not read

A survey, not a consultation. I am not a lawyer and these lines replace nobody’s advice. They report what articles of legislation, a royal decree and contractual clauses say, all of them available online and dated in the sources block. Where I note that I found no provision, that holds for those texts and no further, and it entitles you to nothing.

Nobody reviewed this text. The Belgian regulator was neither contacted nor asked for comment, and is in no way connected to what is written here. The same goes for lawyers, firms and the companies whose documents are quoted. What you are reading commits nobody but its author.

No operator is being accused. The seven brands named trade under a valid Belgian licence, and reporting a clause they published themselves holds nothing against them. The single-account rule is in their contracts, it is enforceable, and the consequences described above can be applied.

Has a clause changed? Terms and conditions move without notice. If a quoted wording no longer matches what is online, let me know and I will revisit the passage with the new date.

Multiple accounts: your questions

Can I move money from one of my accounts to another?

No. The Act of 18 February 2024 forbids transactions between player accounts, including between two accounts that belong to you. To move a sum from one site to the other you have to withdraw it from the first and deposit it on the second, and that deposit then counts against the ceiling of the receiving site.

Do I need a separate account for sports betting?

Yes, as soon as the betting falls under a different licence class from the casino, which is the case at brands offering both. The rule is unchanged from one product to the next: it is the class that decides, and each class comes with its own registration.

I have ended up with two accounts without meaning to. What now?

Reporting it yourself before the operator finds it is the only step that works in your favour, because the clauses quoted above are aimed at a situation that has been discovered rather than declared. Only one of the contracts I read expressly provides for the block to be lifted once the problem is resolved, which gives a fair idea of why waiting is a poor plan.

Can the Gaming Commission penalise me personally?

In the texts listed below I found no provision setting out a penalty for a player who holds several accounts with the same operator. What I read were contractual clauses, applied by the operators themselves. One contract also provides for the option of reporting a disputed situation to the Commission or to the police.

Sources and limits

The texts and documents read for this article, and what I could not verify.

  • I opened no test account and created no second account: nothing above describes a check carried out in practice.
  • Ladbrokes’ help page loads its content through JavaScript and stays unreadable to automated reading. For that operator, only the terms and conditions could be examined.
  • The online gambling chapter of the consolidated version of the 1999 Act was not accessible to me. My findings about what is absent apply to the texts cited above, and to those alone.
  • Terms and conditions and help pages change without notice.
  • Belgian legislation is published in French and Dutch only, so the sources above link to the French versions.
Portrait of Arthur D, author of the casino audits on CasinAudit

The author of this article

Arthur D

Three years in iGaming, focused on licensed casinos in Belgium. I write every CasinAudit page myself and check each figure against an official source.

Spotted an error? contact@casinaudit.com