GLI’s Uzbekistan Regulatory Listing: Certification Route

For suppliers, an accepted laboratory provides a defined way to demonstrate that games, platforms, equipment or related systems have undergone independent technical assessment. Instead of submitting reports from a laboratory whose status may be unclear, companies can prepare evidence from a testing body that NAPP recognises.

That distinction can reduce uncertainty during product approval. It does not mean that every GLI-certified product is automatically authorised in Uzbekistan. A certification report assesses a product against specified technical criteria. NAPP remains responsible for deciding whether the report, tested configuration and supporting documentation satisfy the requirements for the intended deployment.

A PAGCOR-accredited iGaming testing laboratory likewise supports technical assessment without replacing the Philippines’ wider approval process.

NAPP’s published overview of Uzbekistan’s gambling regulations confirms that gaming equipment, software and other devices used by organisers must hold appropriate certification from conformity-assessment bodies and testing laboratories.

The framework extends beyond product testing. Licensed activities must be conducted by Uzbekistan-resident legal entities, relevant electronic platforms must be hosted on servers located in the country, and operators must integrate with the Unified State Register of Players and Bets. Certification supports an application but does not replace wider compliance.

Market entrants should map each product against local rules before testing. Suppliers need to confirm the standards, software version and deployment configuration NAPP expects. Operators should ensure the certified product matches the deployed version, as changes may require recertification.

Starting early can expose gaps between a supplier’s standard build and Uzbekistan-specific controls before they delay licensing, integration or commercial launch. Comparable systems show why preparation matters: requirements such as RNG and game certificates can influence product selection, supplier contracts and launch schedules before an application is submitted.

GLI said Uzbekistan was entering its operational phase, with four licences issued across two operators. It also said parts of the technical framework were still being established and discussions with NAPP were continuing.

This evolving position makes direct regulatory confirmation important. Operators and suppliers should verify the latest standards, accepted report formats and testing scope with NAPP instead of treating the laboratory listing as blanket approval. They should also determine who will answer regulator queries and maintain certification following launch.

Recognition of an accepted laboratory is nevertheless an important piece of market infrastructure. Independent testing gives regulators evidence about system integrity while providing applicants with a more predictable approval pathway. Other licensing regimes similarly rely on independent laboratory validation as part of their controls.

For Uzbekistan, the immediate significance is practical: suppliers have a stated route for presenting technical evidence, while operators can include recognised certification in their market-entry planning. The listing removes one area of uncertainty, but a successful launch will still depend on compliance with NAPP’s developing technical rules and the complete licensing framework.