Michigan Targets 33 Offshore Operators Over Self-Exclusion Risks

From exclusive events and interviews to real-time market trends, Ace Alliance brings you unbiased, well-informed, and data-driven content. Our editorial team adheres to strict editorial standards, ensuring that the information you receive is not only relevant but also trustworthy.

Built by market experts hosting events since 2023, with our first event in Riga, Latvia gathering over 300 top level iGaming industry executives, Ace Alliance is able to provide you with reliable information from direct interaction with experts and leaders in the sector.

Altay Celikkaya

Content Manager

Updated: 09/10/26

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Michigan Gaming Control Board has issued cease-and-desist letters to 33 offshore gambling operators, warning that unlicensed platforms can continue accepting customers who have voluntarily excluded themselves from gambling within the state’s regulated market.

The action covers businesses offering online casino games, sweepstakes-style products and sports betting without a Michigan licence. While the enforcement extends the regulator’s continuing campaign against offshore gambling, the announcement places particular emphasis on a player-protection gap that exists outside the regulated system.

Michigan Gaming Control Board action against 33 offshore gambling operators

Regulation & Compliance

Key Takeaways From Michigan’s Offshore Gambling Action

The MGCB sent cease-and-desist letters to 33 offshore gambling operators.
The affected businesses offered casino games, sweepstakes products or sports betting without a state licence.
Michigan’s self-exclusion database does not apply to platforms operating outside the regulated market.
Players using offshore sites may have limited options when winnings are withheld, or accounts are closed.
Operators that ignore the letters could face further action from state enforcement authorities.

Offshore Platforms Remain Outside Self-Exclusion Controls

Licensed online gambling operators in Michigan must comply with the state’s Internet Gaming and Sports Betting Responsible Gaming Database. The system allows individuals to exclude themselves from regulated online casino and sports betting platforms.

Offshore businesses have no obligation to check or enforce that database. This means a player who has asked to be blocked from gambling can potentially open an account, deposit funds and place wagers through an unlicensed platform.

In the MGCB’s official announcement, Executive Director Henry Williams said:

Offshore sites don’t respect it. They will take a deposit from someone who has asked for help.

The regulatory concern therefore extends beyond whether a company holds the correct authorisation. It also involves how well responsible gambling systems work when consumers move between regulated and offshore platforms.

Michigan Continues Enforcement Against Unlicensed Gambling

The latest action follows the MGCB’s earlier enforcement against 45 offshore gambling operators. That announcement focused on operators offering gambling products without approval and the wider risks created by platforms outside Michigan’s supervisory framework.

The new group includes casino, sportsbook and sweepstakes-style businesses. According to the regulator, the sites lack safeguards required from licensed operators, including deposit controls, game testing, data protection standards and access to a regulatory complaints process.

Michigan law requires companies offering online casino gaming or sports wagering to residents located in the state to hold the relevant MGCB authorisation. Businesses that fail to comply with cease-and-desist demands may face further action coordinated with the Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Player Protection Becomes a Market Differentiator

For licensed operators, the announcement highlights how responsible gambling databases form part of the regulated market’s commercial and compliance infrastructure. Centralised exclusion systems are intended to ensure a player’s decision applies across participating brands, not just to an individual account.

Other regulated markets are developing similar controls. Ontario has been preparing a centralised self-exclusion system for online gambling that will require licensed businesses to support a common exclusion framework.

The Michigan warning demonstrates the limitation of these systems when offshore platforms remain accessible. Regulators can impose technical and operational standards on licensees, but those protections may not follow consumers onto sites operating beyond their authority.

Enforcement Extends Across Michigan’s Online Market

The offshore action is separate from Michigan’s dispute with prediction-market businesses. Coinbase recently agreed to halt new sports event contracts in Michigan while litigation over federal and state authority continues.

Unlike the event-contract cases, the latest enforcement does not centre on how a product should be legally classified. It concerns businesses that the MGCB says are offering conventional gambling products without a state licence.

For B2B operators and suppliers, the distinction is significant. Michigan is pursuing different parts of the online wagering ecosystem through separate legal routes while treating player protection as a central justification for state oversight. The latest letters show that self-exclusion compliance is becoming a key dividing line between participation in regulated markets and offshore availability.