FDJ UNITED Markets, Operators and Licences

A Country-by-Country Operator and Rights Map

Source basis: UKGC public register, ANJ approved-operator records, KSA authorisation announcement and Premier Lotteries Ireland's published licence description. The table is not exhaustive and does not certify the availability of any individual game to a particular player.

It is tempting to read the table as one chain of interchangeable licences. It is not. Exclusive rights, a competitive-market approval, a remote gambling operating licence and a supplier permission answer different legal questions. Corporate consolidation does not merge them. Equally, an active account does not guarantee that each associated domain, product, feature or promotional claim is lawful at every moment.

The brands themselves are mapped separately in FDJ UNITED brands and subsidiaries. This page concentrates on the narrower question of legally authorised operation.

Great Britain: Who Operates Unibet and 32Red?

The British Gambling Commission's public register identifies Platinum Gaming Limited, account 45322, with active remote gambling permissions. The record lists casino and bingo as well as general betting on real and virtual events and pool betting. Its domain register associates www.unibet.co.uk and www.32red.com with this active account.

This is a specific, testable answer to the question of the current UK-facing licence holder. It should not be replaced with a statement that “Kindred has a licence” or “FDJ is licensed in Britain”. Kindred was acquired by FDJ in 2024, but a holding-company relationship is not a substitute for the Commission's identification of the operating licensee.

The same register retains a different, historical record for 32Red Limited, account 39430. Its remote casino and real-event betting activities are shown as surrendered on 12 March 2025. The older account and the active Platinum record can coexist in public data without contradiction: they describe different legal entities and different periods. The surrender of an old company's permission does not, by itself, establish that the 32Red consumer brand closed.

Three further details matter when reading the register.

First, the registered office or head-office contact displayed by a regulator is not necessarily the company's jurisdiction of incorporation. Platinum's register displays a London contact address, while company identity and corporate structure require their own verification. A British address should never be used to infer a British incorporation without evidence.

Secondly, a regulator may list licensable activities and registered domains in separate sections. Both matter. An active casino activity is relevant, but it does not automatically authorise every website bearing a related brand name. Conversely, seeing a domain on the register does not establish that every game or offer appearing there has been independently approved by the Commission.

Thirdly, licence status and compliance history are different tests. The UKGC's September 2025 decision imposed a £10m penalty, a warning and an additional condition on Platinum Gaming Limited following findings concerning anti-money laundering controls and customer interactions. The register nevertheless lists the relevant activities as active at the review date. An active licence is not an endorsement of past conduct; a past sanction is not proof of current revocation. The wider commercial implications belong in FDJ UNITED risks and opportunities.

For readers checking a British operator, I would start with the exact legal name and account number, follow the licence-summary activity lines, inspect the domain entries and then read any separately recorded sanctions. Skipping any of those checks can produce a false picture of the operator.

France: Exclusive Rights and Open-Market Online Licences

France presents a fundamentally different structure. Under its legal framework, FDJ has exclusive rights over lottery activities and retail sports betting within their statutory scope. This is not the same as an ordinary competitive online sportsbook licence, and it is not permission to operate a general online casino.

Alongside those exclusive rights, France licenses competitive sports betting, horse-race betting and poker under the ANJ. Its approved-operator register lists FDJ Online Betting and Gaming France with unibet.fr and zeturf.fr across those categories. A separate official list of approved operators also includes La Française des Jeux for poker (jeux de cercle). The records must therefore be read with individual approvals and corporate changes before assigning a particular activity to a single legal holder. Crucially, approval for betting or poker does not authorise online casino slots in France.

This separation is crucial following the group's acquisitions and subsequent corporate reorganisation. A consumer may recognise a single group name across lottery outlets, racing products and online sports betting, but those activities do not necessarily sit under one authorisation. The ANJ categories answer a more precise question: which regulated activity and associated website have been approved for the French market?

Nor can UK casino permissions be transferred to French domains simply because both belong to FDJ UNITED's wider group.

The historical identity of an approved operator also matters. Earlier documents can refer to predecessors and legacy brand arrangements; the approved-operator register must be read with the date of the record and subsequent decisions in mind. A past approval has evidential value for that period, not unlimited authority to assert today's holder. The current legal holder depends on the ANJ register and the decisions in force at the relevant date.

Why does this legal architecture matter economically? Exclusive-rights products have a different competitive position from licensed online products that must win customers against other operators. That affects distribution, compliance obligations and commercial investment. The full explanation of those revenue mechanisms is covered in the FDJ UNITED business model.

Netherlands: Optdeck, Unibet and the KSA Term

The KSA's authorisation record identifies Optdeck Service Limited as the company licensed for remote gambling in the Netherlands. Its June 2022 announcement associated the authorisation with unibet.nl and described Optdeck as part of Kindred at the time. The stated licence period runs from 8 June 2022 to 7 June 2027.

This period deserves careful handling. At the November 2026 review date, the stated end date is in the future; it is not evidence that a renewal has already been granted, nor grounds to predict that it will be refused. A future reader should verify the current KSA register rather than rely on this article's historical snapshot after the stated term.

Optdeck is a separate legal holder from the British operator Platinum Gaming Limited. The UKGC permissions associated with unibet.co.uk do not authorise unibet.nl in the Dutch market; likewise, Dutch approval cannot simply be invoked to operate in Britain. The common Unibet brand does not erase national legal boundaries.

The KSA has also issued regulatory decisions concerning Optdeck, including player-exclusion controls, duty of care, prohibited bet types and anti-money laundering procedures. Those actions require separate scrutiny. A licence's presence on a public register says who received the authorisation and for what period; it does not certify perfect regulatory compliance or resolve a pending appeal.

Ireland: A National Lottery Concession, Not British Lottery Rights

Premier Lotteries Ireland DAC (PLI) is the operator of the Irish National Lottery. PLI's own description states that it holds exclusive rights to operate the lottery until 2034, following the grant of a 20-year licence by the Irish Government in February 2014. The arrangement sits within Ireland's separate statutory and regulatory framework for its National Lottery.

The territorial boundary is essential. Ireland's National Lottery is not the UK National Lottery. FDJ UNITED's ownership of PLI does not mean that it runs the British lottery, owns all European lottery games or may transfer an Irish lottery concession into another jurisdiction. Similar English-language product names should not be mistaken for the same legal undertaking.

Nor does a concession mean that every aspect of the business is unregulated or guaranteed for the indefinite future. Exclusive rights define a protected activity for a specified term, subject to legislation, contractual conditions and oversight. They do not eliminate operator duties or uncertainty about what follows the end of that term.

The distinction from the group's competitive online businesses is economically meaningful. A long-dated exclusive operating arrangement provides a different kind of visibility from a remote-gambling licence exposed to ongoing competition and country-specific regulatory changes. But comparing the two solely by their expiry dates would ignore how their products, obligations and market structures differ.

Relax Gaming: B2B Permissions Are Not Consumer-Market Rights

FDJ UNITED's portfolio also includes Relax Gaming, which operates in the gambling technology and content supply chain. The British public register lists two legally distinct businesses:

• Relax Gaming Limited, based in Malta, account 37462, with active gambling software and specified remote casino/bingo entries.
• Relax Gaming (Gibraltar) Limited, account 57758, with active remote gambling software and game-host (casino) activities.

These entries are not interchangeable merely because the companies share the Relax brand. The regulator's legal entity, account number and named activity must stay together. In particular, a gambling software or game-host permission concerns regulated services within the supply chain; it is not evidence that every operator in Europe may offer every Relax game to consumers.

Nor does a supplier's active UKGC account prove that a particular game is live on Unibet, 32Red or another named brand. Product availability depends on the operating market, the consumer-facing operator, contracts, content certifications and applicable rules. It would be a category error to describe the entire B2B catalogue as a licensed consumer offer under FDJ UNITED's parent company.

The supplier distinction is useful precisely because it prevents group structure from obscuring accountability. A software business may support several operators while the consumer-facing duty to offer only permitted gambling remains with the relevant authorised operator.

What an Active Licence Actually Establishes

When assessing a regulated gambling business, I use five separate checks rather than one headline about “being licensed”.

1. Legal holder. Identify the full company name and register account, not only a brand or parent-group name.
2. Jurisdiction and territory. Establish which national authority issued the permission and where the activity is authorised.
3. Permitted activity. Read the specific casino, betting, poker, software or lottery entry. A label such as “remote” does not mean “every gambling product”.
4. Domain and date. Check relevant website entries, the start and end of authorisation, and whether a historic record has been surrendered or replaced.
5. Enforcement and present availability. Examine sanctions and conditions separately. Do not infer that a particular product is currently available simply from the existence of a business licence.

The first four items establish the documentary basis for the statement. The fifth addresses the gap between having permission, complying with its conditions and offering a live product. Even where a register is authoritative, a snapshot is not a guarantee of the website's future state. Specific claims should be rechecked at the time they matter.

This approach also guards against an often-overlooked error: an inactive historical record is not necessarily an inactive brand, and an active supplier licence does not automatically belong to the casino or sportsbook using its technology. The legal and commercial relationships must be examined separately.

My Assessment: Diversity Creates Opportunity and Complexity

In my view, FDJ UNITED's mix of exclusive lottery rights, competitive online operations and technology suppliers is strategically useful precisely because the legal regimes are different. It diversifies the group's activities, but also multiplies the work needed to maintain appropriate controls, preserve local permissions and respond to changing regulation.

The strongest evidence is therefore not a single licence number. It is a consistent chain linking operator, activity, territory, domain, authority and date. The records reviewed here establish several important links, but they do not guarantee future renewals or uninterrupted product availability. Financial outcomes arising from these market choices are covered separately in FDJ UNITED financial performance.

Reference Documents

• UK Gambling Commission, business and domain-name registers for Platinum Gaming Limited (45322), 32Red Limited (39430), Relax Gaming Limited (37462) and Relax Gaming (Gibraltar) Limited (57758), checked 7 November 2026.
• Autorité nationale des jeux, approved-operator register and category-specific decisions; French Journal officiel, list of approved online operators as at 19 May 2026.
• Kansspelautoriteit, Optdeck Service Limited remote-gambling authorisation, issued June 2022, and associated regulatory notices.
• Premier Lotteries Ireland DAC, About us and published National Lottery operating-rights information.

This article is independent editorial research based on public records as checked on the stated date; it does not provide legal advice or certify any individual operator's ongoing compliance.