GLI Standards Accepted by Jurisdiction: 2026 Global Reference Guide

GLI certification reports do not carry universal recognition across regulated markets. Every jurisdiction that accepts Gaming Laboratories International as an approved independent testing laboratory imposes its own scope, its own additional requirements, and in several cases its own proprietary assessment layer on top of any GLI report. This guide maps the current position in eleven major markets, drawing directly from GLI’s own standard texts, the KSA Gaming System Assessment Scheme v2.1, Spillemyndigheden’s Certification Programme, the AGLC SRIG (March 2026), and GLI’s documented accreditation history. Compliance teams entering a new jurisdiction should treat this guide as a starting matrix, not a substitute for jurisdiction-specific legal analysis.

How GLI Standards Work Across Jurisdictions

GLI-19 v3.0, the primary standard for interactive gaming systems, states in Section 1.3.3: “This technical standard can be adopted in whole or in part by any regulatory body that wishes to implement a comprehensive set of requirements for Interactive Gaming Systems.” The same adoption-or-adaptation language appears in GLI-33 v1.1 for event wagering systems. Regulators retain full discretion over which chapters they adopt, which they supplement with local rules, and which they replace entirely with their own requirements.

“Each jurisdiction has the authority to set their own standards, however, many use our standards as a starting point in developing their regulations. In other words, GLI has established the base standards for gaming devices and systems around the world.”, Gaming Laboratories International, GLI Standards documentation

The practical result is a three-tier landscape. Some regulators use GLI standards as a direct certification baseline and recognise a GLI report as satisfying their technical requirements. Others use GLI standards as the architectural source for their own bespoke rules, meaning GLI testing against the original standard partially but not fully satisfies local compliance. A third group operates entirely proprietary assessment schemes for which GLI must obtain separate accreditation as an approved body, and where the GLI report is one input into a broader jurisdiction-specific audit, not a pass/fail certification document.

GLI holds ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation from the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) and maintains labs accredited in all major regulated iGaming markets. Accreditation as an approved testing body and recognition of a specific GLI standard as a compliance instrument are separate questions. Both must be confirmed for each target jurisdiction before relying on a GLI certification report.

Which Standard Applies to Which Product Type?

Before mapping jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction, suppliers and operators need to match product type to the applicable standard family. The table below reflects the primary GLI standards for iGaming products as of 2026.

Product Type	Primary GLI Standard	Current Version	Revision Date
Online casino / RGS / interactive gaming platform	GLI-19	v3.0	July 17, 2020
Sports betting / event wagering system	GLI-33	v1.1	May 14, 2019
Monitoring and control / CMS / validation systems	GLI-13	v3.0	July 31, 2024
Progressive jackpot systems	GLI-12	v3.0	January 23, 2026
Cashless gaming / digital wallets	GLI-16	v3.0	July 31, 2024
Land-based gaming devices (EGMs)	GLI-11	v3.0	Ongoing revision
Information security (operator)	GLI-GSF-1 / GSF-2	v1.1 / v1.0	Current

GLI-19 contributors listed in Section 1.2.1 of the standard include the Nevada Gaming Commission and Gaming Control Board, the British Columbia Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch, the Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission, the Danish Gambling Authority (Spillemyndigheden), the Spanish Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling (DGOJ), the Alderney Gambling Control Commission, the Lottery and Gaming Authority of Malta, and the United Kingdom Gambling Commission. This contributor list is a strong indicator of the jurisdictions whose regulatory architecture is closely aligned with GLI-19’s structure, but it does not constitute formal adoption.

United Kingdom (UKGC)

The UK Gambling Commission does not mandate GLI-19 by name. The remote gambling technical framework is the UKGC’s own Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (RTS), currently at version 3.1. Licensees must ensure their systems comply with the RTS, and must use an approved testing body to evidence compliance. GLI Europe BV received full UKGC approval to test all categories of remote gambling equipment following assessment and accreditation against ISO/IEC 17025, a status it has held since the early years of the UKGC’s approved-lab programme. GLI’s Change Management Programme Guide explicitly references the UK’s Testing Strategy for Compliance with Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards (November 2018) as one of the primary documents reviewed in developing its change management framework, confirming the alignment between GLI methodology and the UKGC’s operational expectations.

A GLI certification report produced against UKGC RTS requirements by GLI Europe BV satisfies the UKGC’s technical evidence requirement. The report must expressly reference the RTS version in scope, not GLI-19 chapter headings. UKGC also requires annual game testing audits for certain game categories, and the licensee is responsible for maintaining a register of certified games and evidencing ongoing compliance under LCCP Social Responsibility Code provision 3.4.1. Suppliers must separately confirm that the UKGC Remote Technical Standards chapters on RNG, game fairness, and customer interaction controls are within the agreed certification scope.

Malta Gaming Authority (MGA)

The MGA does not publish a list of mandated GLI standards by number, but GLI has been accredited as an approved testing laboratory for Malta since the Lottery and Gaming Authority era, and the LGA/MGA is acknowledged as a contributor to the development of GLI-19. Under the MGA’s Gaming Act 2018 (Cap. 583) framework, game suppliers holding a B2B Critical Gaming Supply licence must have their gaming systems audited by a recognised testing body before supplying to MGA-licensed operators. GLI satisfies this requirement as an MGA-approved ITL. MGA system audit requirements, set out in the relevant MGA Directive provisions, extend beyond game mathematics and RNG to cover platform security, transaction logs, and player protection controls. A GLI-19 certification covering these chapters provides a strong compliance foundation, but MGA audit requirements include organisational and operational dimensions that the laboratory testing component of GLI-19 explicitly excludes from its scope.

Ontario (AGCO)

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario operates under the Registrar’s Standards for Internet Gaming (currently 196 standards across six risk themes). AGCO requires that all games offered through iGaming Ontario be certified by an accredited testing facility (ATF) registered with AGCO. GLI is among the registered ATFs in Ontario. The Registrar’s Standards do not adopt GLI-19 by section reference, but the technical requirements for RNG certification, game fairness, and platform integrity are closely aligned with GLI-19’s architecture, reflecting GLI-19’s North American market development context. Game suppliers entering Ontario through the AGCO framework must submit GLI certification reports that map to the specific technical standards required by the Registrar’s Standards, not simply present a generic GLI-19 pass certificate. The AGCO registration requirements also extend to the operator level, where platform certification requirements sit alongside financial and operational compliance obligations.

Alberta (AGLC)

The AGLC’s Standards and Requirements for Internet Gaming (SRIG, dated March 17, 2026) establishes ATF certification requirements in Section 4.12. The SRIG requires that ATF certifications “only be issued by ATFs that are registered by AGLC.” Certified technology must cover “all games, random number generators and components of iGaming systems that accept, process, determine outcome, display and log details about player bets.” This scope explicitly includes slot games, table games, sports and event betting, poker and other card games. For live dealer games, ATF certification must extend to physical random number generators with electronic elements, including physical wheels, physical dice tables, and card shufflers with electronic components.

AGLC has confirmed that it will accept AGCO game certifications for a 90-day transition period following the Alberta market launch on July 13, 2026, provided the certifications correspond to what was approved and implemented in Ontario and the issuing ATF is registered in Alberta. After that 90-day window, all game certifications must be Alberta-certified and filed with iGaming Compliance. GLI is registered as an ATF in Alberta. Re-certification is required whenever a modification or subsequently discovered undetected issue impacts the critical gaming system’s integrity, fairness, security, or compliance with SRIG requirements. For a full comparison of how Ontario and Alberta certification frameworks diverge beyond the ATF rules, see the AGCO vs AGLC key differences article.

Denmark (Spillemyndigheden)

Spillemyndigheden operates one of the most detailed proprietary certification programmes in the European regulated market. The Certification Programme (SCP) is a suite of documents spanning general requirements (SCP.00), RNG requirements (SCP.01), inspection standards for online casino (SCP.02.03), information security management (SCP.03), penetration testing (SCP.04), vulnerability scanning (SCP.05), change management (SCP.06), and game-specific requirements (SCP.07). These are Spillemyndigheden’s own standards, not a direct adoption of GLI-19.

The relationship between GLI and Spillemyndigheden’s SCP is structurally significant. GLI’s own Change Management Programme Guide v1.0 lists Denmark’s SCP.06.00 as the leading document reviewed during its development, alongside Sweden’s LIFS 2018:8, Portugal’s Regulation 903-B/2015, and the UK’s November 2018 Testing Strategy. GLI is an approved testing organisation under Spillemyndigheden’s accreditation scheme. Testing organisations must be accredited in accordance with ISO/IEC 17020 and/or ISO/IEC 17065, and personnel supervising inspections must hold CISSP or ISACA CISA certification. Spillemyndigheden publishes guidelines for transition periods when new SCP versions are released, and only the Danish version of each SCP document is legally binding, the English versions hold guidance status only.

Suppliers targeting Denmark must certify specifically against the applicable SCP modules, not against GLI-19 chapters. Certification frequency follows the change management trigger rules in SCP.06. A GLI certificate issued under the SCP framework evidences compliance with Spillemyndigheden’s requirements, a generic GLI-19 report does not.

Netherlands (KSA)

The KSA operates the Remote Gambling Gaming System Assessment Scheme (Keuringsschema), currently at version 2.1 effective October 1, 2024. This is a fully proprietary conformity assessment framework structured in ten subject areas: administrative obligations, payment transactions, control database (CDB), CRUKS (the national self-exclusion system), IT systems management, registration and sign-in procedures, quality management systems, information security, gambling technology, and addiction prevention. The scheme references the Remote Gambling Act and the Remote Gambling Decree throughout, there is no direct adoption of GLI-19 or any other GLI standard by name.

Assessment bodies must be accredited to ISO/IEC 17020 Type A to perform assessments under the KSA scheme. The KSA designates assessment bodies, and a designation specifies which components of the gaming system the designated body is permitted to assess. Personnel performing information security and ICT systems management assessments must hold CISSP, PCI-qualified security assessor (QSA), or equivalent certifications. GLI is designated as an assessment body by the KSA, which means it must operate under the scheme’s framework rather than presenting GLI-19 as a standalone instrument.

Section 2.3.6 of the KSA Assessment Scheme version 2.1 addresses previous assessments from other gambling jurisdictions. A licensee may be able to leverage an existing assessment where a service provider “demonstrably complies with a comparable requirement to maintain a control database in another gambling jurisdiction.” This is a narrow carve-out, applicable to specific CDB requirements, not a broad mutual-recognition arrangement. Suppliers must not assume prior GLI certification in another jurisdiction accelerates the KSA assessment process beyond this limited scope. The control database must also be physically located in the Netherlands, and the system must be located within the EU/EEA.

Spain (DGOJ)

DGOJ’s accreditation of GLI is documented in GLI’s own institutional history: GLI Europe was accredited by the Spanish gaming authorities as an independent testing laboratory for both B2B iGaming platform suppliers and B2C online gaming operators, and separately as an independent auditor of Information Systems Security (ISS). Both certifications are required by the Spanish gaming authorities before iGaming operators can provide their services in Spain. This dual-accreditation requirement distinguishes Spain from most other European jurisdictions, as a single laboratory approval is insufficient. The ISS auditor accreditation and the testing laboratory accreditation must both be confirmed before engaging GLI for a Spanish certification engagement. Operators preparing for DGOJ licensing should confirm GLI Europe’s current accreditation status with DGOJ directly, as Spain’s certification framework has been subject to regulatory evolution under the broader gambling reform agenda including Royal Decree 176/2023 on safer gambling environments. For context on DGOJ licensing obligations more broadly, see the DGOJ licence requirements profile.

France (ANJ)

The Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ) presents a structurally different certification context because France’s online gambling framework licences only three verticals: sports betting, horse racing, and poker. ANJ does not licence online casino games. Suppliers developing RNG-based casino content for French-licensed operators must therefore note that there is no French technical certification pathway for that content category within the ANJ framework. For sports betting systems and poker platforms, ANJ-licensed operators are required to have their systems technically verified, and GLI is active in the French market. The French technical certification framework for online gambling systems operates through ANJ’s own regulatory requirements rather than through a formal adoption of GLI-33 or GLI-19. Suppliers should confirm applicable technical verification requirements with ANJ or qualified French counsel, particularly given ANJ’s escalating enforcement posture since Sophie Namer’s appointment as Director of Enforcement in July 2025. The ANJ licensing framework is distinct from every other European market covered here precisely because the absence of an online casino vertical removes the largest GLI-19 use case entirely.

Romania (ONJN)

GLI has a longstanding relationship with Romania’s Oficiul National pentru Jocuri de Noroc (ONJN), documented in GLI’s institutional history as technical assistance to the regulator in developing its framework. Romania’s primary iGaming technical framework sits within Government Decision HG 111/2016, which sets out requirements for iGaming operators including interconnection with ONJN’s own monitoring system. GLI is accredited to provide testing services for Romanian-licensed operators. Operators entering Romania should confirm that their proposed GLI engagement scope covers the ONJN-specific interconnection and data reporting requirements, which go beyond standard game fairness and RNG testing and include the technical integration with ONJN’s centralised monitoring infrastructure.

New Jersey (DGE)

New Jersey’s Division of Gaming Enforcement designates GLI as an approved testing laboratory for the state. The DGE framework for online gaming, established under the Internet Gaming Regulations at N.J.A.C. 13:69O, requires that gaming systems, including client software, gaming servers, and associated hardware, be tested and certified by a designated testing laboratory prior to deployment. GLI’s certification reports for New Jersey explicitly reference compliance with the Nevada Gaming Control Board (NGCB) requirements as a methodology statement, reflecting the shared technical architecture underpinning North American gaming standards. Suppliers should confirm the current version of DGE technical standards in scope with the DGE directly, as the internet gaming technical standards have been subject to revision since initial market opening in 2013. GLI’s GLIAccess system maintains the approval status of individual submissions, and manufacturers are responsible for obtaining and maintaining all necessary licensure in each jurisdiction.

Pennsylvania (PGCB)

The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) was established under Act 71, the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, and oversees both land-based and internet gaming. GLI is an authorized testing laboratory for Pennsylvania. The PGCB’s internet gaming regulatory framework requires that gaming systems be tested and approved before deployment, with ongoing compliance obligations for all certified software. The PGCB has enforced technical and operational compliance actively: according to iGamingBusiness, the PGCB fined BetMGM $100,000 in 2025 for KYC and verification failures, demonstrating that Pennsylvania’s compliance framework extends well beyond pre-launch technical certification to ongoing operational controls. Suppliers engaging GLI for Pennsylvania certification should confirm that the agreed scope covers both the initial system approval requirements and any PGCB-specific platform and responsible gaming control requirements that may exceed a standard GLI-19 chapter mapping.

Jurisdiction Comparison Matrix

Jurisdiction	Regulator	GLI Approval Status	Certification Basis	Additional Layer Required
United Kingdom	UKGC	Approved ITL (full approval)	UKGC Remote Technical Standards (RTS v3.1)	Annual game audits, LCCP operational obligations
Malta	MGA	Approved ITL	MGA Gaming Act 2018 / Directive requirements	Operational audit (separate to lab testing scope)
Ontario	AGCO	Registered ATF	Registrar’s Standards for Internet Gaming	Standards-mapped report, operator-level compliance
Alberta	AGLC	Registered ATF	SRIG Section 4.12 (March 2026)	Alberta-specific certification, 90-day AGCO crossover only
Denmark	Spillemyndigheden	Approved testing organisation	SCP.00, SCP.07 (Spillemyndigheden’s own scheme)	SCP-specific scope, Danish-language version binding
Netherlands	KSA	Designated assessment body	Gaming System Assessment Scheme v2.1 (Oct 2024)	ISO/IEC 17020 Type A, NL-specific CDB and CRUKS
Spain	DGOJ	Accredited testing lab + ISS auditor	DGOJ technical and ISS frameworks	Dual accreditation required, ISS separate from lab approval
France	ANJ	Active in market	ANJ regulatory requirements (sports/horse/poker only)	No online casino vertical, confirm scope with ANJ
Romania	ONJN	Accredited (historical assistance to ONJN)	HG 111/2016 + ONJN monitoring integration	ONJN monitoring system interconnection required
New Jersey	DGE	Designated testing laboratory	N.J.A.C. 13:69O internet gaming regulations	DGE-specific system approval, GLIAccess tracking
Pennsylvania	PGCB	Authorized testing laboratory	Act 71 / PGCB internet gaming standards	Ongoing operational compliance, PGCB active enforcement

Common Misconceptions in Multi-Jurisdiction Certification Programmes

The most costly misconception in multi-jurisdiction certification is the assumption that a single GLI-19 report satisfies technical compliance in every market where GLI holds accreditation. It does not. GLI-19 Section 1.3.3 explicitly states the standard “can be adopted in whole or in part,” and the operative phrase is “in part.” Markets like Denmark and the Netherlands have built their own certification architectures where GLI operates as an approved body under their schemes, not as a certifier under its own standard.

A related error is treating a transfer of approval (ToA) as automatic. GLI offers transfer of approval services for existing iGaming certifications, but the receiving jurisdiction must accept the ToA and the scope must align with the target jurisdiction’s requirements. AGLC’s 90-day AGCO crossover window is a structured transfer of approval arrangement with a hard expiry date and an AGLC-registered ATF requirement. Once that window closes, the Ontario certification has no standing in Alberta.

Suppliers operating in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously should maintain a jurisdictional certification matrix aligned with each regulator’s active standard version. The GLI-12 standard for progressive jackpots was revised as recently as January 23, 2026, and any supplier deploying progressive jackpot systems across jurisdictions should confirm that the certification scope reflects the current version rather than the version approved at initial market entry.

GLI certification is the global language of gaming technical compliance, but every regulator speaks its own dialect, and fluency in one does not guarantee comprehension in another.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a GLI-19 certification automatically satisfy technical requirements in all GLI-accredited jurisdictions?

No. A GLI-19 report certifies compliance with GLI’s own standard. Each jurisdiction determines what technical evidence it requires, and several jurisdictions, including the Netherlands (KSA), Denmark (Spillemyndigheden), and Spain (DGOJ), operate their own certification or assessment schemes for which GLI must be separately accredited. A generic GLI-19 report does not replace jurisdiction-specific certification under those schemes. The UK’s RTS, the KSA’s Gaming System Assessment Scheme, and Spillemyndigheden’s SCP all have mandatory scope elements that must be expressly addressed in any certification report presented to those regulators.

Can Ontario (AGCO) game certifications be used for Alberta (AGLC)?

Only for the 90-day transition period following Alberta’s July 13, 2026 market launch, and only where the certifications correspond exactly to what was approved and deployed in Ontario and the issuing ATF is registered in Alberta. After that period, all game certifications must be obtained under AGLC’s framework and filed with iGaming Compliance. Operators cannot assume Ontario approvals provide ongoing coverage in Alberta once the transition window closes.

Key Resources

GLI-19: Standards for Interactive Gaming Systems v3.0 (Gaming Laboratories International, July 17, 2020), available free at gaminglabs.com

GLI-33: Standards for Event Wagering Systems v1.1 (Gaming Laboratories International, May 14, 2019), available free at gaminglabs.com

KSA Remote Gambling Gaming System Assessment Scheme v2.1 (Kansspelautoriteit, October 2024), available at kansspelautoriteit.nl

Spillemyndigheden Certification Programme SCP.02.03 v2.0 (Spillemyndigheden, current revision), available at spillemyndigheden.dk

AGLC Standards and Requirements for Internet Gaming (SRIG) (AGLC, March 17, 2026), available at aglc.ca

GLI Change Management Programme Guide v1.0 (Gaming Laboratories International), available free at gaminglabs.com