BitStarz restricted countries, and the list nobody gets to read
Seventy-four places sit on the general BitStarz restricted countries list. A second, narrower list governs promotions specifically — clause 3.5 mentions it, calls it separate from the first, and stops short of naming a single country inside it.
Two territorial rules apply to a BitStarz account, and only one is fully visible. The BitStarz restricted countries list, printed in the general terms, names 74 places and governs deposits plus real-money play. Sitting behind it, referenced but never printed, is a narrower rule at clause 3.5 that governs which countries get shut out of promotions specifically.
What is bitstarz available for, and where does the general list draw the line
The general terms open the block of names with one governing sentence: users from the listed countries, and their territories, cannot deposit or play real-money games. Two phrases inside that sentence carry the actual weight. “And their territories” stretches every named country well past its own borders, which is why 74 counts entries rather than governments. “Deposit and play real money games” fixes what actually gets blocked — money changing hands, not simply loading the page.
Seventy-four entries follow that opening line. Sixteen belong to European Union member states; several more are island dependencies and overseas territories named in their own right rather than folded into a parent country. Curaçao itself appears on the list too — the same jurisdiction where the licensing company is incorporated.
Is BitStarz available to someone reading from one of those 74 places? Not for depositing or real-money play, on the wording as printed — though the list says nothing about whether an account can exist there in a dormant, unfunded state.
Four entries that refuse to resolve
A restricted list only works if every line maps cleanly onto a real place, and four of the 74 don't.
Congo appears with no state specified, and two countries currently carry that name — the clause gives no way to tell which, or whether both.
Dutch West Indies carries no ISO code today and belongs to no fixed grouping now; the phrase is a leftover historical label that covered a shifting set of islands over the decades, leaving several Caribbean readers unable to place themselves against it.
United Kingdom (including any overseas territories) puts one country on the page and points toward a wider, unlisted set beyond it — the territories themselves stay unnamed, so a single line ends up covering an unknown number of places.
Lichtenstein turns out to be a straightforward misspelling of Liechtenstein, sitting inside BitStarz's own document.
None of those four breaks the list on its own. Together, inside a document whose entire purpose is being checked against one specific reader, they deserve a plain mention rather than quiet smoothing-over — since anyone from one of the four genuinely cannot resolve their own status from the wording alone.
Why the BitStarz restricted countries count carries real weight
Length by itself doesn't say much about how open or closed a set of terms actually is — a longer roster can signal caution, or it can just mean an operator lists dependencies and territories separately instead of folding them into a parent country. What the count of 74 does establish is scale: enough entries that a reader from a smaller state, a dependency, or a disputed territory has genuine reason to check the precise wording rather than assume their situation got covered by implication somewhere in the middle of the list.
A list built this way is also narrower than a first read suggests. It targets deposits and real-money play specifically — not account creation, not browsing — so a reader could, in principle, hold a dormant account from a listed place without that alone breaching the clause as written. Whether that distinction matters in practice depends on checks elsewhere in the sign-up flow this document doesn't describe.
The BitStarz countries list nobody outside the company has seen
A separate rule inside clause 3.5 of the bonus terms is why this page earns its own space instead of a single paragraph folded into another one. That clause references its own group of excluded countries — built specifically for promotions and kept explicitly apart from the general restricted list above — and states that a player from one of those places can still hold an account and still deposit, while a bonus simply won't be on offer to them. The list of BitStarz countries behind that particular rule never appeared anywhere in the document that was read.
So the bonus terms confirm a promotion-only territorial rule exists, describe in one sentence what it does, and stop well short of naming a single country covered by it.
Why that gap sits right beside the penalty clause
Set clause 3.5 next to clause 3.26 and the arrangement gets uncomfortable fast. Clause 3.26 states that using a code on a promotion the account can't actually claim costs more than just that one offer — the entire deposit's worth of bonuses goes with it, not only the one attached to the code. Country is one of the things that eligibility test turns on, under clause 3.5, and it happens to be the exact input the document withholds from view.
The safer move follows directly: confirm eligibility on BitStarz's live promotions page on the day a deposit actually happens, rather than trusting a bitstarz promo code found somewhere else to have survived whatever the hidden promotion-only list currently excludes. Everything the terms print in place of a working code, clause by clause, sits at the BitStarz bonus terms in full.
What a listed name confirms, and what it leaves open
A place appearing on this list is a fact about a contract, written down by the company bound by it, checkable by anyone willing to open the document directly. That much holds up.
A name on the BitStarz restricted countries list confirms nothing about what any government actually permits — a wholly separate question, decided elsewhere, by parties this page never quotes. It confirms nothing about a cashier's own rules either, which can apply narrower territory checks the moment money actually moves rather than at sign-up. And it confirms nothing about tomorrow: the list changes without notice, and every figure here describes the document exactly as it stood when it was read, on 2 September 2026.
Who is answerable for this list under Curaçao law, and what that company's certificate actually confirms, sits at the company and its permit. The broader pattern of powers described without a supporting figure — country exclusion among them — threads through BitStarz's whole set of documents and gets traced from the start at the full clause-by-clause reading.
Checking eligibility before checking any code
None of this means a reader has no options before depositing. The practical sequence runs in the opposite direction from how most guides frame it: rather than starting with a code and hoping the account qualifies, start with the account and work outward. Confirm which country the account is registered from, check that country against the 74 named entries above, and only then look at whatever promotion is being considered. A code that looks valid on some outside tracker is worth nothing if the account sits inside either list — the visible one or the one clause 3.5 keeps to itself.
That sequence matters more for a bonus claimed through a typed-in code than for one credited automatically, because clause 3.26's penalty specifically targets the code path. An automatically credited offer under clause 2.2 never puts a reader in front of that particular risk, since no code changes hands to trigger it in the first place. Country eligibility still applies either way — it just carries a smaller, more contained downside when no separate string was ever involved.