Georgia Proposes Dedicated Foreign-Only Gambling Licences with 5% GGR Tax
Georgia has unveiled draft legislation that would introduce a new licensing category for international online gambling operators. Submitted to parliament under an accelerated legislative process, the proposed amendments to the law “On the Organisation of Lotteries, Gambling and Profitable Games” would establish dedicated licences for operators offering online slots and sports betting exclusively to foreign customers.
Under the proposals, only foreign citizens and stateless persons would be permitted to access these platforms, with Georgian citizens automatically blocked from the websites. The draft legislation also introduces a more favourable tax regime for internationally focused operators. Rather than the standard 20% gross gaming revenue tax applied to online casinos serving Georgian customers, operators licensed under the new framework would pay a reduced 5% GGR tax, calculated on the difference between stakes received and winnings paid out.
Each international licence would be valid for five years, with an annual fee of 100,000 GEL (£28,740). Operators failing to meet licence conditions or payment deadlines would face fines of 20,000 GEL. The reforms would also tighten domain restrictions by limiting operators to a single website per licence, compared with the current allowance of two websites.
A Dual-Tax Model Aimed at Foreign Markets
The core of Georgia’s proposal is a clear separation between domestic and international operations. Domestic-facing operators continue to face the standard 20% GGR rate. International licences, however, benefit from the sharply reduced 5% rate.
This structure echoes tactics deployed in Malta, Gibraltar and, more recently, Estonia. Yet Georgia’s version adds a strict citizenship firewall. Georgian citizens are blocked entirely from the new platforms.
The government has already demonstrated its protective stance. It has excluded around 1.5 million of its citizens from gambling. The explanatory note accompanying the bill frames the reforms as a balance between consumer protection and economic growth.
Lessons from Estonia’s Low-Tax Push
Estonia has emerged as another European contender. It announced it will drop its tax on GGR to 4% by 2029. That effort, however, has stuttered almost from the start. Licence applications have been withdrawn. Clerical errors have created additional setbacks for policymakers.
Georgia’s approach differs in its explicit foreign-only focus. The 5% rate applies solely to platforms serving non-Georgian customers. Domestic operators remain at 20%. This dual-track design may avoid some of the implementation friction Estonia has encountered.
Still, the Estonian precedent offers a cautionary signal. Even well-intentioned low-tax regimes can face execution hurdles. Georgia’s accelerated legislative process will need to deliver clear, workable rules if it hopes to attract serious operators.
Existing Market Players and Competitive Implications
Despite the government’s strict measures, the Georgian market already supports significant operators. Flutter Entertainment-owned Adjarabet and Betsson Georgia (formerly europebet) remain big players. Their continued presence shows appetite for regulated gambling even under tighter controls.
For international operators evaluating new hubs, the proposal presents a potential structural shift. A 5% GGR rate, five-year licence term, and single-domain requirement could lower barriers to entry. The annual fee of 100,000 GEL and potential 20,000 GEL fines set defined compliance costs.
Operators already licensed in Malta or Gibraltar may view Georgia as a complementary jurisdiction. The model could allow them to serve broader European or global customer bases while ring-fencing the local population. Yet success will depend on execution speed and regulatory clarity.
Risks, Counterarguments and Operational Realities
Any new licensing regime carries risks. The single-website restriction tightens current rules and could limit marketing flexibility. Enforcement of the citizenship firewall will require robust geolocation and identity verification systems. Operators must invest in those controls or risk fines and licence revocation.
Estonia’s experience highlights another limitation. Even attractive tax rates do not guarantee smooth rollout. Withdrawn applications and administrative errors can erode confidence. Georgia must avoid similar pitfalls if it wants to position itself as a reliable low-tax hub.
On the competitive front, established players such as Adjarabet and Betsson Georgia may face new international entrants. The 5% rate could draw operators that previously overlooked the region. This raises questions about talent competition for skilled technology and marketing roles that the bill itself hopes to create.
The Bottom Line is that Georgia’s dual-tax foreign-only licence model represents a pragmatic attempt to attract foreign direct investment without expanding domestic gambling access. By offering a 5% GGR rate while maintaining 20% on local activity and blocking citizens from the new platforms, lawmakers aim to generate tax revenue, jobs and service-sector growth while protecting consumers. The contrast with Estonia’s troubled path to a 4% rate by 2029 underscores both the opportunity and the execution risks. Operators assessing new low-tax hubs should watch how quickly parliament finalises these amendments and how effectively regulators enforce the citizenship and single-domain rules. If implemented cleanly, the framework could become another data point in the convergence of regulated iGaming markets across Europe.
