The central player blocking system OASIS (Onlineabfrage Spielerstatus, or Online Player Status Inquiry) is one of the most influential and, at the same time, most intensively discussed elements of German gambling regulation. Since its nationwide, cross-sector introduction with the State Treaty on Gaming 2021 (GlüStV 2021), it has served as the central instrument for curbing problematic gaming behavior and ensuring comprehensive player protection. OASIS will play a key role in the upcoming evaluation of the State Treaty on Gaming in 2026. Hardly any other system intervenes so directly in individual freedom of action and at the same time shapes the acceptance and integrity of the regulated market.
The practical dimension of the system is clear from the most recently published usage data: in 2025 alone, the OASIS system managed by the Darmstadt Regional Council received more than 5.2 billion queries – an average of around 432 million queries per month.
The basic idea behind OASIS is systemic totality: anyone who is blocked should no longer be able to participate in gambling – regardless of the type of game or the location of the provider. This ban applies to brick-and-mortar arcades, state lotteries with a particular risk potential, casinos, betting agencies, and the entire spectrum of online gambling (sports betting, virtual slot machines, online poker, and online casinos). This is the first time in Germany that a comprehensive control instrument has been created that overcomes the separation between the various forms of gambling.
The legal and systematic basis
The legal basis for OASIS can be found in particular in Sections 8 to 8d of the GlüStV 2021. In these sections, the federal states have agreed on a system that specifies the protection of players from gambling addiction (Section 1 No. 1 GlüStV) through active exclusion. The system distinguishes between two basic forms of exclusion:
Self-exclusion: Here, the player himself expresses the wish to be excluded from gambling. This is often seen as an act of personal responsibility and an effective instrument of self-control in phases of impending loss of control.
External exclusion: This is initiated by third parties – usually the gambling providers – if there are indications of a risk of addiction or excessive debt based on the observations of staff or reports from third parties (e.g., relatives).
The central storage of this data by the competent authority (Darmstadt Regional Council) ensures that a player cannot circumvent the ban by changing providers or switching from terrestrial to digital gaming. The nationwide ban file most recently contained around 367,000 active player bans.
Technical architecture and operational implementation
Technically, OASIS is designed as a high-availability database that must allow all licensed providers real-time access. The identity verification process is strictly regulated: before entering a gaming hall or logging in to a website, the master data (last name, first name, date of birth) must be checked against the blocking file. Only if the response is negative (“not blocked”) may the player participate in the game.
In the 2026 evaluation, the technical reliability of this process will be a key test point. The focus here will be on query latency, the susceptibility to errors in data transmission, and the security of sensitive personal data. Incorrect blocking or technical delays in operations not only place a burden on providers, but also reduce user acceptance of the legal market.
In addition, the number of market participants connected is relevant for assessing the system load: OASIS most recently recorded around 9,000 operators with approximately 41,000 business locations.
OASIS as a central data provider for evaluation
OASIS provides a valuable pool of data for the scientific evaluation of the State Treaty. In contrast to previous years, when estimates had to be relied upon, valid figures are now available. Administrative practice also provides indications of operational relevance: the responsible department at the Darmstadt Regional Council processed around 60,000 blocking requests in 2025 (with the actual number of requests being significantly higher, as many submissions were incomplete).
The evaluation will examine the following parameters quantitatively and qualitatively:
Development of blocking figures: How has the total number of blocks developed since 2021? A significant increase in self-blocks could be seen as a success of prevention work, as the system is now well known and the inhibition threshold for using it has fallen.
Ratio of self-imposed to externally imposed bans: An excess of externally imposed bans would raise questions about the effectiveness of providers' early detection systems and the burden on social support systems (family members).
Duration and lifting of bans: According to Section 8b (1) GlüStV, the standard duration for an indefinite ban is at least one year, unless the player specifies a different period (at least three months). The evaluation will analyze how many players apply for unblocking after the minimum period has expired and how many of them remain in the system permanently.
Socioeconomic factors: To the extent permitted by data protection law, the evaluation will examine which demographic groups use the blocking system particularly frequently in order to tailor prevention measures to specific target groups.
The challenge of third-party blocking
In the German legal system, third-party blocking constitutes a significant encroachment on general personal rights. Providers are obliged to block a player if they know or have reason to believe, “based on the observations of their staff” or “reports from third parties,” that the player is addicted to gambling or is heavily in debt.
The 2026 evaluation will critically examine how uniformly these criteria are applied. Are there regional differences? How do providers deal with the burden of proof? The risk of false predictions is inherent. A system that generates too many “false positive” third-party blocks risks legal action and a massive loss of trust. Therefore, the evaluation will also include the case law of the administrative courts on contested third-party bans in its overall assessment.
Effectiveness vs. evasive maneuvers (channeling aspect)
A key point of any technical analysis is the question of circumvention. Due to the nature of the system, OASIS only has a protective effect within the regulated sector. The correlation between bans and the illegal market is therefore of utmost relevance for the evaluation. There is a risk that a ban in OASIS will not mean the end of gambling for the player concerned, but will trigger an immediate switch to unlicensed offshore providers who do not query the German ban system.
Scientific studies conducted as part of the evaluation must clarify whether the blocking system leads to a genuine break from gambling or merely to a shift in gambling activity to unregulated areas where no player protection mechanisms are in place. If the investigation reveals that a high percentage of blocked players immediately become active on the black market, the link between the blocking system and enforcement measures (such as IP blocking) would have to be reassessed.
The unblocking process
An often underestimated part of the system is the lifting of the ban. Since the GlüStV 2021, a ban does not automatically end after a certain period of time, but requires a written application from the player (Section 8b (2)). This process serves as an additional hurdle to prevent impulsive relapses. Another important practical aspect is that, since 2024, the lifting of bans has been converted to a completely digital, media-break-free application process – a factor that, according to the authorities, has been accompanied by a further increase in inquiries.
Conclusion and outlook for 2026
OASIS is the backbone of the German player protection model. The evaluation of the State Treaty on Gaming in 2026 will show whether this powerful instrument has lived up to the high expectations. The system must prove that it is not just a bureaucratic database, but a living protection tool that effectively keeps vulnerable individuals away from gambling without pushing them into the anonymity of the black market.
For providers, authorities, and scientific observers, the evaluation will provide the basis for determining whether the system should be retained in its current form, technically refined, or modified in terms of its legal requirements. The balance between effective addiction prevention and the necessary attractiveness of the legal market remains the central technical challenge.
Read the second part of our series on the evaluation of the State Treaty on Gaming here.