In the vocabulary of gambling intermediaries, Costa Rica figures as "the country" where you can supposedly incorporate a company and run online operations without a gambling licence. That formulation is partly true and partly a dangerous simplification, and this page's task is to take it apart into three realities: what is established officially by statute; what is established by absence; and what is market practice that could not be verified from official sources. Each tier is shown separately, labelled by where the fact comes from — and the page closes with a direct list of the risks, because the main content of the "no licence" model is precisely risk. At the end comes the Georgian cross-border layer, which works here with particular clarity.
The first reality: what the statute establishes
Costa Rica's gambling legal base is more than a century old: the games of chance law (Ley de Juegos) was adopted on 3 August 1922 as law No. 3, and the frame of its first article is this: games whose outcome depends on luck rather than skill are prohibited, except as permitted by law. That is a prohibition-with-exceptions model — and the whole modern picture grows out of it. The law was followed by an implementing decree of 1974, partially annulled by the constitutional chamber; the modern regulation is built on land-based casinos: the 2008 casino regulations were adopted by decree and published in the official gazette, and by their definition a casino is a physical premises — a "local" — where permitted games are conducted. The casino tax law and its regulations repeat the same logic: a casino is premises authorised for games permitted by law.
Lotteries remain a state monopoly in this picture: they are administered by the social protection board (JPS), and it is that body which adopted, in 2021, the regulations granting concessions for the web-based sale of its own lotteries and games of chance — those concessions concern the web format but are not an operator-licensing regime for third parties. And one more official quotation worth memorising: a rule published in an issue of the state gazette states that no person may exploit the activity of betting, casinos or games of chance without authorisation. In sum: the reality established by law is one of land-based premises and a state lottery monopoly.
The second reality: no online operator licence exists
Now the conclusion established by systematic searching of the state legislative databases: in Costa Rica's official sources there is no statute creating an online gambling operator licence. The only web-specific instrument is the concession for selling the state board's own lotteries — not an operator regime for third parties. This "verification by absence" is exactly the fact on which the "no licence" model is built: there is nothing in the regime to apply for — so nobody applies. But here a decisive verbal precision is needed: the absence of a licence means not "freedom" but the absence of regulatory protection. Such activity is not authorised under Costa Rican law — and the gazette quotation quoted above raises the question whether exploitation without authorisation is permissible at all.
The third reality: market practice — a flagged tier
Market sources describe the operational recipe used by groups working in Costa Rica: local corporate forms (joint-stock or limited-liability), a municipal business permit — per market sources, often in the form of "data processing" — a sanitary permit and tax registration. This recipe must be read correctly: it is corroborated only by trade publications and does not exist as an official instruction — which is why this page presents it as "practice described by the market", not as a fact of law. The legality and consequences of the concrete steps must be clarified with each municipality and with local counsel.
The same tier includes the reform question: trade and media sources speak of a government bill that would tax casino and internet-betting revenue, and of an online-gambling regulation bill presented by the state board. The status of these bills is not officially verified — it must be checked in the legislature's system before any decision. Reform risk is fundamental here: a business plan built on the "no licence" model can be invalidated by the adoption of a single law.
The risks — the true price of the model
Now what the marketing decks do not write. First: the absence of regulatory protection — an unlicensed operator has no regulator to confirm its status, and remains "unverifiable" for every counterparty. Second: the demands of banks, payment systems and platforms — financial institutions ask operators for a gambling licence, and its absence must be explained afresh in every new relationship. Third: reform risk — the bills described above. Fourth, decisive for the Georgian contour: under articles 951 and 952 of the Civil Code a claim from a game arises only where the game is state-permitted — and for an unlicensed foreign platform this risk is maximal: a Georgian player's dispute with such an operator carries the no-claim risk.
The Georgian cross-border layer
In Costa Rica's case the Georgian layer is written with the same articles, but works more clearly than with other jurisdictions — because here "the licence does not exist at all", and Georgian law remains the only legal frame of the structure. Article 5, part 1 of the Georgian law on gambling ties organising and supplying into Georgia to a Georgian permit, and article 11, part 2 grants that permit only to an entrepreneur registered in Georgia. A Costa Rican company cannot satisfy this requirement in any way.
The remaining articles of the layer: article 80, part 7 of the Tax Code — margin taxation of an individual organiser; article 81 — the rates, including the 5% line on supply-permit excess income; article 8 — player winnings and loss offsetting; article 171(b) — VAT exemption of gambling services under the carve-out of article 172(4). Reporting: articles 3, 11 and 12 of the AML law where a Georgian entity is in the chain; article 29(b) of the gambling law — winnings registration with reporting to the Financial Monitoring Service; article 36-1 — the selected-person regime for system-electronic supply into Georgia.
Frequently asked questions
Four questions repeat themselves in connection with Costa Rica.
Is operating online gambling lawful in Costa Rica?
Costa Rican law creates no online operator licence — that is a fact. But the absence of a licence is not proof of lawfulness: a gazette rule prohibits unauthorised exploitation, and the legal assessment of the regime must be established with local specialists. This page's position is precise: the absence of an official licence is verified; using it as a business model is a question of calculating risk.
Why is Costa Rica sold as a "licence-free jurisdiction"?
Because market practice describes it that way: a company and a municipal permit, without a gambling licence. That description rests on trade sources and no official instruction exists — which is why it is presented here with that caveat, and not as a recommendation.
Could this model change soon?
Possibly: trade sources carry traces of both a taxation bill for casinos and internet betting and an online-regulation bill. Their status is not officially verified — it must be checked in the legislature's system. For a project built on a "no licence" plan this is the principal long-term risk.
What does this mean for a Georgian player?
The maximal no-claim risk: under articles 951 and 952 of the Civil Code a claim arises only from a permitted game, and a dispute with an unlicensed platform is the weakest position in that respect. The details are on our page about disputes with foreign operators.
How We Help on Legal.ge
Legal.ge treats the Costa Rica question in the form in which it actually stands: we separate the three realities — the official statute, the verified absence of a licence, and market practice; we assess the risks of your model's use of these three tiers — regulatory protection, banking and payments relationships, reform timelines; and in parallel we construct the Georgian layer — the tax and reporting plan of the person behind the structure, under the relevant articles. If you already have a Costa Rican structure, we audit it against the same three tiers. Our position is open: Costa Rica is not a licensing jurisdiction and must not be counted as one — the decision is taken after calculating the risks. Contact us to start that calculation.