Reference

Casino payments glossary

The terms used across this reference, defined in the sense they carry here. Where a term is used loosely elsewhere, the entry says so.

Most of these words describe a role rather than a product: an EMI, a PISP or an AISP is a category of regulated firm, not a brand a player would recognise on a deposit screen. The roles belong to different mechanisms rather than forming one chain. An open-banking deposit uses a PISP to instruct the player's bank, a PayPal balance is electronic money held through an EMI, and Apple Pay or Google Pay tokenises the underlying card. One cashier may offer all three routes, but a single payment does not pass through all three. Reading the individual method pages is easier once those separate roles have names.

A few entries exist mainly to keep two similar-sounding ideas apart. Section 75 protection and a chargeback both let a payment be reversed after the fact, but one is a statutory right attached to a specific card type and the other is a scheme-run process available more broadly, and conflating them overstates what either one actually covers. Tokenisation and a network token are related in the same way: one is the general technique, the other is a specific scheme's implementation of it.

Filter terms

A to Z

Account Information Service Provider (AISP): A regulated provider that reads account data with a customer’s consent, without moving any money itself. It has no role in a deposit, only in the account view that can sit around one.
Carrier billing: Charging an amount to a mobile account, so it appears on the monthly bill or is taken from pay-as-you-go credit, rather than being taken from a card or bank account.
Chargeback: A card-scheme dispute mechanism that lets an issuing bank reverse a transaction, run under the scheme’s own rules rather than statute. It is available on card payments generally, in a way a statutory protection is not.
Electronic Money Institution (EMI): A firm authorised or registered to issue electronic money and provide payment services. Prepaid voucher issuers commonly operate as EMIs; the authorisation attaches to the firm itself, not to a brand name printed on the product.
E-money: Monetary value stored electronically and issued on receipt of funds, redeemable at face value. A prepaid voucher balance and a wallet balance are both e-money; a bank account balance is not.
Licence condition: A binding requirement in a UK Gambling Commission operating licence, numbered by section, for example 5.1.2 or 6.1.2. This reference cites licence conditions by number rather than by paraphrase, since a paraphrase is exactly where drift creeps in.
Network token: The scheme-issued version of a token (Visa’s VTS or Mastercard’s MDES) that a wallet or a merchant holds instead of the underlying card number, and that keeps working even after the physical card behind it is reissued.
Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP): A regulated provider that initiates a payment directly from a customer’s bank account with their consent, without ever holding the funds itself. A bank-transfer deposit route can run on a PISP rather than on a card rail.
Payment rail: The route a payment travels and the parties that handle it along the way. Two payments for the same amount can sit on entirely different rails.
Prepaid voucher: A code bought in advance for a fixed amount and redeemed later, so no card or bank details reach the site being paid.
Safeguarding: The requirement that an e-money or payment institution keep customer funds separate from its own operating money, so the firm’s insolvency does not automatically wipe out a customer’s balance. It is a condition on the firm holding the money, not a guarantee reaching the underlying casino transaction itself.
Section 75 protection: A Consumer Credit Act 1974 provision making a credit-card issuer jointly liable for a breach of contract or misrepresentation on qualifying purchases, subject to value thresholds. It attaches to a specific card type and to how a purchase was made, not to the site accepting it.
Tokenisation: Replacing a card’s real number with a substitute value for a specific device or merchant, so the real number is never stored or transmitted for that transaction. A phone’s wallet app tokenises a card the moment it is added.

Roles that read information and roles that move money

PISP and AISP look like neighbouring abbreviations because they come from the same open banking framework. Their functions are different. An account information service provider reads data with consent. A payment initiation service provider instructs the bank to make a transfer. Only the second has a role in moving a casino deposit, and that is why its regulatory bar is higher.

The distinction prevents a common shortcut: treating access to an account as control of the money in it. An AISP may help display balances or transactions, but it cannot initiate the deposit. A PISP can initiate a payment but does not take custody of the funds. The player's bank remains the institution that authenticates the instruction and releases the money.

An Electronic Money Institution occupies a third position. It can issue a stored monetary value on receipt of funds, which is why a PayPal balance or prepaid voucher can be e-money while a PISP transfer is not. The EMI can hold the value, subject to safeguarding, before it reaches the casino. A regulatory label therefore describes a job, not a general mark of approval for every transaction a brand might touch.

Payment rails, brands and legal entities

A payment rail is the full route between the player and the gambling operator. Card networks, issuing banks, acquirers, wallet providers, mobile networks and voucher issuers can occupy different points on that route. Two cashier buttons carrying similar wording can still send money through chains with opposite answers to a regulatory question.

Brand names obscure that structure because one brand can cover several companies. Boku Network Services UK Limited handles carrier billing, while Boku Account Services UK Limited holds a separate e-money authorisation and says it does not provide that carrier-billing service in the UK. Paysafe group companies create a similar name-match problem: the UK paysafecard issuer is Prepaid Services Company Limited, not the similarly named authorised firm a brand search can surface first.

The legal entity is what appears on a register and holds a permission. The brand is what appears on the cashier. The rail is what the payment actually travels. Keeping all three nouns distinct prevents a real permission belonging to one company from being attached to a different company or activity simply because the names sit under one group.

Tokens change the number, not the card underneath

Tokenisation replaces a card number with a substitute that is limited to a device, merchant or context. A network token is the card-scheme version of that substitute. Visa Token Service and Mastercard Digital Enablement Service issue the values used by phone wallets, leaving the underlying number in the network's token vault rather than sending it to the cashier.

The issuing bank still authorises the payment. That means the funding type survives the substitution: a debit card token remains attached to a debit account, while a credit card token remains credit. The Gambling Commission's credit-card prohibition therefore follows the card through Apple Pay or Google Pay. The wallet changes presentation and data exposure, not the source of the money.

A token can also remain usable after the physical card is replaced because the scheme can map it to the new account details behind the scenes. That continuity is a property of the network token. It does not turn the phone wallet into an e-money account or give Apple Pay and Google Pay a separate balance that a casino can credit as a withdrawal.

Safeguarding, Section 75 and chargeback solve different problems

Safeguarding applies while an EMI or payment institution holds customer funds. The firm keeps those funds separate from its operating money so its own insolvency does not automatically absorb the customer balance. It is not the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, and it does not guarantee the underlying gambling transaction once the money has left the safeguarded account.

Section 75 belongs to qualifying credit transactions under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It can make a credit-card issuer jointly liable for breach of contract or misrepresentation within its statutory scope. Chargeback is a card-scheme process, not an Act of Parliament, and is available on debit cards as well as credit cards under the scheme rules.

The three ideas are sometimes compressed into the word "protection", which is too broad to be useful. Safeguarding concerns custody of a balance. Section 75 concerns statutory liability on a qualifying credit purchase. Chargeback concerns reversing a card transaction through scheme procedures. Knowing which one applies starts with identifying the institution and rail involved, not with assuming every route back to money has the same legal foundation.

The timing of the problem points to the right term. Money still held by an e-money firm raises a safeguarding question. A disputed card transaction raises chargeback, and a qualifying credit purchase may also raise Section 75. Once funds have reached a gambling account, none of those labels can be assumed to answer a later dispute without looking at the route and facts involved.

This is why the definitions avoid describing any mechanism as stronger. They identify the rule maker, the institution and the stage of the payment. A comparison can then start from what happened rather than from the reassuring sound of a broad word.

Questions About These Terms

Reference

What is the difference between Section 75 protection and a chargeback?

Section 75 is a statutory right attached to a specific card type and a specific value band, running under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A chargeback is a card-scheme process available more broadly, run under the scheme’s own rules rather than statute. The two overlap in what they achieve but not in where the right comes from.

Is tokenisation the same thing as a network token?

No. Tokenisation is the general technique of substituting a card number with a stand-in value. A network token is one specific implementation of that technique, issued by a card scheme such as Visa or Mastercard, and it is what actually sits inside a phone’s wallet app.

Does an EMI hold a gambling licence?

No. An Electronic Money Institution is authorised to issue e-money and provide payment services, a different regime from a UK Gambling Commission operating licence. A prepaid voucher issuer being an EMI says nothing about the licensing of any casino that accepts the voucher.

What is the difference between a PISP and an AISP?

A Payment Initiation Service Provider moves money: it starts a payment from a bank account with the customer’s consent. An Account Information Service Provider only reads account data with consent; it never moves money at all. A bank-transfer deposit can run through a PISP, while an AISP has no deposit role.

Does safeguarding mean a deposit is guaranteed to reach the casino?

No. Safeguarding is a condition on the payment or e-money firm holding the funds: it keeps customer money separate from the firm’s own operating funds if the firm becomes insolvent. It says nothing about what happens once the money leaves that firm and reaches a casino account.

Is a payment rail the same thing as a payment brand?

No. A rail is the route and chain of parties carrying the payment. A brand can operate on a rail, present a different rail through the same button, or cover several legal entities. The route determines which institutions and rules are involved.

Can a prepaid voucher receive money back after a withdrawal?

No. The voucher is a code bought for a fixed value and redeemed later. It has no account to credit in reverse, so a casino withdrawal needs a separate return method such as a bank transfer.

Why is a licence condition cited by number?

The number identifies the binding requirement and separates it from regulator summaries or later paraphrases. For payments, conditions 5.1.2 and 6.1.2 answer different questions: the first concerns payment services, while the second prohibits credit-card gambling payments.