How we stay honest

Reviews on this site are data-driven. We continuously aggregate the public record across every UKGC-licensed casino we cover — licence status, player sentiment, complaint patterns, bonus terms, regulator actions, news mentions, operator T&Cs — and distil it into a single editorial verdict and a 0–10 score. The same formula is applied to every casino so the comparison is consistent.

Humans approve the output.Every published review and every score change passes through an editor before it goes live. The editor's job is to calibrate, sanity-check and sign off — not to hand-type marketing copy. If the data says a casino has a poor compliance record, the verdict says so; the editor's job is to make sure we've cited the evidence correctly, not to soften the language.

Test deposits are run on the top operators we cover to validate stated withdrawal speeds and surface any friction the data can't see. These supplement the data pipeline; they don't replace it.

Editorial decisions — what we cover, what scores we publish, what we write in the verdict — are made independently of any commercial relationship.

• Casinos cannot pay for higher placement, a better score, or a more favourable verdict.
• We've published 1-star player ratings and multi-million-pound regulatory fines for casinos we earn commission from.
• Editorial team and commercial team are separate. Editorial doesn't see commission rates; commercial doesn't see review drafts before publish.
• Any casino that pressures editorial to change a score loses their commercial relationship with us — we keep the review and add a note about the attempted pressure.

• Reviews of unlicensed or grey-market casinos targeting UK players.
• Numbers we can't verify from public sources (made-up complaint counts, fabricated game-library sizes, etc.).
• Bonus terms that don't match what the operator currently advertises — our daily refresh agent flags drift for editorial review.
• “Sponsored review” content disguised as editorial. Affiliate links are explicitly marked; editorial verdicts are never paid for.

When a material error is verified (wrong fine amount, wrong T&C, wrong licence status), we update the affected page and add a visible correction note with the date and what was changed. Because most of our data is refreshed automatically, many corrections are picked up by the data pipeline itself before anyone needs to write in.

If you're an operator and want to dispute something we've published, the path is:

1. Send the correction request with sourced evidence to the editorial address on the contact page.
2. We acknowledge and assess.
3. If the evidence checks out, we publish a correction with a visible note.
4. If we don't agree, we'll publish your stance alongside ours — but we won't silently remove the original review.