How We Check Facts

Why Accuracy Is Difficult

The online gambling sector evolves rapidly. Licensing conditions shift; operators merge or are bought out; bonus and promotion criteria change, often without warning. We've been covering this sector since 2016, and things haven't slowed down - if anything, it's accelerated.

It takes continuous effort to maintain accuracy in this volatile environment, and we won't pretend that it's always easy. What if the RTP, license, or bonus terms quoted were inaccurate?

This could cause players to make the wrong decision on which casino to play with or when. It could be critical. That's why our fact-checking is an ongoing process that is never really 'finished' once published.

Our Fact-Checking Process

Every fact in our content must be backed by a traceable source before publication. This includes all technical data, regulatory information, data relating to operators, and any statistical information used. No exceptions.

Authors are responsible for finding appropriate sources, and editors are tasked with verifying their reliability before anything is published. Information concerning player protection or regulatory compliance is subject to a second review before being published.

What we check:

• RTP and volatility rankings for slots and casino games
• Information regarding licensing authority, licence number, and jurisdiction
• Bonus terms and conditions, including wagering requirements, and current promotions
• Information on accepted payment methods, associated limits and processing times
• Information on industry regulations, player protection mechanisms, and legal scope
• Industry data and statistics cited in guides or analysis

To see how this applies to casino reviews specifically, read our Review Methodology.

Our Sources

We are careful to use primary sources or credible, authoritative content wherever possible. In most cases, this will be:

Licensing authorities and regulatory bodies. We rely on regulatory websites, e.g., the UKGC, MGA, and other leading bodies' own registers, for license data rather than on operator data directly.

Game developers and official documentation. RTP and volatility figures are sourced directly from the game's official information or from credible developer publications.

Having worked directly on game development, we can read official documentation critically rather than taking it at face value. Data provided by operators alone is treated with scepticism until it has been cross-referenced.

Original terms and conditions. We cite bonus terms and conditions from the operator's publicly available terms and conditions page, not from third-party descriptions or analyses. Because terms change without notice, we record the date each page was last checked.

Industry research and academic work by trusted bodies. Statistics and research findings come from published reports by recognised institutions and trade bodies. If a statistic can't be traced to a credible source, we don't use it.

Community knowledge and direct experience. With over 75,000 members discussing online casino-related matters since 2016, our players regularly notice elements that formal research may overlook - like withdrawal difficulties or the adherence to bonus terms in real-time. This information is invaluable in ensuring our content remains up to date and accurate.

Cross-checking of Claims

No single source ever tells the whole story. An operator might advertise one withdrawal time, which its support staff will contradict. Bonus headlines rarely survive a read-through of the full T&Cs. We’ve seen all these situations.

For anything that could meaningfully affect a player's decision, claims are checked against multiple independent sources before publication. Where sources conflict, we work out which is correct before publishing, or we acknowledge the discrepancy directly in the content rather than picking one and hoping for the best.

In practice, every piece passes through both a writer and an editor before it goes live. It's not a box-ticking exercise — an editor reading something fresh will catch things the writer, too close to the material, has stopped seeing. For content that touches on regulatory or compliance matters, a specialist reviews it too. The process is deliberate precisely because the gaps it catches are real.

All members of our team have in-depth knowledge and experience in online casinos as players, researchers, and writers in the industry. Take a look at the CasinoGrounds team.

Keeping Content Up-To-Date

Should there be a change (such as the renewal or cancellation of a license), we make sure to update the content as quickly as possible, prioritising it over anything else. We perform more frequent reviews of all "high-impact" and time-sensitive content.

Every article contains a "Last reviewed" date to show you when the content was last verified; this is not a guarantee of complete accuracy. It is important for the player to double-check important details with the operator when making major decisions (i.e., concerning withdrawal limits and wagering terms).

Corrections

We correct any data found to be wrong or outdated. Corrections are made without prior notice; only the 'Last reviewed' date changes.

Usually, it's the community that points us in the right direction, as it provides the first signal that something has changed or is wrong.

If you believe there is something to correct, please notify us. Reader reports are an important source for the updates we apply.

Why This Matters

Players are basing their decisions on odds, conditions and potential risk. If that information is wrong or quietly removed, the consequences for players are real: financial, not just reputational.

Accuracy is not only good PR, but it's also responsible. Content covering player protection, self-exclusion, dispute resolution, and regulatory rights requires special attention, since mistakes can be both harmful and embarrassing.

For the broader principles that guide what we publish and how we stay independent, see our Editorial Policy.