Editorial Policy

Assertions on this site are made in our voice, because we have done the work to stand behind them. Sources appear as evidence, not as shelter: when we write that a provider holds a license, the register entry is cited so you can check it. A claim we cannot stand behind is left out, not labeled.

No review is sponsored and nothing is ranked for money: the scoring is built from data under a published methodology, providers cannot pay to enter the catalog or improve a score, and the details live in our methodology and advertising policy. We publish without bylines, deliberately: reviews are produced by an editorial process rather than a personality, every substantive claim is checkable against the cited source, and the site stands behind the work as one voice.

Load-bearing facts, the ones a reader might act on, must trace to a primary source: a regulator's register, a legislature's record, a network's published rules, a company's own filing. Trade press can point us at a story, but it does not get to be the evidence, because trade-press dates and numbers drift.

License claims get the strictest treatment. We audit them against the registers themselves, entity by entity, because registers are brand-blind and marketing is not: the series so far covers the ESMA CASP register, the UK FCA register, the Brazilian central bank and six US state gaming registers. A license appears on a review only when the issuer has it on record, and a license on the issuer's record goes onto the review even when the provider's own marketing leaves it out.

Numbers we cannot trace do not run. That includes statistics whose trail ends at content farms, single-vendor claims with no second source, and round numbers that every outlet repeats and none can origin. Where a figure comes from the provider data on this site, it is computed from that data at build time rather than typed in, so it cannot drift from it.

The visible "Updated" date on any page is the date its content substantively changed, and it is the same date the sitemap and structured data carry. We do not scatter fresh-looking dates across unchanged pages. A date only moves when the content does. When a register, a rule or a market changes, the pages it touches are updated.

When we find a factual error in something we published, we correct the text and move the page's modification date. Errors of judgment (a score you disagree with, an editorial call) are not corrections. Errors of fact are, and the difference is whether a primary source settles it.

If a provider disputes a factual claim on its review, we investigate against primary sources. If they are right, we correct it. If the dispute is with our scoring or framing, we explain our reasoning and the score stands. Spotted an error, on any page? Tell us, ideally with the primary source, and it gets the same treatment.