Editorial Policy

Independence, verifiability, plain English. No copy-paste from operator press releases. Every claim about a bonus, licence or cashout timing must trace back either to the operator's own T&Cs, the UKGC public register, or a test performed by one of our editors and dated in the review body. If a source proves unreliable — a promotional page that changes silently, a support agent contradicting the written terms — it's flagged in our internal notes and either replaced or clearly caveated. Transparency about uncertain claims beats confident but wrong ones.

Two-editor rule: the writer of a review is not the editor who ships it. Claims that need verification (usually 6-10 per page) get flagged; the editor works through the list, replaces anything that can't be confirmed, and only then hits publish. Verification method is logged next to each figure in our internal notes — visible on request from readers via [email protected]. On statistical claims (RTP, house edge, cashout percentile) we cite the auditor and the sample size. If a figure comes from a single test session rather than a public audit, the review says so in the same sentence.

If a page contains a factual error, contact [email protected] with 'Correction' in the subject. We aim to acknowledge inside one working day and post the correction with a dated note under the H1 within three working days. If you disagree with our verdict but the facts are accurate, that goes on record too — but we do not remove reviews under legal threat alone. We do not tolerate legal-threat SLAPP behaviour — if an operator sends a takedown demand rather than a factual correction, we log it and, once the matter is settled, publish an anonymised note about it in the transparency report.