Before relying on a casino review, you should know who wrote it, what they checked and whether commercial relationships affect what you see.
These guidelines set the standards for new and updated content on OnlineCasino.org. They explain how research, testing, commercial disclosures and corrections should be handled.
We are reviewing our existing content. Older pages may predate these standards. This policy does not mean that every article has been reassessed or every casino has been tested under our current methodology.
Who writes our content
OnlineCasino.org works with freelance writers and editorial contributors. You can find information about our contributors on the editorial team page.
Author credits should reflect who contributed to an article. Profiles must describe relevant experience accurately, without suggesting qualifications the writer does not hold.
A reviewer credit must reflect a check that actually took place. An editorial check must not be described as medical, legal or financial review unless an appropriately qualified person completed that work.
Research and fact-checking
Important claims need sources that readers can check. The source depends on the information being covered.
| Information | Sources to check |
|---|---|
| Gambling licences and regulatory action | Regulator registers, decisions and notices |
| Casino ownership | Company records, operator disclosures and licence details |
| Bonus conditions | Current offer terms, including eligibility, wagering requirements and withdrawal restrictions |
| Payments and withdrawals | Published payment rules, provider information and documented testing where available |
| Games and software | Game-provider documentation and the operator’s catalogue |
| Gambling harm and support | Public health services, established support organisations and relevant research |
| Legal restrictions | Legislation, regulators and government guidance for the location concerned |
An operator’s statement is not independent confirmation. If an important claim relies solely on information supplied by the casino, the article should make that clear.
Other review websites may raise questions worth investigating. Their findings, ratings and testing must not be presented as our own.
Player reports can also highlight concerns. Before treating an allegation as fact, we need to consider the evidence, when the incident happened and any available response from the operator. Claims that remain unverified should be identified as such or left out.
Checks before publication
New articles and substantial updates should be checked before publication. The check should establish whether:
- The headline and introduction accurately describe the article.
- Important factual claims have suitable sources.
- Licences, offers and restrictions apply to the location discussed.
- Research is clearly distinguished from first-hand experience.
- Commercial relationships need to be disclosed.
- The wording explains gambling risks without overstating safety or potential returns.
Clear writing matters too. Readers should not have to work through promotional language to find a withdrawal restriction, bonus condition or testing limitation.
Casino reviews and testing
Our casino review methodology explains the assessment framework and how ratings are calculated.
Reviews should state what was researched and what was tested. Reading a withdrawal policy does not establish how long a payment takes in practice.
Claims about opening an account, depositing money, using a bonus, contacting support or receiving a withdrawal must describe activity that actually took place. Supporting records may include dated screenshots, transaction details and correspondence. Personal information must be removed before evidence is published.
A test result also needs context. One successful withdrawal does not mean every player will receive the same service. Results may differ by country, payment method, account checks and other circumstances.
If a reviewer could not test something, the review should say so. Gaps must not be filled with invented experience or another website’s findings.
Commercial relationships
OnlineCasino.org is a commercial casino-information website. Readers should be able to understand how affiliate arrangements and advertising affect the content and offers they see.
Commercial relationships may affect which operators receive coverage, which offers are available or where paid placements appear. Any influence on inclusion or ordering must be disclosed clearly.
Ratings and editorial conclusions must follow the evidence and the applicable review criteria. A payment or partnership must not justify an invented positive experience, an omitted restriction or the removal of supported criticism.
Advertisements and sponsored content must be identifiable. A paid position must not be presented as an independently earned editorial ranking.
Contributors should disclose relevant conflicts of interest, including work for an operator they are reviewing. Free credit, gifts or other benefits connected with a review must also be considered and disclosed where they could affect the assessment.
Operators can supply information and point out errors. Requests to change a review should be judged on the supporting evidence, including when the request comes from a commercial partner.
AI assistance
AI tools may help with research, outlines, drafting, rewriting and proofreading.
Their output is not evidence. Factual claims produced with AI assistance must be checked against suitable sources before publication. A person remains responsible for the published content and its conclusions.
AI must not be used to invent testing, player experiences, quotations, credentials or supporting records. It must not make an unverified claim appear established.
Where AI has played a substantial role, its use should be explained when that would help readers understand how the content was produced.
Gambling risks and local restrictions
Our gambling content is intended for adults who meet the legal gambling age in their location. Age requirements, licensing rules and product restrictions vary.
Accepting registrations from a country does not prove that a casino is authorised to operate there. Articles should distinguish between access to a website and local authorisation.
Content must not present gambling as reliable income, a solution to debt or a way to recover losses. Descriptions such as “safe”, “guaranteed” and “risk-free” must not hide financial risks or offer conditions.
Editorial content must not encourage readers to bypass self-exclusion or other gambling protections.
Our responsible gambling page covers warning signs, blocking tools and support services.
Updates and older content
Casino ownership, licences, offers and payment rules can change after an article is published. These details need checking when a page is reviewed.
Changes that could affect a reader’s money, access to support or understanding of an operator should take priority. Reported errors and credible evidence of serious problems should also prompt a review.
An update date must reflect work that happened. A layout change or small wording edit should not suggest that every fact on the page has been checked again.
During the review of older content, pages may be corrected, rewritten, combined or removed. Historical reporting should retain its date context so readers can distinguish past events from current information.
Corrections and editorial concerns
To report a possible error, use the website’s contact form. Include the page address, the statement you are questioning and any evidence that helps explain the problem.
Do not send passwords, payment-card details or unredacted identity documents.
Reports should be assessed on their substance, whoever submits them. When a material factual error is corrected, the page should explain what changed and when. Spelling and formatting fixes do not need a separate correction notice.
This process concerns information published on OnlineCasino.org. We cannot access casino accounts, process withdrawals or require an operator to resolve a dispute.
