Casino Review Policy

Last updated: May 2026 · Author: Giovanni Picaro, Editor-in-Chief

This page is the operational document that connects our Editorial Standards, our How We Test methodology, and our Affiliate Disclosure into a coherent set of rules governing operator coverage. Operators approaching us for review coverage should read this page first; it sets out what we accept, what we decline, and what they should and should not expect.

1. Operators we review

We review casino operators that fall within our editorial scope and meet minimum eligibility standards:

• Hold a verifiable license from a recognized gaming authority. License tier (UKGC, MGA, ADM, DGOJ, Curaçao, etc.) frames the review but does not in itself disqualify an operator.
• Accept players from at least one major regulated market (UK, EU member states, Canada, regulated US states) where we can perform real-money testing.
• Provide a public T&C document covering bonus terms, withdrawal policy, and KYC requirements.
• Operate the actual gaming product, not white-label arrangements misrepresented as direct operations.

2. Operators we will not review

To remove ambiguity:

• Unlicensed operators (no license at all, “license pending”, or self-declared license without verifiable issuing authority).
• Operators we cannot test in good faith because we cannot legally open an account from any of our test jurisdictions.
• Operators whose KYC or operational behavior at sister-brand level demonstrates a pattern of player harm.
• Operators whose marketing materially targets self-excluded players, problem gamblers, or minors.
• Operators who condition coverage on favorable framing.
• White-label arrangements misrepresented as direct operations — we will review the underlying operating entity instead.

3. How operators come to our attention

Editorial decisions about which operators to review are made by the editorial team. Inputs include:

• Reader requests through our Contact Us form.
• New license issuances by major regulators, which we monitor.
• Operator outreach (we do not commit to coverage in response to outreach; we add the operator to our review queue if it meets eligibility).
• Sister-brand expansion of operators we already cover.
• Industry publications and ADR ruling notices.

4. The review process

Every review follows the five-stage workflow described on How We Work and the testing methodology on How We Test. Specifically:

1. License and ownership verification.
2. Real-money sign-up and deposit testing by a named team member.
3. Game library audit, support testing, bonus testing.
4. KYC submission and withdrawal-speed testing.
5. Drafting, fact-checking, conflict-of-interest disclosure, publication.

The full cycle takes 8–12 weeks elapsed time. We do not abbreviate the cycle for affiliate-launch deadlines.

5. Verdict categories

Our reviews end with a clear, evidence-grounded verdict in one of four categories:

• Recommended — the operator performed well across all test stages, holds an appropriate license, and the bonus structure (if any) is fair.
• Conditional recommendation — the operator is appropriate for specific player types or use cases, with explicit caveats. Example: “recommended for low-stakes slot players in the UK; not recommended for high-stakes table-game play due to weak VIP support.”
• Not recommended — the operator failed our testing in material ways. Specific reasons are documented.
• Verdict deferred — the test cycle could not be completed (typically because Stage 4 KYC stalled indefinitely) or material new information has emerged that we are still investigating.

6. Sample testing protocol

Test accounts are funded with the reviewer’s own money. Typical test deposit ranges:

• Standard review: €100–€300 deposit, sufficient to test bonus terms and fund a withdrawal.
• VIP/high-stakes review: €500–€2000, where the test specifically targets VIP-tier behavior.
• Multi-deposit test: two or three smaller deposits across several weeks, where the review specifically aims to test deposit-frequency triggers and reload offers.

Test costs are borne by SlotMap. Where the operator pays out a withdrawal greater than the test deposit (this happens; casino games sometimes win), the surplus is documented and treated as part of the test budget for future reviews. We do not personally retain test winnings as additional income.

7. Conflict-of-interest handling

The conflict-of-interest framework from our Editorial Standards applies to operator reviews. Specific situations we treat as conflicts requiring disclosure at the top of the review:

• SlotMap has an active or imminent affiliate relationship with the operator.
• A team member has been a paid employee, contractor, or consultant for the operator or its parent group.
• A team member holds an investment, equity, or other financial interest in the operator or its parent.
• A team member is a current or recent VIP-tier player at the operator.
• The operator has provided non-trivial gifts, hospitality, or junkets to a team member.

8. Right of reply

Operators significantly criticized in a published review have the right to respond, on the same review, in a clearly identified note. Right-of-reply submissions are reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness; we do not publish abusive or off-topic responses, but we publish substantive disagreements even when we continue to disagree.

Right-of-reply requests should be sent to info [at] slotmap [punto] space with the subject line Right of reply: [URL]. We respond within 14 business days.

9. Re-review and update cadence

Every published review is revisited at least annually. Operators are also re-checked when:

• A regulatory enforcement action against the operator is published.
• The operator changes ownership, licensing, or major bonus terms.
• Reader-reported complaints reveal a pattern.
• A sister-brand under the same group fails our review materially differently.

10. Operator-side complaints handling

Operators who believe a review contains a factual error should follow the standard correction-request procedure on our Corrections Policy page. Special handling for operator-submitted corrections is described there: we verify against authoritative sources, and we do not act on requests that amount to “please soften the review.”

11. What this means for operators considering outreach

If you represent a casino operator and would like us to consider a review:

• Do introduce the operator with a clear summary of license, target markets, and what makes the operator distinctive.
• Do understand that inclusion in our review queue does not commit us to publication on any timeline.
• Do understand that the review verdict is not negotiable.
• Do not propose paid placements, “preferred operator” rankings, or guaranteed-favorable arrangements. We will decline.
• Do not ask us to remove or alter critical existing coverage. We will decline.
• Do not propose link-building exchanges or guest-post-for-link arrangements. We will decline.

The right address is partnerships [at] slotmap [punto] space. See Operator Partnerships for the full framework.

12. Reader recourse

If you believe a review has been compromised by an undisclosed conflict of interest, an unstated commercial relationship, or an editorial process inconsistent with this policy, please email info [at] slotmap [punto] space with the subject line Review integrity concern. We investigate and respond, and we publish a correction or retraction where one is warranted.

Related pages: How We Test · Editorial Standards · Affiliate Disclosure · Operator Partnerships · Disclaimer