Editorial Policy

Corrections Policy

Last reviewed: September 2026

This site publishes claims about licences, payment networks, withdrawal limits, verification requirements and bonus terms. All of those change, and some of them we will get wrong. A corrections policy is how a publisher stays useful once that happens.

Reports are welcome from anyone: readers, competitors, and the operators we cover. We do not treat a commercial relationship as a reason to delay or soften a correction.

What counts as a correction

  • A factual error: a wrong licence number, entity name, supported network, limit, fee, minimum or bonus term.
  • A stale fact that is now misleading, such as a promotion that has ended or a network that is no longer supported.
  • A missing caveat that changes how a statement should be read, including eligibility and jurisdiction notes.
  • A broken or misdirected outbound link, especially a support-service link.
  • An unsupported claim that slipped through review — anything asserting legality, licensing, safety, anonymity or payout speed without a source.

A difference of editorial opinion is not a correction. If an operator disagrees with a score rather than a fact, we will publish the disagreement where it is substantive, but the score stands unless the underlying facts change.

How we handle a report

  • We acknowledge the report and record the page, the disputed statement and the date.
  • We re-verify the claim against a primary source: the regulator's own register, the operator's current terms, or the payment network's documentation.
  • If the claim is wrong, we correct it and update the page's last-reviewed date.
  • If the claim was materially misleading — a licence status, a payout claim, a bonus figure, a legal statement — we add a dated correction note on the page rather than editing silently.
  • If the claim was minor (a typo, a broken link, a small stale figure), we fix it and refresh the review date without a note.
  • If we cannot verify either version, we remove the claim rather than leave a contested statement live.

Reports touching responsible-gambling resources or legal statements are treated as urgent and handled ahead of anything else in the queue.

Scheduled re-review

Corrections are reactive; scheduled re-review is how we reduce the need for them. Review and comparison pages carry a last-reviewed date and are re-checked against the operator fact-check checklist. Support-service listings on our support-by-country page are re-confirmed on their own cycle, because a dead helpline link is the most damaging kind of stale fact on the site.

How scores are produced in the first place is set out in our review methodology, and the commercial relationships behind our links are described in our affiliate disclosure.

Common questions

How do I report a mistake on this site?
Use the on-site chat or the contact route on our editorial team page, and include the page URL, the specific statement you think is wrong, and a source if you have one. Reports from operators are handled the same way as reports from readers.
Do you remove pages instead of correcting them?
Only when a page is no longer accurate enough to be repaired or the topic no longer exists. Where a page is removed, the URL is redirected to the closest still-accurate page rather than left to 404.
Will an operator's commission affect whether you correct a review?
No. A verifiable factual error is corrected regardless of the commercial relationship, and a correction that reflects badly on a partner is published on the same terms as any other.