Our sources: the documents we read before awarding a score

Provincial registers

The starting point for the criterion that carries the most weight. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario publishes the operators it has registered, and iGaming Ontario publishes the operators it holds agreements with. Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis does the same for Alberta.

We search these by the operator's legal company name rather than its brand, because one company frequently runs several brands and the register lists the company. That single detail catches most of the confusion in this area.

Testing laboratory certificates

For game fairness we look for a certificate from a laboratory on the AGCO's own registered list — Gaming Laboratories International, eCOGRA and BMM North America are the recognisable ones, and there were eight in total when we read it — naming the operator or platform and carrying a date.

A claim on an operator's page that its games are "regularly tested" is not a source. Neither is a laboratory logo, which is trivially copied. A regulator's published standard is a source, and so is a register entry — read together they show what an operator is obliged to do, which is why a registered operator scores in the middle band on fairness rather than at zero. Only an openable certificate earns the top of that criterion.

A note on eCOGRA specifically, because it matters for anyone checking our work: a widely repeated claim in casino content holds that the organisation dissolved in 2021 and that no active certifications exist. That is false — it is operating, headquartered in the United Kingdom, and publishes its services openly. We mention it because it is the clearest example of why we do not read affiliates.

The operator's own terms

For fund protection, transparency and stated payout windows, we read the terms and conditions and the withdrawal policy rather than the marketing pages. Specifically: whether player balances are described as segregated and on what basis, what withdrawal caps apply per transaction and per period, what identity documents are required, and whether a pending period allows a withdrawal to be reversed.

We record what the document says, not what we infer from it. Where a figure is not stated we print "not stated" rather than an estimate.

Regulator and helpline publications

For complaint routes, exclusion programmes and legal ages we use the responsible body's own published guidance: the provincial regulators, the lottery corporations, ConnexOntario and the Responsible Gambling Council.

These also settle questions that vary by province and are frequently reported wrongly in national guides — the legal gambling age being the obvious one, at eighteen in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec and nineteen everywhere else.

What we never use as a source

Other review or affiliate sites, for any criterion. This is the rule that most shapes the site.

Operator marketing copy, as evidence of anything except what the operator wishes to claim.

Community threads and forum posts. They are often genuinely informative about what using a site feels like, and they are not documents.

Press releases about awards, which are almost always paid placements in a directory.

When a source cannot be found

It scores at the level its evidence supports, and the page states which level. Where a testing obligation is written into the operator's registration, the criterion scores eleven of fifteen; where nothing obliges testing and no certificate exists, it scores zero. We never carry an unscored blank forward as a neutral value, because a missing certificate and a satisfactory one are not the same thing and averaging them together would flatter the operator.

This is why our fairness scores currently sit low across the whole table: it reflects our verification work rather than the industry. As certificates are located, those scores will rise, and each change will appear in corrections.

How to check us

Open your province's register and search the operator's legal name. Open the operator's footer and confirm it names the same authority. Find the laboratory certificate and read its date. Then read the withdrawal section of the terms and note the caps rather than the advertised speed. Four steps, about five minutes.

If that exercise contradicts something here, write to us with the document. That is the most useful message we receive.