Editorial Policy

PPCasinos is an independent review site. The team writes about real money gambling, which means our work has to be accurate, honest about its commercial model, and easy to challenge when we get something wrong. This page sets out the rules the editorial team works under.

For who we are and how we score casinos, see our about page and review methodology. This page is the rulebook that sits behind both.

Independence

PPCasinos is funded by affiliate commissions. Affiliate income does not buy placement on the site, does not influence rankings, and does not shield a casino from a downgrade. Ratings are set by the methodology and signed off by the editor.

If a casino offers us a higher commission to move up our recommended list, the answer is no. If a casino threatens to pull its programme because we won’t, the answer is still no — and the review stays. We have removed casinos from recommended lists in 2026 despite active commercial relationships, and we will do it again.

Sources and verification

We work from primary sources wherever they exist. That means the operator’s own published terms and conditions, the casino’s cashier page, and the public register of the regulator that licenses them — not a press release or another comparison site.

• UK casinos are checked against the UK Gambling Commission public register.
• Malta-licensed casinos are checked against the MGA licensee register.
• Italian-facing casinos are checked against the ADM register where applicable.
• Bonus T&Cs are read in full at the time of review and screenshotted for our internal record.

If a fact comes from a secondary source — a forum thread, a news story, a player complaint — we treat it as a lead, not a finding. We verify it ourselves before it goes on the page.

Updates and freshness

Online casinos change their terms more often than they admit, so freshness is part of the editorial standard, not an extra.

• Hub pages — country pages, payment guides and “best of” lists are reviewed quarterly. The visible update date reflects the most recent substantive review, not minor edits.
• Casino reviews — re-tested quarterly as standard, and on-event whenever a casino changes ownership, rebrands, changes licence, changes bonus terms, or starts attracting a pattern of player complaints.
• How-to guides — reviewed twice yearly and on-event whenever PayPal or a major operator changes a process.
• Date stamps — every page carries a visible “Updated” date. If a page hasn’t been substantively re-checked in over six months, it’s flagged in our internal queue for refresh.

Corrections

If you’ve found an error on the site — a stale bonus figure, a wrong licence number, a withdrawal claim that doesn’t match your experience — please tell us. The fastest route is the form on our contact page.

Our pledge: we read every correction request, we reply within two working days, and we publish a dated correction notice on the affected page when we change a substantive fact. Minor edits (typos, broken links) are made silently. Substantive edits (changed ratings, corrected facts, withdrawn claims) are logged on the page with the date and a short note.

AI use disclosure

We use AI tooling as part of the editorial workflow. Specifically, AI assists with first-pass research summaries, grammar and style checks, and structural editing of long pages. It does not set ratings, it does not write final review verdicts, and it does not replace the human test of a casino.

Every published page is read, edited and signed off by a named member of the editorial team. The reviewer named at the foot of a page is the human accountable for what the page says — including the parts that started life as AI drafts. If you ever see content on the site that reads like unreviewed AI output, please flag it via the contact page and we’ll fix it.

Fact-check process

Operator T&Cs are parsed at the time of writing and held in our internal record so we can show our working if a claim is challenged. Numbers that change frequently — bonus values, wagering, withdrawal limits, processing times — are double-checked against the casino’s live cashier or bonus page before publication.

Where a claim is contested or comes from a single source, we double-source it. A complaint about withdrawal delays, for example, has to be visible across at least two channels (operator support log + a public review platform, or a regulator notice + a player report) before we publish it as a finding rather than as an open question.

Numbers from regulators, payment providers or our own tests are dated. If you see a figure on a review page that no longer matches reality, that’s the trigger for an on-event re-test.

Comments and user feedback

Where a page accepts comments or user feedback, we moderate before publication. We publish honest reports of player experience — positive or negative — and we don’t delete comments that are critical of casinos we recommend, including those we have an affiliate relationship with.

We do remove: personal abuse, posts containing personal data, posts that name individual casino employees, spam, and anything we believe is paid promotion. If a casino believes a comment about them is false, the route is the same as a correction request — through the contact page, with evidence.

Adverts and sponsorships

We don’t publish sponsored content disguised as editorial. If a piece is paid for, it carries a clear “Sponsored” label and is kept off the comparison tables and recommended lists. Current policy in 2026 is that we do not run sponsored editorial.

Affiliate links — which fund the site — are a different thing. They sit inside editorial reviews and they are disclosed on every page that carries them. The standing disclosure is on our advertiser disclosure page; how it interacts with scoring is covered in the methodology. For data handling see our privacy policy; for player welfare see our responsible gambling page.

Reviewed by Eleonor Lau, CAMS-certified compliance analyst, PPCasinos, April 2026.

How we use AI-assisted tools in our editorial process

Our editorial team uses AI-assisted tools for specific, bounded tasks: initial research summarisation (condensing regulatory documents and operator terms into readable notes), draft first-pass structure, grammar and style checking, and multilingual localisation review. Every AI-assisted draft is reviewed, fact-checked and rewritten by a named human editor before publication. No article on PPCasinos is published without human editorial oversight; the AI tools are writing assistants, not authors.

Handling of factual claims and corrections

Every numeric claim on PPCasinos (bonus amounts, wagering requirements, withdrawal timing, regulator licence numbers, helpline numbers) is checked against a primary source before publication — the regulator’s public register, the operator’s own cashier page, the national problem-gambling council’s official phone directory. Where a fact changes between publication and the reader’s visit — as bonus terms and licensed operator rosters frequently do — we update the page as soon as we identify the change, and we publish a visible “Last updated” date on every money page.

If you spot a factual error on PPCasinos, email us at corrections@ppcasinos.com with the URL and the specific claim you believe is incorrect. We investigate every correction request within 72 hours. Confirmed errors are fixed in place and noted in the page-level changelog.

Conflict-of-interest disclosures

PPCasinos operates an affiliate commercial model — we earn referral fees when readers sign up at operators through our outbound links. This structure, common across consumer-review sites, creates a potential conflict of interest: the incentive to recommend high-commission operators is real. Our editorial firewall manages this:

• Scoring and ranking decisions are made by editorial staff without access to commission-rate data.
• Commission rates are not a weighting factor in our published scores.
• Operators are not permitted to influence review content in exchange for commission uplift.
• We publicly disclose our commercial relationships on every review page and in our advertiser disclosure.

Reader feedback and complaint handling

Reader complaints about a specific operator’s behaviour are investigated by our editorial team. Where a pattern emerges (multiple complaints about the same practice at the same operator), we update the review and may flag the operator for re-test. If the re-test confirms poor practice, we either reduce the operator’s rating or remove it from our directory entirely. Our directory has been thinned multiple times on this basis — a practice we think of as part of genuine editorial responsibility rather than a cost of doing business.