What does our research establish?
A sister-site investigation must explain who runs each brand, how the brands are connected and which rules affect the reader. Those are separate findings, each requiring evidence. A shared operator alone is not enough for us to describe two casinos as identical.
This is the standard for our research and publication. Every article must distinguish documented information, editorial interpretation and unanswered questions. We do not turn an incomplete investigation into a recommendation.
Where does an investigation start?
With one specific question: who operates this casino, which brands share that operator, or whether a particular restriction covers another account. The question determines which documents we need.
The research record must identify the exact website, its UK-facing terms, the legal entity named there and the date accessed. We read the footer alongside the terms and relevant help pages. A brand name or logo is only the starting point.
How do we check the operator?
The operator named in the terms must be checked against the Gambling Commission’s register. It supports searches by business, trading name, domain and account number. Our checks cover the legal name, licence status, relevant licensed activities and listed domain.
The register notes that businesses supply their domain and trading-name information. We therefore compare the entry with the website’s current legal wording. A mismatch stays unresolved until evidence explains it. A licence entry is not a quality score or proof of withdrawal performance.
What makes two brands sister sites?
We require evidence of the specific connection being described. Our research separates four relationships:
- Licensed operator: the legal business operating the gambling service.
- Parent ownership: the corporate group behind that business.
- Platform provider: the supplier of the underlying technology.
- Shared terms: rules expressly covering more than one brand.
For ownership, we consult official corporate disclosures and relevant filings, including documents available through Companies House for UK companies. Matching company numbers helps distinguish similar names. An acquisition announcement must be checked for whether the transaction actually completed.
Each related brand needs its own evidence trail. Similar layouts, matching games or another website’s sister-site list are leads to investigate; they do not establish ownership. Historical relationships must be identified as historical, with closed or transferred brands separated from current connections.
Which rules do we compare?
We compare the actual wording for each brand. A group connection does not justify copying one casino’s terms into another’s review.
- Accounts: eligibility, duplicate-account restrictions and any group-wide account wording.
- Verification: stated document requirements, payment ownership checks and when further information may be requested.
- Withdrawals: minimums, maximums, fees, payment restrictions and stated processing windows.
- Rewards: wagering, expiry, excluded games and restrictions relevant to the question being answered.
- Support: published contact channels, opening hours and complaint procedures.
Every material condition needs its context. We distinguish an operator’s processing estimate from payment-provider delivery time, and a cash-balance rule from a promotional restriction. Missing wording is reported as missing, rather than interpreted in the operator’s favour.
How do we assess player protections?
The key check is scope: which accounts and websites does the published wording cover? We examine limits, time-outs, self-exclusion and the stated process for applying or changing them.
We never assume a control follows a player across all related brands. Where the wording leaves that unclear, the article must say so and recommend obtaining written confirmation from the operator. Sister-site research must never suggest another brand as a way around an exclusion or account restriction.
What counts as evidence of performance?
Published terms establish what an operator says. They do not demonstrate what happened to a player. Reading a cashier page is not a withdrawal test; finding live chat is not testing its response time.
Any first-hand claim must identify what was actually checked, when and under what conditions. Without that record, we describe the finding as document-based research. Player reports can highlight questions, but an unverified complaint cannot establish a pattern across an entire group.
When discussing regulatory action, we identify the named legal entity, the conduct described and the relevant period. We do not attribute that conduct to every related brand without supporting evidence.
How are findings written and checked?
The answer comes first, followed by the named operator, related brands, supporting evidence and practical consequence. Primary sources sit beside the claims they support, with concise links rather than repeated citations.
Before publication, each conclusion must be checked against its source. Research notes retain the document, relevant wording and access date. Conflicting evidence must be explained beside the affected finding. If the evidence cannot settle the question, the answer is “unconfirmed”.
What happens when information changes?
A reported ownership change, licence change, revised rule or identified error triggers a fresh check of the affected conclusion. Corrections must address related statements elsewhere on the site, and material changes should be explained on the article. We make no promise of automatic monitoring.
Conclusions rest on evidence and its limitations. Commercial value must never determine which relationships we report or which restrictions we explain.
