The short answerOur current method compares the evidence supporting a claim. It does not assign operator star ratings or imply deposit testing that has not been performed.

What we currently publish

PlayVeritys publishes explanations of rules, game mathematics, payment claims and verification methods. This edition has no operator rankings, referral buttons or paid placements. A method article is not evidence that every operator has been evaluated.

Google’s review guidance emphasises experience, evidence and useful comparisons. We therefore distinguish source research from direct tests and mark fictional examples as examples.

Google Search Central — writing high-quality reviews ↗

Separate sources by the question they answer

SourceUseful forLimit
Effective official legal instrumentThe published rule and scopeApplication to one product needs facts and qualified assessment
Regulator registerRecorded entity, domain and licence statusDoes not test every payment or term
Supplier rule sheetDescribed game mechanicsDoes not certify every site claiming to offer it
Operator termsThe operator’s published conditionsA claim is not proof of performance
Customer reportA reported experience to investigateNot a confirmed finding by itself

“Primary” does not always mean independent: an operator’s own terms are primary evidence of what it claims, not independent evidence that it fulfils those terms.

The claim record

For each material statement, record the exact domain, entity, quoted or summarised claim, source URL, source date, check date and the conclusion it supports. Keep a separate field for what remains unverified.

A licence check should identify its regulator record. A payout-speed check would need a described transaction and timestamps. Neither can be replaced by a brand-wide label copied from another comparison list.

Malta Gaming Authority — Licensee Register ↗

Conflict and uncertainty

If a footer names one company and the terms another, do not silently choose one. Record the mismatch and look for a documented explanation. If a source is unavailable, label the claim unverified rather than turning absence into a fraud accusation.

Use language that matches the evidence: “the operator states,” “the register lists,” “the complainant reports,” or “our illustrative calculation shows.” Those statements answer different questions.

Scoring, commercial interests and revisions

We do not publish a numerical trust score in this edition. If one is introduced, it must explain criteria, evidence and weights, and disclose material commercial relationships. Unknown information should remain unknown; it should not become a fabricated average score.

The check date reflects an actual source review. An updated headline year is not a review. Record substantive changes and correct claims when better evidence becomes available. Market eligibility requires separate legal assessment; an editorial label cannot provide it.

For the wider context, read our India online casino guide.

Common questions

Does your methodology mean every operator was tested?

No. We publish the method and its limits, not a claim of completed comparative testing.

Do you give five-star casino ratings?

No. No operator ratings or paid placements are published in this edition.

Sources & notes

Sources checked 14 October 2026. Prepared with AI assistance and checked against the linked sources.