Methodology: how we trace provenance
Provenance is a factual question with public answers. We answer it only from sources you can re-check, and we say "verifying" rather than guess. This page sets out exactly what we publish, the line we will not cross, and how we test every claim before it reaches you.
What we publish, and what we won't
We record a provenance claim, meaning the operating entity, the parent group, any sister brands and the licence, only when it is publicly documented. A claim earns a place in the database when it can be traced to the casino's own footer or Terms, to a regulator's licence register, or to a verifiable corporate record such as a company-registry filing. Those are sources a reader can open and read for themselves, which is the whole point.
Anything that is not publicly documented is marked "verifying" and withheld. We do not infer ownership from a hunch, a rumour, or a forum post, and we do not fill a gap with a plausible-sounding guess. If we cannot cite it, you do not see it stated as fact. That rule costs us completeness, and we accept the trade: a smaller set of claims you can trust beats a larger set you cannot. When a source later surfaces, the field moves from "verifying" to a dated, cited entry.
The line we will not cross
We never call a brand a "scam" or a "clone" as an accusation. Those are loaded words, and using them as labels would be both unfair and legally reckless. Instead we describe operator structure and any regulatory action neutrally, with a date and the named regulator or source attached, so the reader judges the facts rather than our adjectives. "Operator X holds an Anjouan licence issued on this date" is a fact; "Operator X is a scam" is an opinion we will not publish.
A flag on a non-partner brand carries a higher bar still. It requires hard public evidence and a right of reply: we contact the operator, set out what we intend to publish, and record their response before anything goes live. Where a brand is one we may earn a commission from, we apply a deliberately narrow label. "Established" means a recognised, non-cloned operator — not a re-skin of a known-bad record under a fresh name. It is not a claim about hidden ownership, not an endorsement, and not a safety guarantee, and the commission relationship is disclosed on the same page. Keeping that label modest is how we stay honest about our own incentives.
How we verify the database
Behind each entry sits a fixed set of checks. We read the footer operating entity and its registration number, then match the licence number on the regulator's own public register: the Curaçao Gaming Authority at cert.cga.cw, the Anjouan regulator at anjouangaming.com, or the Malta Gaming Authority at mga.org.mt. At each one we check that the certificate's listed domain matches the site we are looking at. A badge that merely links back to the casino proves nothing; the register entry is what counts.
Two further checks build the sister-site map. We take a Terms-and-Conditions fingerprint, comparing distinctive clause wording across sites, because identical house-written clauses rarely appear by accident. And we compare shared cashier screens, support domains and platform templates, which point to a common backend. We require at least two independent matches before stating that two brands share an operator. One coincidence is not a finding; two corroborating signals, each separately documented, is the floor. The full reader-facing version of these steps lives on our how-to-check guide.
A caveat we apply rigorously
A shared registered-agent address is not evidence of common ownership. Hundreds of Curaçao companies list the same Willemstad service address because a single agent files for all of them, so a matching address tells you who handled the paperwork, not who owns the business. We never infer a sister-link from a shared address alone, and we discount it as a signal even when everything else looks suggestive.
We also treat research strings as corroboration, not proof. Footers are frequently rendered by JavaScript or swapped by geo-targeting, so a cached or third-party copy of a footer can be stale or wrong. Before publishing, we re-read the live footer ourselves and click through to the regulator certificate, confirming the entity and domain on the day we record them. If the live page disagrees with our notes, the live page wins.
"Established", "verifying", and negative findings
Documented facts publish with a date so you can see how fresh they are. Unverified specifics stay "verifying" until a source exists, and a brand labelled "established" is one that survived the checks above without resolving to a known-bad operator. The labels are descriptive, not promotional.
We also publish negative findings, and we think they matter as much as the positive ones. When the evidence shows that two brands are not linked, that Brand X is not a clone of Brand Y, we say so plainly and date it. Correcting a wrong assumption is as useful to a reader as confirming a real connection, and it keeps a popular rumour from hardening into accepted fact. A provenance desk that only ever confirms links would be a poor one.
Transparency, corrections and authorship
This site is free to use. Some "Visit" links are affiliate links routed through /go/ and clearly marked; if you sign up through one we may earn a commission via the Duel programme, at no cost to you. That commission never changes a finding, a label, or the order in which evidence is weighed. The disclosure sits with the link, not buried in a footer — see about for the full funding picture.
Operator structures change as companies are sold, relicensed or wound down, so every claim is dated and re-checked on a rolling basis rather than written once and left. Entries are compiled by the CasinoCloneCheck Research Desk, our editorial brand, and we invite corrections and right-of-reply from operators and readers alike. If you hold a source that updates a finding, send it to us and we will cite it and date the change.
FAQ
What does 'established' mean on this site?
It means a recognised, long-running brand that is not a flagged clone or a re-skin of a known-bad operator. It is not a claim about undisclosed ownership, an endorsement, or a safety guarantee — just that the brand isn't a fresh-name disguise for a bad record.
Why do some fields say 'verifying'?
Because we publish operator entities, licences and sister-site maps only with a public source and a date. Until we've cited one, the field reads 'verifying' rather than a guess. We never assert ownership we can't evidence.