We begin each sister-site investigation with two named services and the legal company said to operate each one. The exact domains matter: a shared name can conceal different legal statements, while several addresses may lead to one brand. Each page credits its author or authors; Crownforest Editorial Desk is the publisher. We identify the source and date behind the lead answer, then distinguish the operator from any parent company, payment agent, software provider or affiliate programme named nearby.

For a GB-licensed service, we search the Gambling Commission business register by the exact domain, trading name and company name. We then read the current terms and identified operator pages. The Commission notes that businesses supply its domain and trading-name information, so we check the exact address and source date. For a brand without a clear GB record, we state what its own documents say about its operator and licensing and do not imply that a foreign licence provides GB authorisation.

A same-operator finding needs the legal company attached to both services in the gambling role. The register and customer terms can provide that match. An affiliate roster answers why two brands are marketed together; common games explain even less about the contract. The FatPirate investigation applies that distinction to named casinos in one affiliate programme. We keep older links dated and show a genuine conflict between current operator statements rather than selecting whichever name seems more convenient.

Regulatory findings are attributed to the entity and period in the regulator's decision. An operator-wide finding is not an allegation about each brand or customer. We do not claim to have deposited, played, withdrawn or interviewed an operator unless that work is recorded.

For an account dispute, keep the terms, transaction record and messages. Raise the issue through the operator's complaint route, then check the applicable Gambling Commission guidance for a GB-licensed service. A foreign-licensed account may have a different escalation route.

The date on a source-led page tells readers when its changeable claims were checked. If newer terms change the operator, we update the opening answer and the passage that supports it together. We retain a former relationship as dated history only when it helps explain the case. If the available documents establish only an older association, the opening answer says so. We do not extend that history to a current account without a present operator source.

The correction form below accepts the affected page, an explanation and an optional source link. It stores the report for editorial review; sending it does not change the public page immediately. We compare a suggested document with the page's current evidence, check the domain and dates, and update the answer if the correction is supported. The form is for Crownforest's published claims, not for an account complaint to a casino.

For a correction, name the sentence and provide the newer document for the same casino address. A brand list without a company role or date may prompt a review, but it cannot replace the published operator finding.

What must the source record contain for each brand?

Our reader's verification blog shows how to collect the two-domain evidence for a specific comparison. A working record names the exact domains, the company named as gambling operator at each, the role assigned to that company, the source URLs and the dates checked. We then describe the relationship the documents actually show. “Same operator” needs matching operator evidence; “same group” needs a documented corporate link but may involve different operating entities; “affiliate or software association” describes a commercial or technical connection only. We name a sister brand only when the legal relationship is supported, and attach a date to historical records. The Commission's guidance on third parties also distinguishes a licensed operator's responsibilities from work carried out by another business.

A domain can move, a brand can change company, and a page can remain indexed after its legal terms are replaced. We therefore avoid making a timeless claim from a dated snapshot. On a material update, the lead answer should be revised before surrounding context, so that a reader does not have to reach the end to discover that a former sister relationship no longer holds. The relevant source and change date should be recorded in the page or its editorial source record.

The Mr Vegas sister-site record shows why a domain count must be checked against brand identities. The Commission lists two Video Slots addresses alongside Mr Vegas and Mega Riches under Videoslots Limited. We count Video Slots once, then check each brand’s own terms before describing account or promotion rules. The addresses and their status labels are visible in the Videoslots domain record.

Which conclusions need separate account or promotion evidence?

The welcome-offer eligibility blog starts with the offer's terms and the customer's account history. A shared operator does not prove a shared login, balance, exclusion setting or welcome-offer rule; a regulator's domain record does not describe every customer agreement. A sanction against a company does not automatically identify the brand, account or customer involved unless the regulator does so. We use narrower language when the source is narrower, even when a broader phrase would make a simpler headline. An overseas licence statement is not a Great Britain licence, as the Gambling Commission explains.

Where an article shows a screenshot of a relevant source page, its caption identifies the source and capture date; the linked live page remains the document to check for changes. Images illustrate the document trail, while linked text carries the factual claim. The screenshots do not certify that a third-party site's statement is correct.