About Alterplay

Public-record forensics, not reposted press releases.

Every operator profile on Alterplay starts the same way. We pull the brand's UKGC licence number from the public register, cross-reference it against Companies House to identify the licence holder and its officers, trace the parent-company chain through annual accounts and confirmation statements, and audit the brand's own footer disclosures against what the public record says.

Where the public record disagrees with the brand's disclosures, we say so. Where licence conditions have been varied — a regulatory action that often signals a prior breach — we record the date of variation and the conditions involved. Where the operator has paid a settlement or fine to the Gambling Commission, we publish the amount, the year, and a one-line summary of the breach.

This is documentary research, not opinion journalism. We do not speculate about an operator's intentions. We document what the registered company filed, what the regulator published, and what the brand's own disclosures said on the date we last checked. For the full breakdown of how we research, what tools we use and what we look at, see our methodology page.

What we publish.

Sister-site network maps tracing every UK casino brand back to its parent operator, licence holder and registered company. Each map cites the UKGC licence number, the registered company name from Companies House, and the date the relationship was last verified. Where a brand has migrated between operators, the migration date and previous licence holder are documented chronologically.

Operator profiles drawn from public records — licence conditions, officer appointments, regulatory enforcement actions, fine amounts and the dates they were issued. Where an operator has been through a merger, acquisition, rebrand or licence migration, the history is documented in order. We name directors, parent companies and ultimate beneficial owners only where Companies House or equivalent public registries already publish them.

Player-submitted feedback presented in the player's own words, with corporate context added by our editors. Submissions are checked for authenticity but not edited for tone, and we publish negative reports as readily as positive ones. Every report is dated and attributed to the operator the player named, not the brand we would prefer to highlight.

Ongoing monitoring with a "last verified" date on every article. Operators rebrand, licences migrate, brands launch and shut down — the UK gambling market changes faster than annual review cycles can keep up with. Every Alterplay article carries a verification date, and articles older than ninety days are flagged for re-review.

What we don't.

We do not produce subjective quality scores. The "9.4 out of 10" rating you see on most casino comparison sites is, in nearly every case, an editorial fiction unsupported by any underlying methodology. We do not publish those numbers because we cannot defend them.

We do not run "Top 10" rankings driven by commission. The casinos at the top of an Alterplay list are there because of what the public record shows about them, not because of what they pay per registration.

We do not publish reviews unsupported by public records. If we cannot trace a claim to a UKGC document, a Companies House filing, an operator disclosure or a verifiable player report, the claim does not appear in our research.

We do not fabricate win-rate statistics, payout percentages, or any other figure that cannot be traced to a verifiable source. Where an operator publishes its own RTP data, we cite the operator. Where it does not, we say nothing.

When we cannot verify a claim, we say so. When an operator declines to comment, we record it. When a brand migrates between licence holders, we update the affected articles and timestamp the change.

How affiliate revenue affects our research — and how it doesn't.

Our revenue comes from affiliate partnerships with licensed operators. We may earn a commission if you click through one of our outbound links and register an account at the operator on the other end. Outbound links to brands we have a commercial relationship with are flagged as such on every page they appear.

This relationship does not influence our research methodology, our editorial decisions, or the factual accuracy of our operator profiles. A brand we hold an affiliate relationship with does not receive a different write-up from a brand we do not. A regulatory fine is documented whether or not the operator is a commercial partner. A licence breach is published with the same prominence regardless of commercial relationship.

Operators do not receive advance copy of articles. Operators do not approve content before publication. Operators have no editorial input. Requests to remove unflattering material are declined as a matter of policy. Requests to correct factual errors are honoured immediately and timestamped at the foot of the affected article. For the full breakdown of which commercial relationships exist, how affiliate links are marked, and how to read our outbound link structure, see our affiliate disclosure.

How we fact-check and source.

Every factual claim on Alterplay is sourced. UKGC licence references cite the licence number and the date the register entry was last consulted. Companies House references cite the company number, the filing type, and the filing date. Regulatory enforcement references cite the public statement issued by the Commission, including the publication date and the financial amount.

Where two public sources disagree — for example, where a brand's footer disclosure names a different licence holder than the UKGC register shows — we publish both, document the discrepancy, and contact the operator for clarification. We do not pick the more flattering version of a contested fact.

Articles are reviewed by at least one editor other than the original author before publication. Articles touching on regulatory enforcement are additionally reviewed by our licensing analyst. The author and the reviewer are both named at the foot of every article.

If you spot a factual error, we want to hear about it.

If you find a misattributed brand, an outdated licence status, a missed enforcement action or any other factual error in an Alterplay article, email corrections@alterplay.co.uk with the URL of the article and a brief description of the issue.

Verified corrections are made within 48 hours of receipt and the article is timestamped accordingly. We do not silently edit factual content. Every correction adds a "Corrected on [date]" line at the foot of the article along with a short note describing what changed and why.

We treat corrections from operators and corrections from players the same way. The standard for accepting a correction is whether it is supported by a verifiable public source, not who submitted it.

Working with Alterplay.

For research enquiries, corrections, partnership questions or media requests, see our contact page.

For weekly operator intelligence — fines, ownership changes, new launches and licence revocations — subscribe to our alert list on the homepage.