The Blacklist

What this page is

This is the list of operators found, against published criteria, to have engaged in documented conduct that puts players' money at risk. Their verdict is Guilty, their TrustAudit Index is capped at 2.0 — they can score below it, never above — and this site carries no link to them.

It is the most consequential page we publish and the one written with the most care. A blacklisting is a serious statement about a real company, and we make it the way a newspaper of record would: against criteria published in advance, on evidence we can show you, with the operator's response where it gave one, and with a route back off the list open to any operator willing to take it.

We do not blacklist on rumour, on a single bad review, on a forum thread, on a competitor's say-so, or because an operator declined to work with us commercially.

The criteria, published in advance

An operator is listed only where one or more of the following is documented — not suspected, not reported, not rumoured. Documented.

1. No valid licence for the market it accepts players from

The operator takes deposits from a jurisdiction for which it holds no valid licence, and we have checked the regulator's own public register to confirm it. This is not a paperwork oversight: the player has no regulator to complain to, no dispute resolution route, and no protection if the money is not returned.

2. Terms used to withhold winnings a player properly earned

Each of these must be enforced, not merely present in a terms document:

• Maximum-win caps applied to confiscate winnings: the player wins, the operator invokes a cap they were never meaningfully shown, and keeps the difference.
• Open-ended verification used as a payment barrier. Identity checks are legitimate and legally required. Checks that begin only when a withdrawal is requested, have no stated deadline, and are extended indefinitely through fresh document demands are not verification. They are a mechanism for not paying, and we treat them as one.
• Undefined "bonus abuse" or "irregular play" clauses invoked to void winnings, without the operator being able to state what rule was actually broken.
• Confiscation of the deposit as well as the winnings — keeping money that was never in dispute.

A predatory clause sitting unenforced in a terms document is a finding that costs an operator points on the register. A predatory clause used to keep a player's money is a blacklisting matter.

3. A pattern of unresolved cases with no operator response

Not one lost case. Not a disputed decision. A pattern: multiple cases in the Tribunal, from unconnected players, describing the same conduct, where the operator was formally notified, given a published deadline, and did not answer.

An operator that will not answer its players in public is telling you exactly how it will behave when you are the one waiting to be paid.

4. Documented non-payment of verified withdrawals

Withdrawals the operator itself approved, then failed to pay, with no explanation that survives examination.

5. Sanction or licence revocation by a regulator, where publicly recorded

We report what a regulator has itself published, link to its notice, and do not embellish it.

What a listing is, and what it is not

A listing is a statement about documented conduct and documented terms. It says: this is what the terms say, this is what was done under them, these are the cases, this is what the operator said when we put it to them.

A listing is not an allegation of criminality. We do not say an operator has committed a crime, or that it is a fraud or a criminal enterprise. We are not a court and do not have its powers, and dressing an editorial judgment in the language of a criminal verdict would be both wrong and reckless.

Nor is it a claim about the people involved. We describe conduct: a clause enforced, a case unanswered, a withdrawal unpaid, a licence absent. Where a player has alleged something we could not verify, the allegation stays where allegations belong — attributed to that player, in the Tribunal, in their own words, with the operator's answer beside it.

That distinction is the reason the list means anything. A blacklist that shouted "SCAM" at every operator someone was unhappy with would be worthless, and the first operator to challenge it would deserve to win. This one is built to be defended, line by line.

Every listing carries its reasons

Open any entry and you will find: which criterion was met, named explicitly; the evidence: the clause quoted, with the date we captured it and an archived copy of the page, the case numbers, and any regulator's notice linked to its own site; the date of the finding and of its last review; what we put to the operator, and when, because every operator is contacted before listing and given a chance to respond; its response in full and unedited, if it gave one, and a plain statement if it did not; and what would have to change for the listing to be reviewed.

If we cannot show you the reason, the operator does not go on the list. An unevidenced listing is not a cautious one. It is a rumour with our name on it.

The route off the list

A blacklisting is a description of conduct, not a life sentence. Conduct can change, and when it does the listing must change with it, or the list is a grudge rather than a record.

The route off is published and identical for everyone:

1. 01Remove the offending term from the live terms document, publicly — not in a private assurance to us, and not in a version shown only to players who complain.
2. 02Answer the outstanding cases in the Tribunal, on the record, and settle the ones that should be settled.
3. 03Pay the players who are owed, verifiably, with those players confirming receipt.
4. 04Tell us, at the address on every listing.

Then a stated cure window of 90 days, during which the operator must show sustained changed conduct — no new enforcement of the removed clause, no new unanswered cases, no new non-payments. A term deleted for a fortnight and quietly restored is not a fix, and the cure window exists to catch exactly that.

At the end of the window we review publicly. If the conduct genuinely changed, the listing is lifted and the record of it remains, with the date and what changed. We do not delete history. The operator returns to the register with its score recomputed from where it now stands, which will not be where it started, because past conduct is part of the record.

An operator that fixes its terms and pays its players has done the thing we wanted. Refusing to acknowledge that would mean the list was never about players' money at all.

No affiliate link. Not at any price.

We carry no affiliate link to any operator on this page. No review button, no comparison entry, no "visit site" link, no sponsored placement — at any commission rate, without exception.

This is enforced in the codebase, not promised in a policy: a Guilty verdict automatically strips the affiliate call-to-action from every surface of the site. It is not a manual step somebody could forget or be persuaded to skip.

We have been offered money to remove listings. We log every approach on the transparency page, and the answer has been no every time. If this list could be bought it would be worth nothing — to you, and therefore to us. A blacklist with a price is a rate card.

Blacklisted is not the same as unavailable in your market

These get confused constantly, and the difference matters.

An operator can be entirely reputable, sensibly run and licensed in three other countries, and still be one you should not touch, because it is not licensed where you are, which means you have no regulator, no dispute route and no protection. That is not a blacklisting. It is still a reason not to deposit.

And an operator can hold a valid licence in your market and be on this page anyway, because a licence has never prevented anybody from writing a predatory clause and enforcing it.

If an operator on this list currently owes you money

In this order, starting today.

1. 01Stop playing there and do not deposit again — not to unlock a withdrawal, not to clear a bonus, and not because support has promised a further deposit will release the balance. It will not. That request is itself a documented pattern.
2. 02Withdraw whatever balance you can, now, even partially, even at a fee. A haircut on money you actually receive beats the full amount you never do.
3. 03Preserve the evidence today. Screenshot your balance, transaction history, withdrawal requests and their status, the current terms, and every message. Account access disappears fastest at exactly the moment you most need the records.
4. 04File with the regulator, if the operator is licensed anywhere. This is the step with actual legal force. Every listing names the licensing body if there is one. If there is none, this route does not exist for you, which is the whole point of checking first.
5. 05Contact your payment provider. Card chargebacks have strict time limits, often 120 days from the transaction. Act inside the window rather than waiting for the operator to come good.
6. 06File a case in the Tribunal. It will not compel payment. It puts the conduct on the public record even where the operator will not answer, and it makes the next player's decision an informed one.
7. 07Get help if the amount matters to you. If this was money you could not afford to lose, please talk to someone — free, confidential support is here, and it matters more than the balance does.

Be realistic, because we would rather be useful than encouraging: money held by an operator that has stopped paying is often not recovered. That is precisely why the checks on the casinos register — licence, withdrawal limits, payout speed, complaint record — are worth the ten minutes they take before you deposit rather than after.

Challenging a listing

If you are an operator and believe a listing is factually wrong, write to us with the evidence. If we got it wrong we will correct it publicly and prominently, with an explanation of what we got wrong — not a silent edit.

We have corrected listings before and expect to again. A record that cannot be corrected is not a record; it is a position. The correction, like the listing, goes on the page.

What will not work is a legal threat unaccompanied by evidence. We publish those too.