January-December 2025

We managed a total of 684 cases during 2025, of which 132 were submitted by players against MGA licensed operators that we officially act as ADR for (meaning that we have greater powers to enforce rulings) and 552 cases informally against operators for whom we do not act as a formal ADR.

Compared to 2024, this represents a 9% increase in ADR cases managed and a 40% increase in non-ADR cases.

To show the outcomes of complaints we are going to break the complaints into two pie charts – ADR Complaints and Non-ADR Complaints, as there are some substantial differences between the two groups:

From the above we can see:

Resolution: We are FAR more successful at securing a positive outcome for the player (Resolved) when they complain about an operator that we act as ADR for. We successfully resolved 20% of all cases accepted by this service when acting as ADR vs only 12.7% when acting unofficially.

Found Against the Operator: Where we have been acting officially as an ADR, we have had a 100% compliance rate with our rulings, meaning that we did not have to conclude any of these cases as Found Against the Operator (where we support the player’s claim but cannot get the operator to take appropriate action to resolve the case). When acting informally, this ruling outcome is the third most frequent, representing 16.9% of all claims.

Year-on-Year Changes: Comparative to 2024 the most notable changes in ruling rates has been a significant increase in the Abandonment rate, up by 27% for ADR complaints and 104% for non-ADR complaints. It seems likely that this is due players, initially, not giving enough time for the operator’s customer service to resolve the issue before they engage with CasinoReviews.com.

Alongside this we’ve once again seen an improvement in the resolution rate for non-ADR complaints.

How much money did we recover for players in 2025?

The gap between the money recovered via ADR complaints and non-ADR complaints is quite substantial this year. However, given the divergence in the increase in complaint volumes for these two categories, this was to be expected.

The total money recovered does not paint the full picture. The divergence in success rates between ADR and Non-ADR complaints becomes far more apparent when we look at average amount recovered per complaint:

We’ve observed the same overall trend  year-on-year; that being that players recover far more money when their complaint is against one of our ADR clients.

So, did we favour players or operators more often?

Counter intuitively, we rule in favour of players more often when we are acting informally. Why does this happen?

We do tend to favour the player far more often when dealing with complaints informally because i) there are more questionable practices engaged by operators in weaker licensing systems and ii) more operators simply refuse to discuss complaints, resulting in a default ruling in favour of the player.

What does this mean? It means that despite supporting the player’s claim more often when we manage complaints informally, we’re far less successful at recovering money for players.

Some notable operators and complaints over 2025:

- Abusive operator – In early June of 2025 we received a complaint by a Canadian player showing Betcoin.ag customer support agent was being abusive, condescending and using profanities when the player was asking him genuine questions. The case was eventually closed as Abandoned due to the player engaging in antagonistic behaviour himself and when called out by this service, he eventually stopped responding to our requests to provide further information.

- Blocking communication channels and prohibiting complaints after 3 days – A player alerted us to a Betiex.com casino Terms and Conditions clause that allowed them to refuse to speak to users unless they spoke to them within 3 days of an issue arising. Once the player tried speaking to them, they also proceeded to block all communication channels, including ignoring live chat and email messages.

Apart from the clause going against all customer support expectations and ethical practices, this also puts the player in a position where they cannot complain or ask for clarification on problems they face on the website.

Although in the end we ruled Against the Operator, we never managed to get in touch or discuss the players’ issue as the operator never answered our requests to get in touch.

- Contradictory Bet Settlements  – Goalbet casino had contradictory T&Cs on their site - one asserts that all bets are decided on regular time, unless clearly stated in the bet offer, the other that all bets include overtime unless they are one of the excluded markets.  This loophole allowed them to be in apposition to cherry pick which terms to quote in order to not pay the player.

Although we did not agree with the operator, and closed the case against them, the operator refused to change their position.

- Claiming a Joint Account is a Third-Party Payment Method – Golden Panda voided withdrawals and withheld winnings stating that the complainant had used a third-party payment method to play on the site. The player had in fact used a payment method which was on a joint account which he shared with his wife.

A third-party payment would be a payment method with someone else’s name entirely and would not belong to the person in question. A join account with the player’s name on it is not a third-party payment and should never be regarded as such.

Unfortunately, the operator never accepted our requests to make contact.

- Withdrawal Fee Scam – we have come across multiple cases of the same scam being run across different named online casinos, which al share the same logo. Unfortunately, the players were ed to believe they had won large sums of money and then presented with fanciful reasons to require players to make additional payments to them before they will be able to process withdrawals. It is obvious that whether the players pay these ever-increasing amounts or not, they will not get paid.

One of the defining features of these scam casinos seems to be the unauthorised use of different celebrities or sport stars as ‘endorsers’ and requiring a player to register and sign up before even looking at the games lobby or the site in general.

- Exploitation of Vulnerable Players – WhatsApp messages revealed that the complainant repeatedly indicated that they've spent more than they could afford, that they were in trouble, and that they felt ill due to the losses. The agent at Nitrobet, appeared to be intentionally avoiding asking the player any direct questions about their wellbeing, or whether they can afford to play. This culminated with the agent then encouraging the player to engage in high risk play to chase their losses. 

Loss chasing behaviour is widely associated with high levels of gambling harm. For an agent to be encouraging this type of behaviour in any player is extremely concerning. For them to be doing so with a player that showed substantive other markers of harm raises concerns about exploitation of vulnerability.

The defence presented by the operator appeared to rely on the player never having literally stated "I'm a gambling addict". The agent would have had to be entirely lacking in basic communication skills and the ability to interpret the nuances of any conversation not to pick-up from this interaction that this player was in trouble. Even setting aside the interpretive abilities of this agent, that the agent encouraged high risk, loss chasing behaviour in the player is a wholly concerning issue in its own right.

- Unlicensed operator charging players ‘German Tax’ – this request was quite similar to the previously mentioned ‘Withdrawal Fees Scam’ but on top of two fees for withdrawal, the player was also asked an additional €1000 fee for a German Tax on winnings. Not only was this not a GGL licensed casino, but neither the casino nor the play was in Germany, so the request was a pure scam in the end. Once again, we were not able to get in touch with the casino and closed the case as ruled Against the Operator.

How often do operators comply with the rulings we give?

Over the course of 2025 every ruling we have issued as an ADR has been complied with. This is a trend that is identical to 2024 where 100% of rulings were also complied with and is more representative of our usual rate of compliance over the years we have been approved.

When acting informally 66% of our rulings were complied with. Our leverage to enforce our rulings is substantially weaker when acting informally, meaning far fewer of the complaints where we support the player actually result in the player recovering money. However, seeing as we have gone over the 50% for the first time in the last few years, we’d consider this a success.

On average how long did the complaint management process take?

Why are we quicker when acting unofficially? We’re not. The lower average complaint length is a direct result of us closing many of these complaints faster because the operators involved are non-responsive. We close these complaints after approximately 21-28 days of trying to contact the operator without success. With so many of the cases in this group not receiving a response, these low figures drag the average down.

It should also be noted that we all cases were included in the above data set including around 8 cases that took over 100 days to conclude, as well as one which took close to 220 days.

The latter took longer due to the complaint being a multi-part issue, including 10% withdrawal fee which, although not clearly stated on the MGA licensed site, was upheld, the operator changing the terms of cashback while failing to notify the players that had signed up to the promotional offer, as well as previous settlement offer nade by the operator. In the end were able to resolve the issue and even managed to get a correct settlement for the complainant.

 In spite of the above case,  we have once again seen a substantial drop in the time taken to manage ADR complaints in comparison to 2024, with an average drop of 8.4%. In the case of non-ADR complaints, we saw an increase of 2.4%.

We understand it can be very frustrating waiting while a claim is managed, and it is our objective to ensure that your claim is managed as quickly as possible. But each claim is individual and some are far more complex than others. Where we have to contact regulators, payment providers, software providers etc, the length of time it takes to conclude a claim tends to rapidly inflate. Nevertheless, these cases represent only a small fraction of the claims we manage.

Over the course of 2025 we’ve had 6 ADR complaints (4.6%) and 16 non-ADR complaints (2.9%) take longer than 90 days to conclude.

What do the complaints we receive relate to? Where we accept a complaint they fall into one of eight categories:

i) Problems with bonuses,
ii) Opening more than one account (Multi-Accounting),
iii) Problems with a payment to or from an operator,
iv) Problems with KYC and other security procedures,
v) Basic breakdown in communications,
vi) Responsible gambling,
vii) Problems with the technical function of some aspect of the website or games

Breaking down complaints again in two groups we see:

In both sets Payment Problems and Security (generally verification issues) are the top two most common complaint types. These complaint types are closely intertwined as the most common reason for a delay in payment is incomplete verification. As such there is overlap between these groupings. If these two groups are considered together, both data sets have similar results.

We have observed a correlation between the data sets in the categories of Bonuses and Multi-Accounting, with both ADR and non-ADR complaints showing a higher frequency of Bonus related complaints and fewer Multi-Accounting issues. This is a change from last year.  Multi-accounting issues are almost exclusively related to players opening more than one account to avail themselves of bonuses that they are not entitled to receive, which in turn might push them to complain about bonus issues when they’re discovered by operators. When looked at in conjunction, these two categories represent approximately the same proportion of complaints across both data sets.

We consider a complaint abandoned when a player stops responding to our request for additional information or documentation relating to their claim. The rate of abandonment can be seen below:

This year we’ve seen an increase in Abandonment rates with ADR complaint Abandonment rates increasing by 10% year-on-year, whilst non-ADR rates increased by 26%. There were a larger number of non-ADR complaints that were raised before the player completed the operator’s internal disputes system and even after we ask several times for information, the complainant stops engaging and never confirms whether they received their payment.

This year has seen a significant increase (+10%) in ADR complaints. This is a substantial shift, resulting in us declining a higher proportion of ADR complaint than non-ADR complaints for the first time. This shift requires explanation. When the ground for declining complaints are examined, it can be clearly seen that this rise in declined ADR complaints is accounted for almost entirely in the 'Licensing Issues' category. These complaints generally relate to players from EU countries that have their own licensing system looking for us to uphold their national licensing rules over the MGA licensing standards. As an ADR appointed to manage complaints for MGA licensees, our function is to enforce the MGA licensing standards. We are not empowered to enforce the licensing standards of other regimes and as such have no option but to decline these cases and direct the player to contact the appropriate systems within their national regulatory system to pursue their case. The growth in this type of submission reflects the amplified political discord between the MGA and national regulators across Europe.

When we decline to take a case on, we do so for a variety of reasons. When acting as an ADR we cannot simply decline any complaint. It has to fall into clearly defined criteria before we decline it. When working unofficially, we do look to work to the same criteria as often as possible, but do allow for a few additional grounds for declination. We will detail below:

- The player hasn’t completed the operator’s internal disputes system (ADR) – generally, we do not decline cases for this reason, but we will direct the player to revert to the operator and allow for more time for the operator to act on the case, and return to us if they are still experiencing issues.

- The complaint is of a frivolous or vexatious nature (ADR) – This tends to be complainants who are persistent in communications that are rude, abusive or antagonistic in nature.

- Where another ADR service, court or regulatory agency has already reviewed the case (ADR) – This is self-explanatory. Much like a court, you cannot simply keep re-submitting your claim until you get the answer you want.

- Where the complaint is older than 12 months (ADR) – We do show some leeway in this and will, at our team’s discretion, review claims that are older. But the older a claim is the harder it is to obtain the necessary evidence to support it.

- Where the claim value is less than €10 (ADR) – Again we will at times set this restriction aside, but generally claims that are of this low a value have an extremely high abandonment rate and are not an effective use of this service’s times and resources.

- Where we have reasonable grounds to believe one or both parties has misled this service (ADR) – The ADR service requires good faith. Where one or both parties looks to engage in wilful deception it substantially impedes the function of this service. We reserve the right to decline to investigate a case further where we have reasonable grounds to believe one or both parties have misled our team.

- Where the workload involved in managing a complaint would impair the service’s ability to function (ADR) – Some claims involve more work to verify the claims that we can reasonably undertake. These cases are few and far between, but we do retain the right to reject claims on this basis.

- Where the claim is not appropriate for review by an ADR (ADR) – Generally where the issue relates to licensing, or lack thereof, or where the claim relates to a disputed financial transaction that is more appropriately managed by the polices or payment provider.

- Weak license responsible gambling claim (non-ADR) – Where the player’s complaint relates to responsible gambling protections against an operator who holds no license, or a license that requires licensees to provide no viable protections to players.

- Ambiguous claims (non-ADR) – Where there’s sufficient reason with the complaint submission and evidence we’ve reviewed to reasonably conclude that the player may have been involved in non-compliant activities.

- Repeated claims against weak licenses (non-ADR) – Where a player persistently chooses to play with weakly licensed operators, ignoring our warnings about doing so, we will stop accepting similar claims from them.

- Operator already offline (non-ADR) – Where the claim relates to an operator who has already closed down and as such cannot be reached to discuss the matter.

Here's how the declined complaints broke down for ADR and Non-ADR complaints:

- Maximum Bet Terms – Max bet terms continue to be a problem representing 9% of all claims that were ruled Found for the Operator and over $146k worth of claims.

Whilst these rulings are technically correct – in each case the player has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the bonus that they agreed to – this service cannot support the continuance of the circumstances that cause these complaints to arise.

The blunt reality is that these terms can and should be enforced automatically. Other licensing regimes require that these terms are enforced automatically and by allowing this loophole to persist, regulators create a situation where licensees effectively free-roll players, allowing violations to go unchecked where the player loses, but voiding any winning promotional play.

- Self-Exclusions – One of the most frequent type of complaint occurring relates to Responsible Gambling policies and specifically the language surrounding the MGA self-exclusion system. Where the majority of the world views a “self-exclusion” as a responsible gambling based account closure, within the MGA system a self-exclusion is not always considered to relate to gambling addiction. Under the Malta license players have to actively tell the operator at the time that they self-exclude that they are excluding due to reasons related to addiction before a self-exclusion would be treated as a problem gambling issue.

This is counter intuitive to users who expect that when they self-exclude, they will be recognised at using tools to manage gambling addiction. This is especially significant when the heightened emotional state of a self-excluding player is taken into consideration.

Alongside this, under the MGA licensing regime, a self-exclusion applies only to the url that it is requested at, unless the player has actively instructed the licensee to carry over the self-exclusion, or the player has directly stated that they exclusion is due to gambling addiction. Players naturally expect that where they request a self-exclusion, it will be applied to all properties that the licensee operates.

This type of dispute not only represents a large proportion of the overall case load but is ethically challenging to defend. These are vulnerable players that as an industry we should be working to protect. 

- High Risk Activity – Over the past years we have seen sustained high volumes of high risk activity, specifically originating in one Eastern EU country and one Western EU country. There is strong evidence to indicate that there are large numbers of accounts being registered that are being operated by people other than the person identified in the account information and that the name on the account is being used to allow a 3rd party to access welcome incentives that they are not entitled to.

This activity has been observed moving from group to group within the industry, generally targeting one group until such times as they have exhausted the proxy identities being used or the licensee takes steps to limit the value of the promotional incentives being offered. This activity has been observed both at our ADR clients and non-ADR clients, though admittedly our insight into their activity at non-ADR properties is more limited, and has over the time period worked through the better licensed systems and seems to be moving on toward Curacao licensed operators.

We cannot suggest any direct solution to this issue other than licensees restricting these countries from receiving promotional incentives or waiting for the attention of the parties who are directing this activity to shift to the unlicensed markets. 

- Source of Wealth checks - The increased levels of high risk activity detailed above is resulting in higher levels of enhanced due diligence being engaged, specifically Source of Wealth checks, with the intention being to establish exactly how the account holder came to be the legal owner of the funds put into play.

These checks are resulting in higher levels of frustration for users, but they are also proving very effective in identifying situations where the person named on the account is neither the person operating nor funding the account.

Again, we have no direct solution to this particular issue.

- Lack of education among players in regards to licensing – over the past months we have seen multiple complaints raised regarding weak licensing and licensing where players are not aware how to spot the correct licenses or even fake ones. There is also a belief that every license is equal to the other and that weak licenses like Comoros, Anjouan, and Curacao, will give them the same protection that an MGA or UKGC-licensed casino will. Some players also believe that if a casino operates in a jurisdiction, even if unlicensed, the local/national regulator will help them with their issue, whereas this is definitely not the case.

Once again, this is an issue which is difficult to find a direct solution for, especially since a lot of countries continue increasing license requirements, but have not taken action in realistically combatting the black market.

In the past 12 months we have been training a new ADR official – Maria Mizzi. She has undergone 1 on 1 training for complaint management. She has successfully completed two courses with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and is now an Associate Member of the organisation.

Our new ADR official is assisting the current Head of ADR, Duncan Garvie, with onboarding requests, and has done extensive 1 on 1 training and research on various licensing standards, including the Maltese, UK, and Curacao markets.

We maintain an open door policy with any other ADR working within the industry and sustain a positive relationship with some of the most significant entities in the field. Most notably we continue to work closely with the Malta Gaming Authority, who are currently still sustaining a notable presence in terms of dispute review, both consulting on open cases where regulatory guidance is appropriate and offering feedback where our input is sought on other complaints the regulator is reviewing.

With a new ADR official onboard we aim to continue expanding the size and experience of our team to further improve the momentum we’ve built over the past years. We will continue keeping up to date with various licensing standards, improving o the efficiency of our service and improving our customer experience.