January-June 2026

We managed a total of 295 cases during first six months of 2026, of which 48 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 247 cases informally against operators for whom we do not act as a formal ADR.

Compared to 2025, this represents a 6% decrease in ADR cases managed, and a 6% 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 were 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 23.4% of all cases accepted by this service when acting as ADR vs only 12.1% 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 16.1% of all claims.

Year-on-Year Changes: Comparative to 2025 the most notable changes in ruling rates has been a significant decrease in the Abandonment rate, down by 68% for ADR complaints. We still saw a steady increase of 30.7% for non-ADR complaints. Year on year, 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 the first half of 2026?

The gap between the money recovered via ADR complaints and non-ADR complaints is once again quite substantial this year. Given the divergence in the increase in complaint volumes for these two categories, this was to be expected. The significant difference this year is a higher success rate for non-ADR.

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:

The year-on-year trend has flipped this year with the players recovering far more money when their complaint is against one of a non-ADR operator.

Having said this, it’s important to point out that these figures are skewed towards a singular 60K+ payment that we managed to resolve for a non-ADR client earlier this year.

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 players 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 usually far less successful at recovering money for players.

Some notable complaints over the first half of 2026:

Scam Casino - Although we haven’t had any notably specific operator complaints this year, we'd like to discuss a worrying trend of unlicensed operators/scam casinos - the names change from site to site and complaint to complaint, but the design of the sites is the same.

You will find that the logo is always a spade (the standard card suite) with a tilde running across it. They always have a notable figure in sports or entertainment on the homepage, and you are not allowed to see any of the website without registering your details.

These gambling operators provide no licensing information, no contact information (other than a live chat feature) and no links to any terms and conditions of privacy policy when registering, despite asking players to agree to them.

These operators usually come up with fanciful reasons to require players to make additional payments to them before they will be able to process withdrawals. From what we've seen, regardless of whether players pay these fees, they never receive their withdrawal. There's always another fee that needs to be paid before the operator can make a payment.

Underage gambling refunds – we had two significant underage gambling refund requests in the first half of 2026 – one for LVBet and one for LeoVegas – both are ADR clients.

Both these complaints took far more than 90 days to close, with one of them being abandoned by the complainant after 140+ days. Although we understand that these kinds of requests require the operator to look at the case in minute detail, we still experienced push back from the operators (our clients) when we asked for proof/evidence of why they believed these cases were merely fraud and not genuine cases.

The process in regard to these types of complaints needs to be far clearer so it makes it easier for both the operator and the complainant to get a quicker resolution and a safer one where actual fraud could be present.

We do not have a clear solution for such cases, but we would like to see better co-operation from the operator side and for some operators (especially ones with new members on the Compliance Team) to understand that we are there to act as a middle person, and we are also trained sufficiently. Merely telling us that if the person is from a particular country, then it must be fraud is not enough. We need evidence to back up the allegation.

How often do operators comply with the rulings we give?

Over the course of the first six months of 2026 every ruling we have issued as an ADR has been complied with. This is in line with compliance rates from 2025.

When acting informally only 59% 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 result in the player recovering money.

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.

For both ADR and non-ADR complaints, we have seen a slight increase in the time taken to manage complaints in comparison to 2025. We would attribute this to players being a lot less responsive than usual and having to prompt a response far more than we had to during the same period last year.

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 2026 we’ve had 6 ADR complaints (12.5%) and 9 non-ADR complaints (3.75%) 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 change from last year when it comes to Bonuses and Multi-accounting. Whereas in 2025 we had seen a correlation between the two, this year we are back to 2024 figures. Multi-accounting issues are once again almost exclusively related to players opening more than one account to avail themselves of bonuses that they are not entitled to receive, while bonuses complaints were mostly comprised of players who misinterpret Bonus Terms and felt entitled to the winnings, nonetheless.

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:

After migrating our service to our new platform in the middle of February in 2025 we saw improved email notifications for complainants which appeared to have had a substantial impact on Abandonment rates, with a decrease in both ADR and non-ADR rates.

However, in the first half of 2026, we have seen yet another increase in Abandonment rate. We saw an increase of 8.6% in abandoned ADR cases, and a 9.5% increase in non-ADR cases. We attribute this to a possible increase in players not engaging with verification and operator customer support prior to logging a case with CasinoReviews and abandoning the case without notice once the operator pays them. We’ve also had a substantial rise in cases that include third party payments not being deposited successfully into accounts – we have observed an increased of these kind of cases coming from South Asian territories.

This year has seen a very slight increase in ADR complaints, with a slight increase in non-ADR complaints. This is not a substantial shift, and it is in line with the Abandonment Rates that we’ve experienced in 2026.

When the ground for declining complaints are examined, it can be clearly seen that the rise in declined ADR complaints is once again 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. As with previous years, the growth in this type of submission reflects the 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 the declined complaints break down for ADR and Non-ADR complaints:

- Delayed Payments – We have seen a significant increase in delayed payments from both ADR and non-ADR operators – in fact these represent 56% and 71.5%, respectively, of all cases for the first half of 2026.

The outward issue seems to be more rigorous AML and KYC checks on players with a variety of players being subjected to Source of Wealth checks. This becomes even more tricky when we look at EU states where operators are experiencing an increase in fraud-related cases. It seems that the players from these countries are labelled as high-risk automatically. This causes frustration and disappointment especially when they are requested to go through the expensive task of having all their KYC documentation notarised.

Although these kinds of checks are proving very effective in identifying situations where the person named on the account is neither the person operating nor funding the account.

We have observed that a lot of operators may also be using it as a delaying tactic in the hopes that the player plays and loses their winnings so they won’t have to pay the full amount.

We have no direct solution for this particular issue, but we are concerned that if the rise in cases correlates to delay tactics, it could harm reputations and trust in operators (whether MGA-licensed or not) and could push people towards a greyer/black market where they won’t require such high levels of security and verification.
 

- Self-Exclusions – One of the most frequent types of complaint occurring relates to Responsible Gambling policies and specifically the language surrounding the MGA self-exclusion system. Where most 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. 

- Lack of education among players in regard 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 the new ADR official, Maria Mizzi, has taken over the full ADR tasks. She has finished her 1 on 1 training for complaint management and continues her education in both MGA and UKGC licensing, as well as research on various licensing standards, including the Curacao, Anjouan and Tobique markets. She successfully completed two courses with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and is now an Associate Member of the organisation. Maria is also fully approved by both the MCCA (Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority) in Malta and the UKGC in the United Kingdom.

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 taking up the process, 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.