Editorial Policy
This page sets out the editorial standards Mega Casino applies to its reviews, guides and comparison pages. It exists so readers can hold us to a written rule rather than to whatever happens to feel reasonable on the day. Wider context for who runs the site is on the About page, and the flagship operator review lives on the Mega Casino homepage. Wherever this page documents a procedure — review production, fact-checking, corrections or freshness reviews — that procedure is followed for every piece of content published on the site.
1. Editorial independence
Mega Casino is funded through affiliate commissions earned when readers click through to an operator and complete sign-up there. The full mechanics are documented on the Affiliate Disclosure page. Editorially, the rule is simple: a partnership does not buy a higher rating, and the absence of one does not deliver a lower score. A consistent rating framework is applied identically to every operator receiving a full Mega Casino review. We have scored partner operators at six and below, and rated operators without any commercial relationship at eight and above. Sales, marketing and editorial run as separate workflows; the editorial team holds the final say on every published score.
2. Sources we trust
Mega Casino content draws from four types of source, weighted by reliability.
- Hands-on testing. Every published review is generated by setting up genuine accounts on the operator's own platform, funding them through real deposits and submitting real withdrawal requests against the cashier. This first-hand testing is the primary source feeding into a review for every claim other than verifiable third-party facts.
- Regulator and government records. Licensing status, ownership filings, UKGC register entries, GAMSTOP records, Gambling Act 2005 references. These are the authoritative source for any legal claim on Mega Casino.
- Independent player-community evidence. Long-running reputation as it appears across AskGamblers, Casino Guru and Trustpilot, alongside threads on Reddit and dedicated player forums. This is weighed in as a sanity check sitting against our own testing results, rather than treated as a primary source standing on its own.
- Operator-supplied content. Press releases, marketing pages and partnership briefings supplied by the operator itself. Material in this category is read purely for background context and is never reproduced as though it had been independently verified by us. Wherever a particular number traces back to the operator, the review states the origin explicitly.
3. Fact-checking
A four-step fact-check is run on every operator review before it goes live. Step one is verifying the licensing claim directly against the relevant regulator's public register. Step two takes the bonus arithmetic and recomputes it independently from the operator's published terms, then compares the working against the headline figure shown on the marketing page — any gap is flagged inside the review itself. Step three checks named payment methods, advertised withdrawal speeds and minimum deposits against the live cashier rather than the marketing FAQ, since those two sources frequently disagree. Step four spot-checks game-catalogue claims against named studios and specific titles to confirm whether the marketing actually matches what is sitting in the lobby.
Numerical claims that move frequently — bonus terms, withdrawal limits, minimum deposits — are tagged in our internal tracking and re-checked on the schedule outlined below. If a re-check reveals that the figure has shifted, the review is updated, the date at the top of the page is bumped, and a small dated note is appended at the foot of the review explaining what changed.
4. Quotation, paraphrase and attribution
Verbatim quotation is held back for documents where the precise wording carries weight — regulator notices, official terms and conditions, court filings. Across the rest of the content paraphrase is the default approach, with the underlying source named inline next to the relevant claim. Operator marketing copy gets paraphrased in our own editorial voice rather than reproduced; press releases issued by an operator are never republished as Mega Casino content. Where a third-party figure shows up in a piece — a Trustpilot star rating, an AskGamblers complaint count — the source is named in full and a working link to it is included.
For any statistical claim touching on gambling harm, regulatory enforcement activity or the overall scale of the UK online casino market, the source must be a government publication, an academic study or a peer-reviewed paper. Numbers issued by industry trade associations are only relied on when independent corroboration from one of those primary categories is also present.
5. Authorship and AI assistance
Each piece of content on Mega Casino is authored by a named human writer or member of the editorial team. AI tooling is permitted for narrowly bounded tasks only — drafting outlines, summarising lengthy source documents, running grammar checks, producing alternative headline options for review. AI tools are explicitly not used to generate the analytical heart of a review — the published score, the strengths-and-weaknesses balance, the comparative judgement — and are never used to fabricate quotations or invent testing results. Where a factual claim has its origin in an AI tool, that claim is independently verified before publication and the underlying source — not the AI tool — is what gets cited in the review.
6. Corrections and updates
The corrections workflow runs across three escalating tiers, with the appropriate response chosen by reference to the seriousness of the reported error.
- Minor (typo, broken link, formatting glitch): fixed silently within one business day.
- Substantive (a fact, a number or a claim that materially affects what a reader would decide to do): corrected within a five-business-day window, with a dated note added at the foot of the affected page describing exactly what was changed and the reason. The pre-correction wording is preserved in our internal version-history archive but is not republished anywhere on the live site.
- Material (an error big enough to change the overall verdict outright, or a regulatory development that touches multiple operators at once): corrected within two business days, with a prominent banner running at the top of the affected page for no less than 30 days, plus a notice posted on the dedicated corrections log reachable from this page.
Where any reader believes a Mega Casino page contains a factual error, the appropriate route to flag it is the Contact Us page. Any substantive complaint received gets logged against the relevant review on the internal record — independently of whether the requested correction is ultimately published.
7. Freshness
Every operator review is taken through a full top-to-bottom review at minimum once every twelve months, with the key data points — bonus terms, withdrawal speeds, supported payment methods — re-verified on a separate quarterly cadence. Topic guides and the underlying methodological pages are revisited on a yearly schedule. The "Last updated" timestamp shown at the top of every page reflects the most recent substantive factual review carried out — not merely the most recent typo-level housekeeping edit.
8. Conflict of interest
Mega Casino editorial team members do not hold equity in, accept consulting fees from or maintain paid affiliate relationships with the operators they personally review. Where a potential conflict arises, the writer is reassigned to a different operator and the reassignment is logged in our internal tracking. The site-level partnerships disclosed on the Affiliate Disclosure page are operational rather than personal, and run as a separate workflow from editorial.
9. Reader safety
Mega Casino reviews adult products. Three editorial commitments follow from that. First, no Mega Casino page frames gambling as a route to income; the framing is always "paid entertainment with downside risk". Second, every operator review and every comparative page links out to Responsible Gambling tools and the relevant UK helplines, as visible content rather than buried footnotes. Third, no Mega Casino page targets language, imagery or examples at minors, problem gamblers or self-excluded players. Where operator marketing crosses any of those lines, the review records it and the score reflects it.
10. Complaints, escalation and right of reply
Should an operator disagree with a published Mega Casino rating, they may write in to the editorial address with a specific factual claim attached to documented supporting evidence. Three outcomes are then possible: where the claim turns out to be correct, the review is updated and a correction note is appended; where the claim is partially correct, the review is updated for the verified portion and the rest of the claim is left as-is with the reasoning logged internally; where the claim is incorrect, the review remains unchanged and the operator is informed in writing of that decision. Pre-publication negotiation over published scores is not entered into at any point.
Should a reader hold concerns about Mega Casino editorial conduct, the escalation route runs through the Contact Us page; complaints raised about specific reviews receive a response inside a five-business-day window. Privacy-related questions concerning data held by the site are governed by the rules set out on the Privacy Policy page, with the matching technical detail of cookies and similar storage covered on the Cookie Policy page.