Editorial methodology
CasinosThatAccept is a research and comparison site. Our default process is official-source and regulatory research, supported by dated page captures. Unless a specific review explicitly labels a test as hands-on, we are not claiming that we opened, funded, and withdrew from an account.
Content updated August 23, 2026 · Facts checked August 23, 2026
1. Start with the jurisdiction
We identify the country or state covered by the claim. A bonus, payment method, or license shown in one location is not automatically valid somewhere else.
2. Collect primary evidence
We prioritize the operator's current terms, bonus page, cashier help, responsible-gaming page, and corporate disclosures. Material facts in updated reviews include direct source links.
3. Check the regulator
Where a regulator publishes a register, authorized-site list, enforcement notice, or license record, we use that record instead of repeating the casino's own badge.
4. Normalize the offer
We separate cash, casino credit, spins, lossback, and deposit matches. We show playthrough, expiry, a published offer minimum, and regional qualifications only when the operator publishes them.
5. Compare payment and payout claims
We retain payment-direction labels only when current operator material supports them. The signed-in cashier still controls account eligibility, limits, fees, and timing.
6. Capture what visitors actually see
Homepage and lobby screenshots show the locale and capture date. They are evidence of the page shown during that check, not proof that every player receives the same promotion.
7. Surface conflicts and missing facts
If the homepage and terms disagree, we say so. If a universal deposit minimum or license cannot be independently verified, we leave it unknown instead of filling the gap with an affiliate estimate.
8. Date meaningful updates
A review date changes only after material facts are rechecked. We do not promise an automatic schedule that the evidence cannot support, and older fields should be treated as editorial snapshots.
The 1.0–5.0 rating is an editorial comparison score, not a safety guarantee. It combines the six categories below. A high score never overrides local law, account eligibility, or the need to confirm the current terms before depositing. Missing public evidence reduces the score; we do not fill the gap with old affiliate or user-review data.
Licensing & Operating Disclosure
Current regulator records, named legal entities, domain coverage, operating status, and enforcement history
Offer Terms & Fairness
Current reward type, published minimum, playthrough, expiry, regional qualification, and conflicts between headline and terms
Payment-Direction Evidence
Whether current primary material distinguishes deposits from withdrawals and avoids unsupported universal cashier claims
Regional Availability Clarity
How clearly the operator separates states, provinces, countries, restricted locations, and market-specific legal entities
Terms & Ownership Transparency
Accessible current terms, ownership disclosure, dated revisions, and clear treatment of material contradictions
Source Recency & Completeness
Recency, distinct primary-source coverage, and whether unsupported legacy fields were removed instead of estimated
Official-source checked
Linked operator or regulator evidence with a review date.
Editorial snapshot
A normalized comparison field that can vary by region or account.
Hands-on
Used only when the exact account, method, and test date are documented.
Access is not authorization. A casino loading in a browser does not mean it is legal or licensed where the visitor is located.
Published speed is not a payout guarantee. Identity review, payment rails, banks, and account history can change delivery time.
One locale is not universal. Offers, games, methods, and limits can differ by state, province, country, and account.
Commercial links do not become evidence. Some outbound links may generate revenue, but official terms and regulator records take priority. Read the affiliate disclosure.