Trust framework
Editorial and corrections policy
Last updated 9 September 2026.
Primary sources first
Regulator registers, licence-holder lists, sanctions, court or government publications take priority. Secondary reporting may identify a lead, but it does not replace the official citation for a strong legal-status claim.
Three editorial layers stay separate
The Atlas directories record structured jurisdiction and operator evidence. Insights answer durable search questions. Atlas Watch covers fast-moving stories and disputes. A Watch article may explain an enforcement record, but it cannot silently rewrite the underlying Atlas status.
Atlas Watch uses two separate checks
Automated systems may monitor sources, cluster leads and assist drafting, but every Watch story remains blocked until a writing check and a separate evidence challenge pass. These are AI-assisted institutional reviews; iGaming Atlas does not claim that a human editor reviewed a story when that did not happen.
Confirmed and not established
Every Watch file separates facts supported by the cited record from claims that the evidence does not establish. An investigation, request for information or lawsuit is not presented as a final finding. Headlines must describe the procedural stage literally.
Responses and right of reply
A material response from the named party is included when it is in the primary record or independently available. When a new allegation requires direct comment, the request and outcome are recorded as included, requested without response, not requested or not applicable.
Strong headlines cannot outrun the source
Headlines may be direct and newsworthy, but cannot use a curiosity gap, imply guilt from an allegation or turn a request for information into a sanction. Search and Discover traffic never justifies a less accurate verb.
Automation is disclosed by the workflow, not disguised as a person
The Research Desk and iGaming Atlas Editorial Team credits are institutional bylines. Tools can support research, drafting and review, but iGaming Atlas does not invent a personal author, a human review or a credential that did not exist. The accountable publisher remains iGaming Atlas, and unresolved evidence blocks publication.
Institutional authorship
Guides are published by the iGaming Atlas Research Desk and fast-moving Watch files by the iGaming Atlas Editorial Team. These institutional bylines identify the publisher; they do not imply a disclosed team size, personal qualification or regulatory authority.
Provenance is visible
A direct record citation is labelled separately from a relationship verified within a dated official-register batch. Batch checks publish the source, method, date and matched records in the public verification ledger. Legacy records remain visibly separated.
Jurisdiction, product and domain matter
An international licence does not prove that a brand is authorised in every market. Status is recorded by jurisdiction and may differ by product, legal entity or consumer domain.
Illegal is not a casual label
When evidence is incomplete or a name cannot be matched, the default is “under review” or “not listed”, not a definitive allegation of illegality. Enforcement-listed, blocked or revoked labels require a suitable official source.
Corrections remain visible
Substantive corrections update the affected record, source date and the public updates log. Operators, regulators and readers may submit evidence through the contact page; payment is never required for a factual correction.
Commercial separation
Advertising, sponsorship or affiliate relationships cannot buy a licence label, alter an enforcement record or suppress negative facts. Commercial placements are labelled and subject to an evidence gate.
Written accountability
Corrections, right-of-reply requests and source challenges are accepted at igamingatlas@gmail.com. Written correspondence keeps the disputed claim, submitted evidence and response in a reviewable record.