Important: This is a general research method, not legal advice or an endorsement of any gambling service. Rules and registers differ by market and product.
Why the distinction matters
A consumer-facing brand, website domain, contracting company, licence holder, software supplier and payment provider can be different entities. A regulator may authorise a specific legal entity for particular activities and territories; that does not automatically establish that every related brand, domain or product is covered.
Do not assume that two brands share a licence because they share a logo, parent company, app, payment processor or similar name. Equally, a company record alone does not prove that gambling activity is authorised.
Build a four-part match
- Brand and domain: Record the exact consumer-facing name and full website hostname. Watch for spelling changes, subdomains and lookalike domains.
- Legal operator: Find the contracting entity in the current terms, privacy notice or site footer. Record the exact legal name and company number if provided.
- Regulator record: Search the official regulator register for that entity and check current status, licence type, permitted product and territory.
- Domain and product scope: Where the register provides domain or trading-name information, compare it with the exact site. Confirm that the licence covers the product in question—not merely another product offered by the same company.
Use primary sources in the right order
Start with the operator’s own current terms to identify the contracting entity, then independently verify that entity through the regulator’s official register. Use a company register as supporting evidence of corporate identity, not as a substitute for a gambling authorisation check. If details conflict, preserve the conflicting records and treat the match as unresolved.
For Great Britain, use the UK Gambling Commission business register and its regulatory actions register. For other markets, find the regulator responsible for the reader’s location and the specific product. A foreign licence does not by itself establish local permission.
Record the evidence, not just the conclusion
- Exact brand name and domain checked.
- Legal operator name copied from current terms.
- Official regulator URL and date checked.
- Licence status, activity and territory scope noted.
- Any mismatch, missing field or unresolved question recorded.
- Material regulatory actions and relevant outcomes checked separately.
A useful record says what the source showed and when it was checked. Avoid broad labels such as “fully licensed” if the evidence only establishes a narrower fact. Do not publish a score or recommendation while a material identity or authorisation question remains unresolved.
Common traps to avoid
- Logo-only evidence: Images and licence badges can be copied and may be outdated.
- Parent-company assumption: A group company’s licence may not cover a separate contracting entity.
- Domain mismatch: A listed domain does not necessarily cover every similar hostname or mirror.
- Product mismatch: Permission for one gambling product is not proof of permission for another.
- Old screenshots: A past status does not establish current authorisation.
- Search-snippet reliance: Snippets can be incomplete or stale; open the official record itself.
What to do if you cannot match the records
Do not present the brand as verified. Record exactly what could not be matched, seek clarification from the regulator where appropriate, and re-check the current official source before making any publication decision. Readers should not deposit money while material identity or authorisation uncertainty remains.
Use our licence-check guide for the wider process, the regulatory-actions guide to interpret enforcement records, and the terms checklist to organise source checks.
Editorial source check: 21 October 2026. This page explains a verification process; it does not claim that any particular brand has passed it. Re-check current primary records before relying on a conclusion.