Research study
Casino Licence Transparency Study
What ten casinos popular with Australians publish about the company and licence behind them, and what the regulators' own registers confirm
By Arvilla Winslow Web Content Editor
- Updated
- Facts checked
Why we looked at licence details
A licence line answers the first question a player should ask of any casino: who am I dealing with? Regulators grant licences to companies, not to brands, so the company name is what makes everything else checkable. Without it there is no register entry to look up, no counterparty to name in a complaint and no way to tell the official site from a copy.
Casino marketing rarely goes further than “licensed”. This study records, for the ten casinos Australians research most in our keyword data, what each one actually publishes about its operator and licence, and how much of that the issuing regulator confirms. Every value is a recorded observation with its own source and check date; the casinos, the selection rule and the limits of the method are set out in the methodology below. The ten were the first casinos we reviewed, and casinos reviewed after the dataset date will be added in a later edition.
This page is the dataset and its analysis. Readers who want to run the same checks on a casino themselves will find the step-by-step method in our guide to checking a casino licence.
Criterion by criterion
Transparency thins out at every step from what a casino says to what a regulator confirms. The chart counts the casinos that meet each criterion. Most casinos in the sample name a company and a licence number; fewer can be matched in full on a register; and the only websites a regulator source ties to a licence are the Metlait and Novatrix sites, through Anjouan licences their terms do not cite.
Casinos meeting each licence-transparency criterion
The table gives the full distribution, including the casinos for which a criterion could not be confirmed either way.
| Criterion | Yes | No | Not confirmed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operator named in the terms | 7 | 3 | 0 |
| Licence number published | 7 | 2 | 1 |
| Website confirmed by a regulator | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Conflicting licence statements | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Australia listed as restricted in the terms | 1 | 9 | 0 |
| Official domain on ACMA’s blocked list | 9 | 1 | 0 |
The register check has more than two outcomes, so it gets its own table.
| What the regulator’s register shows | Casinos |
|---|---|
| The licence holder and the licence number the casino names | 2 |
| The licence holder; the register publishes no licence numbers | 5 |
| No entry for the holder the casino names | 0 |
| Nothing to search: the casino names no holder | 2 |
| Not confirmed | 1 |
We deliberately do not add these criteria into a transparency score. A casino that names its operator but cannot be matched on a register is not “half transparent”; the criteria answer different questions, and readers who weigh them differently should be able to. Every value behind the counts is in the full dataset below, with its verification status.
Who runs the casino
7 casinos open their general terms with the company that owns and operates the site, its registration number and its registered address. Seen from the operator side, the sample is smaller than the number of brands suggests. Metlait SRL, a Costa Rica company, runs Richard Casino, SkyCrown and Stay Casino under one Tobique licence, and the three sites share an almost identical first clause. Novatrix SRL, also registered in Costa Rica, runs Ricky Casino and Woo Casino. Both companies also hold Anjouan licences, described below. RocketPlay names Scores55 Tech B.V. and WinSpirit names Complete Technologies N.V., both registered in Curaçao.
Woo Casino’s general terms could be read only through the site’s Australian locale path, fetched on 2 October 2026; the footer names the same company on every page we fetched.
The other 3 casinos are Bizzo Casino, Fair Go Casino and Ozwin Casino. Their terms refer to “the Casino” or “the Company” throughout and never say which company that is. Fair Go Casino and Ozwin Casino describe their names as trade names; Bizzo Casino’s terms, which the site served in German to our crawler, use “das Unternehmen” without ever defining it.
For Bizzo Casino, the missing name is supplied by a regulator rather than the casino. ACMA’s formal warning of 1 August 2022 names TechSolutions Group N.V. as “a provider of the Bizzo Casino service” (ACMA formal warning to TechSolutions Group N.V.), and a second warning, dated 8 July 2025, names a different company, Consolutetish S.R.L., as “a provider of the National Casino and Bizzo Casino services” (ACMA formal warning to Consolutetish S.R.L.). Bizzo Casino’s footer, which its terms say lists the licensing authority, did not render for us, so we record its licence number as not confirmed rather than absent.
Stay Casino is the reverse case: its terms name an operator, and a regulator names different ones. The terms identify Metlait SRL, while ACMA’s formal warning of 22 February 2022 is addressed to Hollycorn N.V. of Curaçao as “the provider of the Stay Casino and Golden Crown Casino services”, and a second warning of the same date to Libergos Limited (ACMA warning to Hollycorn N.V., 2022; ACMA warning to Libergos Limited, 2022). Richard Casino and SkyCrown, which share Stay Casino’s current operator and licence, follow the same pattern: ACMA warned Hollycorn N.V. over SkyCrown in 2022 (ACMA warning to Hollycorn N.V., 2022) and both Hollycorn N.V. and Libergos Limited over Richard Casino in 2024 (ACMA warning to Hollycorn N.V., 2024; ACMA warning to Libergos Limited, 2024). None of these warnings names Metlait SRL, while ACMA’s warning of 25 May 2026 about SpinRise, another brand whose terms name Metlait SRL, is addressed to Metlait SRL itself (ACMA warning to Metlait SRL, 2026). The same applies to the warnings addressed to Dama N.V. about Ricky Casino in 2022 (ACMA warning to Dama N.V., 2022) and Woo Casino in 2025 (ACMA warning to Dama N.V., 2025), whose terms name Novatrix SRL, and about RocketPlay in 2022 and 2025 (ACMA warning to Dama N.V., 2022; ACMA warning to Dama N.V., 2025), whose terms name Scores55 Tech B.V. ACMA’s investigations page also lists Woo Casino among services issued formal warnings in 2021 (ACMA investigations page). We could not establish whether the warned companies are related to the operators the terms name, so the study records each casino’s operator from its current terms and notes the warned providers separately.
Fair Go Casino shows how far “licensed” can go without saying anything checkable. Its homepage says the casino “is operated under licence” (Fair Go Casino homepage) and names no regulator, company or number. The only official page that names a regulator is an undated landing page for US players, which credits “the license of the Curacao Gaming Authority” with no holder or number attached (Fair Go Casino US page). A statement like that cannot be looked up on any register, which is why the study records Fair Go Casino under “no holder named” rather than as a failed match.
What the registers confirm
Where a casino names its operator, the regulator’s register lists that company. The outcome “no entry for the holder the casino names” was recorded for 0 casinos. The difference between the registers lies in how much else they let a reader match.
Curaçao
The Curaçao Gaming Authority’s register prints the licence number, the licensee, its company registration number, the issue and expiry dates and a status, so a full match is possible. RocketPlay and WinSpirit both reach it: the licence number and registration number in their terms appear on the same register row. We record RocketPlay’s licence as active and WinSpirit’s as active, both from the register edition of 21 September 2026. RocketPlay’s terms spell the company “B.V.” where the register says “N.V.”; the registration number is the same, and the guide walks through that match line by line.
Curaçao Gaming Authority
- Jurisdiction
- Curaçao
- Licence number
- OGL/2024/923/0383
- Licence type
- B2C online gaming licence
- Holder
- Complete Technologies N.V.
- Register status
- Indefinite (expiry "N/A") Verified — regulator
Checked
Bizzo Casino is the exception on the Curaçao side. The register lists TechSolutions Group B.V. with the status “Assessment in progress”, which we record as under assessment, and an expiry date of 14 April 2026 (CGA register, 21 September 2026). Because the casino’s own pages do not name that company or licence, the link rests on ACMA and third parties, and the register check for Bizzo Casino stays not confirmed.
Tobique
Tobique-licensed casinos can only ever reach a partial match. The Tobique Gaming Commission’s License Holders page lists company names, expiry dates and licence types, but no licence numbers. Richard Casino, SkyCrown and Stay Casino all cite licence 0000064; Ricky Casino and Woo Casino cite licence 0000002. The register confirms the companies behind both, but the numbers remain the operators’ own statements. We record the Novatrix SRL licence as active, with an expiry of 13 March 2027.
Tobique Gaming Commission
- Jurisdiction
- Tobique First Nation (New Brunswick, Canada)
- Licence number
- 0000002 (stated by the operator; the register does not publish licence numbers)
- Licence type
- B2C remote gambling licence
- Holder
- Novatrix SRL
- Register status
- Active Verified — regulator
Checked
The practical effect is that a Tobique licence number in a footer proves nothing on its own: a copycat site can print the same number, and the register cannot say which sites it belongs to.
Anjouan
No casino in the sample names an Anjouan licence on the pages shown to Australian visitors, yet Anjouan’s Licence Register is the one register here that lists websites. For each licence it prints the holder, the licence number, the issue and expiry dates and the domains covered. Metlait SRL’s licence ALSI-202509073-FI2 lists richardcasino.com, skycrown.com and staycasino.com (Anjouan Licence Register), and Novatrix SRL’s licence ALSI-202508056-FI2 lists rickycasino.com and woocasino.com (Anjouan Licence Register). We record the Metlait licence as active, expiring on 29 September 2027.
Anjouan Gaming
- Jurisdiction
- Anjouan (Comoros)
- Licence number
- ALSI-202509073-FI2
- Licence type
- B2C (register type "b2c")
- Holder
- Metlait SRL
- Register status
- Active Verified — regulator
Checked
Richard Casino’s and Stay Casino’s terms pages hold Anjouan versions of clause 1.1 and of the footer in their page code, shown to visitors from some other countries, not to Australian visitors (Richard Casino terms, page data; Stay Casino terms, page data). The register check above therefore stays with the Tobique licence these casinos show Australians; the Anjouan listings count towards website confirmation, below.
The missing link: the website itself
A regulator source tied the casino’s own domain to a licence for 5 of the 10 casinos. Every one of those confirmations comes from Anjouan’s register and concerns a licence the casino does not name to Australian visitors. For the licences the casinos do cite, no regulator source named the website, and that gap is partly a limit of our method rather than of the casinos.
The Curaçao and Tobique regulators both have a domain-level check, and both depend on the seal in the casino’s footer. The Curaçao certificate page reached from a seal “must display the exact domain name being accessed” (CGA Certification Policy). The Tobique validator, queried for a domain without the footer seal’s token, says “NOT licensed” even for a domain that is not a casino at all (TGC validator, control query). Footer seals did not render for our crawler, so no cited licence could be tied to a website this way. Casinos without an Anjouan listing are recorded as not confirmed on this criterion, never as unlicensed.
For readers, the distinction matters more than any single count. A register entry confirms that a company holds a licence. Unless the register lists websites, it does not confirm that the website in front of you is one that company runs, and where it does, as Anjouan’s does here, it may describe a different licence from the one the site shows you.
Contradictions and gaps
Consistency could be tested only where at least two pages state a licence. 4 casinos repeat the same company and licence in their terms and footer. Richard Casino’s and Stay Casino’s page code also holds the Anjouan version of that clause, but because it is shown to visitors from some other countries and not to Australian visitors, the study does not count it as a conflicting statement. For 5, there was no second statement to compare: RocketPlay and WinSpirit state their licence only in the terms we could read, and Bizzo Casino, Fair Go Casino and Ozwin Casino name no licence that could be compared at all.
Ricky Casino’s pages contradict each other. Its homepage copy says “We have a real Curacao license and fully regulated by the law of Curacao” (Ricky Casino homepage), while the terms and the footer on every page we fetched name only a Tobique licence held by Novatrix SRL (Ricky Casino terms, clause 1.1). The Curaçao claim comes with no holder and no number, so the Curaçao register offers nothing to match it against. The study records the contradiction rather than resolving it; the licence the operator documents is the Tobique one.
Gaps of this kind compound. Each casino that names no operator also names no external complaints body, so the same missing company name removes both the register check and the outside route for a dispute.
Where complaints go
The complaints clause is the practical test of what a licence offers a player. 5 casinos name the same alternative dispute resolution service, EGIS, which their terms say operates under the Tobique Gaming Commission’s regulations; these are the Metlait and Novatrix casinos. 4 casinos name no external body. RocketPlay is among them despite publishing full licence details: its terms refer only to “the gambling authority” or a “designated” dispute service.
WinSpirit’s terms promise a CGA-certified dispute resolution provider without naming one, and state that the Curaçao Gaming Authority “does not act as a mediator in individual disputes” (WinSpirit terms, section 19). Our withdrawal policy study compares the rest of each casino’s dispute terms alongside its withdrawal rules.
ACMA blocking requests
ACMA publishes a list of websites it has asked Australian internet service providers to block. On 2 October 2026 that list contained an exact entry for the official domain of 9 of the 10 casinos in this study (ACMA blocked websites list). The list gives no date for individual entries.
Blocking does not follow licence transparency in this sample. The list includes casinos whose licence holder and number both appear on the Curaçao register, Tobique-licensed casinos with complete operator details, and casinos that name no operator at all. A licence from Curaçao or Tobique is issued by a regulator outside Australia, and nothing on either register speaks to ACMA’s list.
Most casinos in this study carry further caveats. ACMA’s formal warnings, described above, concern Bizzo Casino, Stay Casino, Richard Casino, SkyCrown, Ricky Casino, Woo Casino and RocketPlay. Fair Go Casino and Ozwin Casino have no formal warning, but ACMA’s investigations page lists both among services it found in 2021 to be providing a prohibited interactive gambling service with an Australian customer link (ACMA investigations page). Bizzo Casino’s blocking goes back to ACMA’s announcement of 21 September 2022, which named the brand among sites it had asked providers to block (ACMA announcement, September 2022). Its domain now sits on the list alongside those of most other casinos in this study. For WinSpirit, the domain its terms name is not on ACMA’s list, but several variant domains carrying the brand name are. WinSpirit’s terms exclude anyone physically present in Australia at the time of play (WinSpirit terms), so its inclusion here documents its licence details, not an option for Australian readers. Among the casinos in this study, the terms that list Australia as restricted belong to WinSpirit.
What the data does and does not show
The dataset shows how far each casino lets a reader trace it back to a company and a licence, and where that trail stops. It does not rate the casinos, and transparency is not the same as safety: a fully named operator with a register-confirmed licence can still have withdrawal terms that deserve attention, and the licence holder’s register entry says nothing about how disputes are handled in practice.
Three readings hold across the sample. First, the casino’s own terms are the best evidence of who runs it; third-party attributions, which we excluded, often name other companies. Second, a Curaçao or Tobique register match confirms a company, not a website, so the domain check through the footer seal is the step that closes the loop; the register that did list websites, Anjouan’s, tied the Metlait and Novatrix casinos to licences their Australian-facing pages do not mention. Third, the casinos that name no operator are also the ones that cannot be checked any further, by us or by a reader.
Each casino’s review quotes the clauses behind every value here, starting from our casino reviews. The data will be rechecked as registers publish new editions, and changes will be recorded in the change history below.
Full dataset
| Casino | Operator named in the terms | Licence number published | Regulator register check | Website confirmed by a regulator | Conflicting licence statements | External complaints body | Australia listed as restricted | Official domain on ACMA's blocked list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bizzo Casino | No | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | None named. The terms refer generically to "any independent body, a gaming authority or the licensing authority listed on the website". | No | Yes |
| Fair Go Casino | No | No | No holder named | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | None named | No | Yes |
| Ozwin Casino | No | No | No holder named | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | None named | No | Yes |
| Richard Casino | Yes | Yes | Holder on register | Yes | No | EGIS, an ADR body the terms say operates under Tobique Gaming Commission regulations (disputes@egis-adr.com) | No | Yes |
| Ricky Casino | Yes | Yes | Holder on register | Yes | Yes | EGIS (egis.io), an alternative dispute resolution body that the terms say operates under Tobique Gaming Commission regulations | No | Yes |
| RocketPlay | Yes | Yes | Holder and number on register | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | None named; the terms refer only to "the gambling authority" or a "designated gambling dispute resolution service". | No | Yes |
| SkyCrown | Yes | Yes | Holder on register | Yes | No | EGIS, an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) body the operator says works under the regulations of the Tobique Gaming Commission | No | Yes |
| Stay Casino | Yes | Yes | Holder on register | Yes | No | EGIS, an ADR body the casino says operates under Tobique Gaming Commission regulations | No | Yes |
| WinSpirit | Yes | Yes | Holder and number on register | Not confirmed | Not confirmed | A CGA-certified independent ADR provider, free of charge, for complaints worth more than EUR 5,000 or about responsible gaming. The Curaçao Gaming Authority does not mediate individual disputes. | Yes | No |
| Woo Casino | Yes | Yes | Holder on register | Yes | No | EGIS, an ADR body the terms say operates under Tobique Gaming Commission regulations | No | Yes |
Methodology
Research question: How fully do the online casinos Australians research most say who runs them and which licence they hold, and how much of that can be confirmed on the issuing regulator's own register?
We read the general terms, footer and supporting pages of each casino on its official domain, rendered in a browser through a crawler outside Australia, and recorded what they say about the operating company and the licence. We then searched the regulator's own register for every licence holder and licence number a casino names, the Curaçao Gaming Authority's Online Gaming License Registry and the Tobique Gaming Commission's License Holders page, and looked for a regulator certificate, seal check or register entry that names the casino's domain, including Anjouan's Licence Register, which lists domains for each licence. Each criterion was recorded once per casino as a claim with the verbatim wording, its source, a verification status and the check date. Where a page we needed could not be read, the criterion is recorded as not confirmed rather than assumed either way. We also recorded whether each casino's terms name an external complaints body, whether they list Australia as a restricted country, and whether the official domain is an entry on the list of websites ACMA has asked Australian internet providers to block. The criteria are reported one by one; they are not combined into a score or ranking.
Inclusion criteria
- The ten casino brands our reviews covered at the dataset date, chosen for research-intent search volume from Australia ("<brand> review", "<brand> withdrawal", "<brand> bonus") in our September 2026 keyword study.
- Official domain identifiable from the casino's terms or footer.
Exclusion criteria
- Copycat, mirror and affiliate domains, including those that publish their own operator or licence details for a brand.
- Licence attributions found only on third-party review sites.
- Land-based casinos, sportsbooks and free-play apps.
Definitions
- Operator named in the terms
- The general terms identify the company that runs the casino by name and registration details. A trade-name clause that refers only to "the Casino" or "the Company" does not count.
- Licence number published
- The official site (terms or footer) states a licence number together with the regulator that issued it. This records what the casino publishes, not whether the regulator confirms it.
- Regulator register check
- What the regulator's own register shows for the licence holder and number the casino names. "Holder and number on register" means both match; "holder on register" means the company is listed but the register publishes no licence numbers to match; "no holder named" means the casino gives nothing to search for.
- Website confirmed by a regulator
- A regulator source names the casino's domain under a licence held by the operator the terms name, such as a Curaçao domain certificate on cert.cga.cw, a Tobique seal check reached from the casino's own footer, or a register that lists domains, as Anjouan's does. The Curaçao and Tobique registers do not list domains. A domain listed under a licence the casino does not name to Australian visitors counts, and the study says where that is the case.
- Conflicting licence statements
- The casino's own pages name different licences or regulators. Recorded only where at least two pages state a licence; otherwise there is nothing to compare.
- External complaints body
- A regulator or alternative dispute resolution service the terms name for complaints the casino does not resolve.
- Official domain on ACMA's blocked list
- The domain named in the casino's own terms or footer appears as an exact entry on the list of websites the Australian Communications and Media Authority has asked Australian internet service providers to block. Variant and look-alike domains are noted but not counted.
Limitations
- This edition covers the first ten casinos we reviewed, as of the dataset date. Casinos reviewed after that date, including their licence and ACMA records, will be added in a later edition.
- Ten casinos chosen by Australian search interest; the sample describes these brands, not the offshore market as a whole.
- Terms, footers and licence pages were rendered from outside Australia; the payment and promotion pages checked from an Australian connection on 7 October 2026 were not used to re-check licence seals. Footers and licence seals did not render for several casinos, so a seal that links to a regulator certificate may exist on a page we could not read.
- The Curaçao and Tobique registers do not list the websites a licence covers, and the Tobique register publishes no licence numbers. A match on either confirms a company, not a domain. Every website confirmation in the dataset comes from Anjouan's register and concerns a second licence that the casinos' terms and footers, as shown to Australian visitors, do not name.
- The Tobique Gaming Commission's domain validator returns "NOT licensed" for any domain queried without the seal token from the casino's footer, so a plain query was not used as evidence either way.
- Absence findings ("names no operator", "no conflicting statements") are limited to the pages we could read, which are listed in the sources.
- ACMA's list records blocking requests, not a finding about any licence, and gives no date per domain.
- Values were checked between 30 September and 2 October 2026, and website confirmation against Anjouan's register on 7 October 2026; each carries its own check date. They were collected with AI research tools from the cited pages and reviewed by an editor.
Sources
- Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen (General Terms and Conditions) — Bizzo Casino.
- Curaçao Gaming Authority - Online Gaming License Registry (last updated September 21, 2026) — Curaçao Gaming Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — TechSolutions Group N.V. (Bizzo Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- ACMA blocks more illegal offshore gambling websites — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- General Terms of Fair Go Casino (incl. Promotional, Tournament, Lobby Jackpot and Refer-and-Earn terms) — Fair Go Casino.
- Fair Go Casino — Real Money Pokies Built for Australian Players (homepage) — Fair Go Casino.
- Fair Go Casino US Style (landing page for US players) — Fair Go Casino.
- Ozwin Casino Terms and Conditions (incl. Promotional, Slot Tournament, Lobby Jackpot and Refer-a-Friend terms) — Ozwin Casino.
- Ozwin Casino homepage — Ozwin Casino.
- Terms and Conditions — Richard Casino (Metlait SRL).
- Richard Casino homepage (English), including footer and FAQ — Richard Casino (Metlait SRL).
- License Holders — Tobique Gaming Commission.
- TGC domain validation page (bare-domain query) — Tobique Gaming Commission.
- Terms and Conditions — Ricky Casino (Novatrix SRL).
- Rickycasino Online Casino (homepage) — Ricky Casino (Novatrix SRL).
- TGC licence validation — rickycasino.com — Tobique Gaming Commission.
- Terms and Conditions — RocketPlay (Scores55 Tech B.V.).
- Terms and Conditions (Version 1.0) — SkyCrown (Metlait SRL).
- SkyCrown Casino Australia (homepage) — SkyCrown (Metlait SRL).
- Internet Gaming License Validation (bare-domain query) — Tobique Gaming Commission.
- Terms and Conditions — Stay Casino (Metlait SRL).
- Stay Casino homepage — Stay Casino (Metlait SRL).
- Terms and Conditions — WinSpirit (Complete Technologies N.V.).
- WooCasino homepage — Woo Casino (Novatrix SRL).
- Terms and Conditions (en-AU) — Woo Casino (Novatrix SRL).
- TGC licence validation — woocasino.com — Tobique Gaming Commission.
- Licence Register — Anjouan Gaming.
- Terms and Conditions — geo variants in the page data (version 1.0, effective 15.04.2026) — Metlait SRL (Richard Casino).
- Terms and Conditions — geo variants in the page data (effective 30.03.2026, updated 08.04.2026) — Metlait SRL (Stay Casino).
- Blocked illegal gambling websites — alphabetical list (data feed of the ACMA page) — Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Consolutetish S.R.L. (National Casino and Bizzo Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Hollycorn N.V. (Stay Casino and Golden Crown Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Libergos Limited (Stay Casino and Golden Crown Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Hollycorn N.V. (Sky Crown and Blue Leo) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Hollycorn N.V. (Richard Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Libergos Limited (Richard Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Metlait SRL (Spinrise) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Dama N.V. (Katsubet, Winz.io and Ricky Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Dama N.V. (Woo Casino) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Dama N.V. (Bambet, Dazard, Level Up, Rocketplay, Wild Tornado and Cobra Casinos) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Formal Warning under section 64A of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 — Dama N.V. (RocketPlay) — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Investigations into online gambling providers — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
- Certification Policy — CGA Seals and Certificates — Curaçao Gaming Authority.
- Internet Gaming License Validation (control query for example.com) — Tobique Gaming Commission.
- Blocked gambling websites — Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Change log
-
Every ACMA formal warning about casinos in this study now named
An audit of ACMA's published formal warnings found warnings about Richard Casino (2024), Ricky Casino (2022), RocketPlay (2022, 2025), SkyCrown (2022) and Woo Casino (2021, 2025), a second warning about Bizzo Casino (2025) and a second 2022 warning about Stay Casino, to Libergos Limited. The study had named only Bizzo Casino (2022) and Stay Casino (Hollycorn N.V.) as warned, and said Richard Casino and SkyCrown were not named in a warning; each now has its own. The operator section now also notes that the warnings about Ricky Casino, Woo Casino and RocketPlay name Dama N.V., not the operators in their terms, that ACMA's 2026 warning about SpinRise is addressed to Metlait SRL itself, and that ACMA lists Fair Go Casino and Ozwin Casino, which have no formal warning, among its 2021 investigation outcomes. The study's figures are unchanged.
-
Scope of this edition stated
Five more casinos were reviewed on 7 October 2026. This study remains a dated edition covering the first ten reviewed casinos; newer reviews will join a later edition.
-
ACMA's 2022 warning about Stay Casino added
ACMA's formal warning of 22 February 2022 names Hollycorn N.V. as the provider of the Stay Casino and Golden Crown Casino services. The study had named Bizzo Casino and WinSpirit as the only casinos with further caveats; Stay Casino is now included, and the operator section notes that the warning names a company Stay Casino's terms do not mention. The study's figures are unchanged.
-
Website confirmation recounted after Anjouan's register was checked
Anjouan's Licence Register lists the domains of Richard Casino, SkyCrown, Stay Casino, Ricky Casino and Woo Casino under licences held by their operators, Metlait SRL and Novatrix SRL. The study had recorded website confirmation as not confirmed for every casino. Those five now count as confirmed by a regulator, and the page explains that the Anjouan licences are not the Tobique licence the casinos' terms name to Australian visitors. The other criteria are unchanged.