Who is accountable
The editorial team is responsible for research, writing, fact-checking and corrections. A named lead editor will be published on this page when the role is filled, with a real name, a real background and a way to contact them. Until then, the team byline is the honest description of how the work is produced.
That is unusual in this category, where "reviewed by a former casino manager" is often a stock persona attached to affiliate content. We would rather have no face than a fictional one, and we would rather say "a team" than imply an expertise we cannot document.
How the work is split
- Research. Terms, geo-block notices, cashier pages and regulator publications are captured with version and date before anything is written.
- Drafting. A writer turns the capture into a page, marking every claim that could not be verified instead of smoothing it over.
- Checking. A second pass verifies state lists, currency definitions, play-through, redemption windows and dates against the capture.
- Maintenance. Operator pages are re-checked monthly and whenever a source changes; the page date moves only when the check happened.
What the team does not do
- Write reviews for operators whose terms we could not read.
- Accept a commercial partner's wording, veto or approval over a page.
- Publish a payout time we have not observed or a claim we cannot source.
- Attribute work to a person who did not do it.
AI and the byline
We use AI tools to draft and check, and we say so in the editorial policy. The byline stays with the team because the team reviews every claim before publication. An AI tool is not an author, and it does not get a page.
How to cite this site
If you quote our work, cite the page title, the site and the date shown on the page, for example, "Casino Trust Center, Sweepstakes casinos by state, checked 30 October 2026". The date matters more than the URL, because the URL can stay the same while the claim changes.
We do not require attribution for facts that originated with an operator or a regulator; cite the primary source instead. We do ask that you do not present our conclusions as legal advice to a third party, for the reasons set out in the terms of use.
Contributors and freelancers
When we commission outside writing, the contributor is named on the page and their relevant experience is stated. They do not get a byline on work they did not write, and they do not get a page until they have written something. A contributor who has not worked in the category gets no expertise claim, however good the draft is.
The practical consequence is that this site has no "meet the expert" section, no headshots and no credentials we cannot verify. What it has instead is a method, a source hierarchy and a date on every claim. A reader who wants to know whether a page is worth trusting should look at those three things rather than at a photograph.
Every commissioned piece is checked against the same source hierarchy as staff work. The contributor's draft is a starting point, not a publication, and the checking pass is where most of the errors are caught. A contributor who cannot supply a source for a claim does not get the claim published, the same rule that applies to the team applies to them.
Corrections and contact
Corrections go to editorial@casinotrustcenter.com with the URL and the evidence. We aim to respond within five business days, and substantive corrections are recorded in the change log rather than deleted quietly.
If you are an operator and want to challenge a page, the methodology explains what we will accept as evidence: the specific claim, the source that contradicts it, and the date.
How the team works
Pages are drafted, then checked against primary documents, then dated. The check is the expensive part: reading a terms version, confirming a state list, and recording what changed since the last review. A page that cannot be checked is not published, which is why the site is smaller than its competitors.
Review cycles depend on the subject. State pages are checked when an operator changes its list or a legislature moves. Operator pages are checked when a terms version changes. Guides are checked when a source they cite changes.
What the team will not do
We will not attach a real person's name to a page they did not check, and we will not invent a credential. If a page has no named author, it is because the work was collaborative and the team is the honest attribution.
Contact
Corrections, source documents and operator terms can be sent to editorial@casinotrustcenter.com. We answer corrections first, because a wrong page is worse than a missing one.
How a page gets a byline
A byline is a statement that a named person checked the page. When one person reads the regulator, the statute and the operator terms and writes the result, the page carries that person's name and the date of the check.
When the work is split, one person on the state records, another on the operator terms, a third on the copy, there is no single person who checked the whole page, and the honest attribution is the team. The byline on those pages is the editorial team rather than a name chosen for the look of it.
That rule has a cost. A named author looks more authoritative than a team, and search engines used to reward it. The alternative would be attaching a name to work the person did not verify, which is the practice that made “author expertise” a joke in this category.
A reader who wants to know which pages were individually checked can look at the date and the byline together. A page with a team byline and a recent date is a page that was reviewed collaboratively and is current; a page with a name and an old date is a page whose check is old.
How the team handles a correction
A correction starts with the page, the sentence and the source. We do not require the reader to be right; we require the claim to be checkable, and a reader who sends a statute number with a page reference has given us something we can act on.
The second step is a decision: the page was wrong, the page was right, or the source has changed. Each of the three produces a different edit, and the third is the most common in this market because the terms move more often than the prose.
The third step is publication. The correction is made, the page date is updated, and the change is noted in the editorial policy's change log rather than in a separate notice. A silent edit would be faster and would make the date meaningless.
We do not remove a page because an operator dislikes it. A page is removed when the subject no longer exists or when the claim cannot be supported, and both of those are facts about the world rather than about a request.
What the team is not
The team is not a law firm and does not give legal advice. It reads statutes and regulator guidance and describes them, which is a different activity from advising a reader on their own situation.
It is not a testing laboratory. The site does not play with real money to measure a return, and it does not publish an RTP figure for a brand's games because it has not measured one.
It is not a newsroom. The pages are dated references rather than reports, and the site will usually be slower than a trade publication on any given change and more durable afterwards.
It is not anonymous. The contact address reaches the people who write the pages, the corrections are published and the policy that governs both is public. That is the account a reference site can give, and it is the one this site gives.
How to evaluate a page here
A reader who wants to test the work rather than trust the byline can do three things in ten minutes. First, pick a factual sentence and look for the source it implies. Second, check the date against the thing the sentence describes, because a 2024 date on a 2026 state list is a stale page.
Third, look for what the page declines to claim. A page that says a payout time is unmeasured, a bonus is unverified or a licence is absent is doing the work; a page that claims all three without a source is selling something.
That test works on this site and on any other. It is also the reason the pages repeat their limits: a reference that names what it does not know is easier to check than one that sounds complete.