Editorial Policy
This page sets out the editorial standards behind the Spinaud review and every comparative piece on the site. It exists so readers can hold us to a written rule rather than to whatever feels reasonable on any given day. The broader context for who runs the site sits on the About page, with the flagship operator review on the Spinaud Casino homepage. Each procedure described here — review production, fact-checking, corrections, freshness — applies to every piece of content published on the site.
1. Editorial independence
This site is funded through affiliate commissions earned when readers click through to Spinaud and choose to register. The full mechanics live on the Affiliate Disclosure page. Editorially, the rule is brief: a partnership does not buy a higher rating, and the absence of one does not produce a lower one. The same review checks apply identically to every operator on the site, partner or not. We have scored partner operators at six and below, and scored operators with no commercial tie at eight and above. Sales, marketing and editorial run as separate workflows; the editorial team has the final say on every published verdict, including Spinaud's.
2. Sources we trust
The content on this site draws on four categories of source, listed below in order of evidentiary weight.
- Hands-on testing. The Spinaud review is produced from an actual account on the Spinaud platform, using real deposits via PayID, e-wallets and crypto (BTC, USDT), and real withdrawal requests timed end-to-end. This is the primary source for everything in the review except verifiable third-party facts.
- Regulator and third-party safety records. Casino Guru and AskGamblers entries for Spinaud, references to the Curaçao eGaming Licence No. 1668/JAZ, ACMA register entries, BetStop records, and Interactive Gambling Act references. These are the authoritative sources for any legal or safety claim on the site.
- Independent player-community evidence. Long-term Spinaud reputation across AskGamblers, Casino Guru (currently a 4.9 Safety Index reading), Trustpilot (a mid-range 3.5-3.8 average), plus Reddit threads and dedicated player forums. Used as a sanity check on testing results rather than as a primary source on its own.
- Operator-supplied content. Spinaud promo pages, marketing copy and Telegram channel posts. These are read for context but never quoted as if independently verified. Whenever a number originates with the operator, the review says so.
3. Fact-checking
The Spinaud review goes through a four-step fact-check before publication. First, the brand's Curaçao eGaming Licence No. 1668/JAZ is verified against publicly available Casino Guru and Trustpilot entries. Second, the welcome package arithmetic (120% match up to AUD 900 plus 90 free spins, 40x wagering on the bonus amount, an AUD 20-30 minimum qualifying deposit) is recalculated from Spinaud's published terms and compared against the headline marketing; any gap is flagged. Third, the named payment rails (PayID, POLi, Neosurf, ecoPayz, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Skrill, Neteller, BTC, ETH, USDT), the published withdrawal turnaround and the AUD 30 minimum cashout are checked against the live cashier rather than the FAQ (the two often disagree). Fourth, the catalogue claims are spot-checked against named studios (Pragmatic Play, BGaming, NetEnt, Play'n GO, Habanero, Yggdrasil, Microgaming, Evolution Gaming for live tables) and named titles to confirm marketing matches the lobby.
Numerical claims that drift frequently (bonus terms, withdrawal speeds, minimum deposits, weekly cashback caps) are tagged in our internal tracking and re-checked on the schedule below. If a re-check shows the number has moved, the review is updated, the date at the top of the page is bumped, and a small dated note is appended at the foot of the review describing what changed.
4. Quotation, paraphrase and attribution
Direct quotes are reserved for material in which the precise wording is what matters — regulator notices, Spinaud's published terms and conditions, court rulings. Everywhere else paraphrase is the default, with the source acknowledged in the surrounding text. Operator marketing copy is rewritten in our own voice; Spinaud promo posts are never reposted here verbatim. When a third-party figure appears (a Trustpilot rating, an AskGamblers complaints tally, the Casino Guru Safety Index reading) the source is named explicitly and a working link sits alongside.
Numerical claims on gambling-harm prevalence, regulatory enforcement activity, or the scale of the Australian online casino sector are anchored to government, academic or peer-reviewed publications. Figures published by industry associations are admitted only when there is independent corroboration from a non-industry source.
5. Authorship and AI assistance
Each article on the site is written by a named human editorial-team member. AI tools have a limited supporting role: structuring a draft, condensing lengthy source material, catching grammar slips, suggesting alternative headlines. AI tools are never tasked with producing the analytical core of a review — the score, the strengths-and-weaknesses verdict, the comparative judgement — and are never used to invent quotations or fabricate testing data. Any factual claim that first surfaced from an AI tool is cross-checked against an independent source before publication, and the citation points to that source rather than the AI tool itself.
6. Corrections and updates
Corrections are handled in three tiers, scaled by the seriousness of the error.
- Minor — a typographical error, a dead link, a formatting hiccup: corrected silently within one business day.
- Substantive — a fact, figure or statement that meaningfully shapes a reader's decision: corrected inside five business days, with a dated note appended at the foot of the page explaining what shifted and why. The earlier wording remains in our internal version history but is not republished on the live page.
- Material — an error large enough to reverse the overall Spinaud verdict, or a regulatory development reshaping a whole class of operators: corrected within two business days, paired with a visible banner at the top of the page that remains in place for at least 30 days, and entered into a dedicated corrections log accessible from this page.
Anyone who spots an apparent error in our content can raise it through the Contact page. Substantive complaints are filed against the relevant review in our internal records whether or not the underlying claim eventually gets corrected.
7. Freshness
The Spinaud review is checked in full at least every 12 months, and the key data points (the AUD 900 + 90 FS welcome match, withdrawal speeds, supported payment methods, the rotating daily 12% reload / 7% subsequent boost / weekly cashback set, the Prestige Club ladder running Bronze through Silver, Gold, Platinum and Diamond with its top-tier cashback ceiling) are re-checked quarterly. Topic guides and methodological pages are reviewed annually. The "Last updated" date at the top of every page reflects the most recent factual review, not just the most recent typo-level edit.
8. Conflict of interest
No editorial-team member holds equity in Spinaud or any other operator they review, accepts consulting fees from those operators, or maintains a personal affiliate relationship with them. Any potential conflict that surfaces triggers a reassignment to a different operator and a log entry in our internal tracker. The site-wide partnerships disclosed on the Affiliate Disclosure page are operational arrangements, not personal ones, and are kept in a separate workflow from any editorial work.
9. Reader safety
Coverage on this site centres on an adult product, and three editorial commitments grow out of that reality. First, gambling is never presented anywhere on this site as a path to income — the framing throughout is paid entertainment with a downside risk attached. Second, both the Spinaud review and every comparative piece include visible in-body links to the Responsible Gambling toolkit and the major Australian helplines, sitting in the article text rather than hidden at the foot of the page. Third, neither the language, the imagery nor the worked examples on any page are pitched toward minors, problem gamblers or self-excluded players; the moment Spinaud's marketing crosses any of those boundaries the review names the issue and the score reflects it.
10. Complaints, escalation and right of reply
Operators that dispute a rating are welcome to write to the editorial address with a specific factual claim backed by supporting evidence. Three outcomes follow from there. If the claim is correct, the review is amended and a correction note is added. If the claim is only partially correct, the verified portion is updated and the remainder is left as written, with the reasoning recorded internally. If the claim is incorrect, the review stands and the operator is informed of the outcome in writing. Scores are never negotiated with operators before publication.
Readers with concerns about how editorial work is being done can route those through the Contact page; complaints tied to a specific review draw a reply within five business days. Privacy queries about data this site holds about you fall under the Privacy Policy page, with the technical companion on the Cookie Policy page.