Why We Publish Rejections
Most casino review sites only show you the sites they recommend — and earn commission from. We think you should also know what we tested and rejected, and the specific reasons why. Transparency about our rejections is as important as transparency about our rankings.
We tested 34 casinos in our February 2025 research cycle. Only 5 met our criteria. That’s an 85% rejection rate. Here’s every notable site that didn’t make the cut, what went wrong, and when we’ll re-test.
Currently Rejected Sites
✗ Casumo Canada
Reason: CC acceptance rate dropped to 71% in January 2025 tests — 3 of 9 bank cards were declined. This is below our 90% minimum threshold.
Details: Casumo was previously a borderline candidate with acceptance rates in the high 80s. The January drop appears related to a payment processor change. We’ve seen this before — when casinos switch processors, acceptance rates can fluctuate significantly. In Casumo’s case, the new processor appears to have weaker relationships with Canadian acquiring banks.
What would need to change: CC acceptance rate would need to return above 90% across our 9-bank test panel for at least two consecutive testing cycles.
Re-test scheduled: March 2025 and monthly thereafter until we see improvement or formally close the evaluation.
✗ Betway Canada
Reason: Withdrawal took 11 business days in December 2024 testing, versus the stated 3–5 day window. Support couldn’t explain the delay.
Details: Betway was previously in our rankings and was removed in November 2024 after a withdrawal took 11 days — significantly beyond their stated timeframe. When we contacted support, we received generic responses with no specific explanation for the delay. Our methodology is clear: sites exceeding double the stated withdrawal timeframe are removed. Betway stated 3–5 days; 11 days is more than double.
What would need to change: Withdrawal must complete within stated timeframe in two consecutive monthly tests. Support must be able to explain any delays with specific, verifiable reasons.
Re-test scheduled: March 2025.
✗ Rizk Casino
Reason: Deposit limits buried three levels deep in account settings. Our responsible gambling audit requires these within 2 clicks from the main account page.
Details: Rizk’s game selection, CC acceptance, and licensing are all adequate. The failure is specifically in responsible gambling tool accessibility. Finding the deposit limit control required navigating to Account → Settings → Advanced Settings → Responsible Gaming. That’s three clicks from the account page, and the “Advanced Settings” label doesn’t suggest RG tools are contained within. This fails our accessibility standard, which exists because players who need deposit limits need them to be easy to find, not hidden.
What would need to change: Deposit limits, session reminders, and self-exclusion must be accessible within 2 clicks from the main account page. A dedicated “Responsible Gambling” or “My Limits” link on the main account dashboard would satisfy this requirement.
Re-test scheduled: We check Rizk’s interface quarterly. Last check: January 2025. Next check: April 2025.
✗ Genesis Casino
Reason: Licence number displayed on the site did not return a valid result on MGA’s public register at time of review.
Details: Genesis Casino displays an MGA licence number on their website. When we checked this number against the Malta Gaming Authority’s public register (our standard Step 1 verification), it did not return a valid, active licence. This is a hard disqualification. We do not list any site with an unverifiable licence, regardless of how good the rest of the experience is. The licence could have been expired, transferred, or incorrectly displayed — we don’t speculate on the reason.
What would need to change: A valid, currently active licence number that can be verified on the issuing regulator’s public database.
Re-test scheduled: We’ll re-verify the licence quarterly. If it becomes verifiable, we’ll proceed to the full 6-step evaluation.
✗ PlayAmo
Reason: Multiple credible player complaints about delayed withdrawals received in Q4 2024. Suspended pending full re-test.
Details: PlayAmo was previously under evaluation. In Q4 2024, we received multiple independent reports from players experiencing significant withdrawal delays. While we don’t rely solely on user reports (our methodology is based on our own testing), a pattern of credible complaints triggers a suspension and full re-test. PlayAmo was removed from our January 2025 rankings update and has not yet been relisted.
What would need to change: Our own withdrawal test must complete within stated timeframe. The pattern of player complaints must resolve — we monitor complaint forums and dispute resolution databases.
Re-test scheduled: Not yet scheduled. We’re waiting for complaint volume to stabilise before investing in a full re-test.
✗ Wildz Casino
Reason: Maximum withdrawal limit of $4,000/week in T&Cs — significantly lower than competitors.
Details: Wildz’s CC acceptance, licensing, and RG tools are all adequate. The failure is a T&C issue flagged by our regulatory analyst Karen Webb: a $4,000/week withdrawal cap. This means a player who wins $20,000 would need 5 weeks to withdraw their funds, during which time the money sits in the casino’s control. We flag this as a player-unfriendly term. Most competitors allow $10,000-$50,000/week.
What would need to change: Weekly withdrawal limit increased to at least $10,000, which we consider the minimum reasonable threshold for a Canadian-facing casino.
Re-test scheduled: We monitor T&C changes quarterly. Next review: April 2025.
✗ PlayOJO
Reason: Region restrictions prevent full testing from all Canadian provinces. Inconsistent availability.
Details: PlayOJO’s marketed USP is “no wagering requirements” on bonuses, which is genuinely player-friendly. However, we encountered region restrictions during testing that prevented consistent access from our test locations across Canada. A site that isn’t reliably accessible to all Canadian players can’t be recommended to all Canadian players.
What would need to change: Consistent, unrestricted access from all Canadian provinces during our testing.
Re-test scheduled: June 2025.
✗ Mr Green
Reason: Support response time exceeded acceptable thresholds. Live chat wait exceeded 15 minutes in two separate tests.
Details: Mr Green’s game selection and licensing are strong (UKGC + MGA). However, our support testing — which contributes to the Player Support score (10% weight) — revealed wait times of 17 and 22 minutes for live chat in two separate tests. While support quality when reached was adequate, accessibility is part of the evaluation. We expect live chat connections within 5 minutes.
What would need to change: Live chat connection within 5 minutes in at least 3 of 4 test attempts.
Re-test scheduled: March 2025.
✗ Betsafe
Reason: Low CC acceptance rate from Canadian banks. Multiple test cards declined.
Details: Betsafe’s acceptance rate from our 9-bank panel fell below the 90% threshold. The site is well-licensed (MGA) and has a good reputation in European markets, but the payment processor used for Canadian transactions doesn’t have strong enough banking relationships. Multiple BMO and CIBC cards — which typically have high acceptance — were declined.
What would need to change: CC acceptance rate above 90% across our test panel for two consecutive cycles.
Re-test scheduled: April 2025.
How We Handle Re-Tests
Rejected sites aren’t permanently blacklisted. Our methodology includes scheduled re-tests based on the nature of the failure:
- CC acceptance issues: Re-tested monthly, as processor changes can quickly improve rates
- Withdrawal delays: Re-tested on the next scheduled cycle after the stated improvement period
- RG tool failures: Checked quarterly, as interface changes are less frequent
- Licence issues: Verified quarterly against regulatory databases
- T&C issues: Reviewed quarterly when T&Cs are updated
We have removed 4 sites from our rankings since launch in 2019, and re-listed one after the issues were resolved. Our goal is accuracy, not permanence — if a site improves, we’ll update our assessment.
Have a casino you’d like us to test? Email [email protected] — we read every submission.
Rejection data based on our testing, February 7–14, 2025, and ongoing monitoring. Full methodology at Our Methodology. Source references at Sources & Data.