Bethan Quiller

I’m the Fact-Checker and Compliance Editor at British Boxing News, with eight years in gambling advertising compliance behind me. Every betting and casino guide on the site passes through me before it publishes — licence numbers, bonus terms, RTP figures, withdrawal times and every claim about what an operator will actually do for you.

My subject is the gap between what an offer says and what its terms allow: wagering requirements, game weighting, maximum win caps, expiry windows, the CAP and ASA rules an ad has to satisfy, and the Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice sitting behind all of it. I know the difference between an offer that’s merely unattractive and one that breaches the code.

Fact-checking here isn’t a rubber stamp. I verify every operator’s licence against the Gambling Commission’s public register on the day of publication, not the day the draft was written. I re-read wagering requirements, maximum win caps, game weightings and expiry windows against the operator’s own terms page rather than its landing page, because the two disagree more often than you’d like. I pull RTP figures from the game provider, not the casino. Where a claim can’t be sourced, it comes out — and if a page hasn’t been re-checked inside 90 days, the fact-check badge comes off it.

I came to this from the other side of the desk: eight years in advertising compliance at a UKGC-licensed operator, signing off the campaigns I now read as a reader.

I don’t gamble. I think that’s the right position for the person doing this job, and it’s why the reviews on this site are written by people who do. Outside work I’m a very slow long-distance swimmer and a school governor in Cardiff.

Most common correction: a bonus quoted by its headline percentage with the wagering multiple left out.
Biggest red flag: an operator whose terms page and landing page quote different wagering requirements.