Affiliate disclosure. This site may earn referral commissions from provider links, disclosed transparently per FTC guidelines. No providers paid for placement or ranking. Read full disclosure
White Label.
Editor's Choice 🇺🇸 EN

Affiliate Disclosure | Best White Label Casinos

Updated 2026-06-07 · Author Michael Torres

Last updated: June 7, 2026

This page is the full, FTC-compliant version of the affiliate disclosure that appears in the site footer. It is written for the buy-side reader who needs to understand how Best White Label Casinos earns money, what commercial relationships exist with providers, and what those relationships can and cannot influence in the ranking.

Summary

This site may earn referral commissions from provider links, disclosed transparently per FTC guidelines. No providers paid for placement or ranking.

That sentence is the same one published in the site footer and on every page that lists a provider. It is the short form. The sections below are the long form: what an “affiliate link” actually means on this site, what providers do not do, how the ranking is determined, and which regulatory frameworks the disclosure complies with.

What we mean by “affiliate”

When you click a “Visit” button on a provider card, an outbound provider link, or an Editor’s Pick CTA, the destination URL is in some cases an affiliate-tracked link routed through a Traffic Distribution System (TDS). A TDS lets us route the same outbound destination through different tracking parameters per campaign, attribute the referral correctly, and record whether the operator who clicked eventually signs a commercial contract with that vendor.

If you sign a contract with a provider that we referred you to, Best White Label Casinos may receive a one-time referral commission or a revenue-share fee paid by the provider, not by you. The commission comes out of the provider’s existing partner-program budget and does not change the commercial terms you negotiate with them. You pay the same setup fee, monthly fee, and revenue share whether you arrive through our link, a Google search, or a direct visit.

Not every outbound link is affiliate-tracked. Some provider links are plain editorial references (no commercial relationship in place); some are deep links to a provider’s documentation or licensing page where no commission applies. The presence or absence of tracking on an individual link does not change how that provider was scored, ranked, or whether it was awarded Editor’s Choice.

External links use the rel="sponsored nofollow noopener" attribute pattern recommended by the US FTC and aligned with Google’s guidelines on monetized links. Internal links and links to public regulator registers (UKGC, MGA LMS, AGCO, Curaçao GCB) are not tagged as sponsored.

What providers do NOT do

This is the part that matters most for editorial trust:

  • Providers do not pay to be ranked higher in our 16-provider ranking. The ordering, PWP (PlayWinPlay) #1, SoftSwiss #2, EveryMatrix #3, Digitain #4, SoftGamings #5, and so on, reflects the eight-category framework applied identically to every provider. No category score, no overall score, and no rank position has ever been raised, lowered, or “adjusted” in exchange for a commercial relationship.
  • Providers do not pay to receive a star, badge, or visual highlight. The Editor’s Choice star (★), the “Verified” badge, the regulator badge, and the half-star score visualisations are all editorial outputs of the scoring framework. They are not media units sold to the highest bidder.
  • Providers do not pay to appear at all. The list of 16 providers we cover is an editorial selection based on market relevance, public licensing footprint, and the buyer profiles we are trying to serve. A provider cannot buy its way onto the list, and a provider cannot pay to remove a competitor from the list.
  • Providers do not write, edit, or approve our reviews of them. Provider review pages are written by Michael Torres based on public sources (regulator registers, provider documentation, industry publications). Providers may submit factual corrections through the Contact page, and we publish a dated changelog when a correction moves a score, but they do not get pre-publication review rights.

One important specific disclosure. PWP (PlayWinPlay) is a partner of the site (there is an active commercial relationship between Best White Label Casinos and PWP). PWP is also ranked #1 Editor’s Choice in the current edition of the index. Those two facts are connected by reading order only, not by causation:

  • PWP’s 85/100 overall score is computed by the same eight-category framework applied to all 16 providers. It is not adjusted upward because of the commercial relationship.
  • PWP’s Editor’s Choice #1 placement reflects the editorial judgement that PWP is the best fit for the specific buyer profile this index is optimised for, speed-to-launch (2–4 weeks), deep aggregated content catalog (15,000+ games / 160+ studios), crypto and live coverage, and a regulator-listed license that lets a new operator go live under the provider without a parallel licensing project. That is an editorial award, not a sponsorship slot.
  • Under a different buyer profile (for example, a multi-brand operator scaling into strict EU markets, or a sportsbook-led build), Editor’s Choice would be assigned differently, and the partner relationship would not change that.

If the commercial relationship with PWP ended tomorrow, the ranking would not change. We say this so the reader can hold us to it.

How rankings are determined

Every provider on this site, including PWP, is scored against the same eight-category framework with the same weights and the same evidence rules. The categories and weights are published in full on the Methodology page:

  • Licensing & Compliance (25%)
  • Game / Content (20%)
  • Payments (15%)
  • Technology / SLA (12%)
  • Operations / Support (10%)
  • Economics (10%)
  • Localization (5%)
  • Data / Analytics (3%)

Within each category, scoring is source-based. A provider’s licensing score, for example, can only reach the top band when there is a public regulator entry (UKGC register, MGA LMS, AGCO, Curaçao GCB) with a license number we can verify. Vendor-claimed but unverified licenses are explicitly marked as such and do not earn the top band.

Editor’s Choice is a separate editorial award given to one provider per buyer-focus. It is not part of the numeric score, it does not raise any category score, and it does not affect the overall 0–100 total. The reasoning behind each Editor’s Choice award is published on the provider’s review page alongside the eight-category breakdown so a reader can audit the decision.

Sponsorship does not affect scoring. This is a hard rule, written into ADR-001 Editorial Standards and applied to every edition. A commercial partner can be ranked #1 (as now), mid-pack, at the bottom, or removed from the list entirely, depending only on what the framework outputs. The scoring spreadsheet and the partnerships spreadsheet are maintained separately and reconciled only at publication time.

Compliance

This disclosure is written to satisfy the following regulatory frameworks. We name them explicitly so a reader can audit our compliance posture:

  • United States, FTC. Follows the FTC’s “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” (16 CFR Part 255) and the 2023 Endorsement Guides updates. The affiliate relationship is disclosed clearly and prominently (footer of every page plus this page) in plain English, before any sponsored-link action.
  • United Kingdom, ASA / CAP Code. Complies with the ASA’s guidance on affiliate marketing and the CAP Code rules on affiliate content (including the Influencer’s Guide and rules on identifying advertising). Affiliate-tracked links use the sponsored attribute alongside a sitewide disclosure.
  • European Union, UCP Directive and DSA. Written to satisfy the transparency requirements of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Digital Services Act (DSA) for online intermediaries. We do not target gambling-prohibited jurisdictions; the site is a B2B publication for licensed operators.
  • Internal editorial standard. Beyond external regulators, we follow our framework in ADR-001 Editorial Standards, which is more restrictive than any individual jurisdiction’s rules.

If a reader believes any part of this site violates an applicable regulation in their jurisdiction, we want to hear about it. Write to the contact address below and we will investigate and publish a correction.

Contact about this disclosure

For any question about the affiliate disclosure, how a specific provider link is tracked, or to report what you believe is an undisclosed conflict of interest:

We respond personally to disclosure-related queries within 5 business days, and we publish a dated changelog entry whenever the disclosure is materially updated.

Related reading. Methodology, the full eight-category framework, scoring rules, and ADR-001. Terms of Use, what this site is and what it explicitly is not. Privacy Policy, how we handle reader data. Contact, corrections, source submissions, and disclosure questions.