Our Standards

The Elderbreaks review desk works to three principles. First, every claim on the site is verifiable against a public source, usually the operator's own pages or a state regulator's register. Second, an affiliate arrangement never changes a factual line — a wagering multiplier is the wagering multiplier whether we earn on the click or not, and a payment method that is genuinely slow is described that way even when a faster payout would be a nicer sentence. Third, readers are the audience: pages are written for a US player deciding whether to sign up, not for a search engine or for a partner's marketing team. Where those three points collide, the reader wins by default.

Every review page is fact-checked before it is published and re-checked when the operator changes a bonus, a payment method or the sign-up flow. The check runs through a short list — the operator's own bonus page, the payments help page, the terms and conditions, and the licence entry with the relevant US regulator — and each cited number is dated with the day it was verified. When two sources disagree, we cite the operator's own page in the review and note the discrepancy in the section footer so readers can see where the number came from. Historical claims about the brand — launch year, market entries — are checked against the operator's press page or an archived version of it, not against another affiliate site.

Readers who believe a page is wrong, misleading or out of date can raise a complaint at info@elderbreaks.net. The message should name the page, quote the sentence in question and, where possible, link to a source that contradicts it. We answer within two working days: the section is corrected, the sentence is stood by with a short explanation or the entire page is pulled while it is re-reviewed. If the complaint is about a link to the operator's side, we still act on the review side and pass the underlying issue to the operator's support ourselves.