This page answers some of the most common questions about RG Check accreditation and how it supports safer gambling practices across the industry.
Table of Contents
Toggle
RG Check is often referred to as a “gold standard” because it is built on independent, evidence-based evaluation rather than self-assessment or internal reporting. Developed by the Responsible Gambling Council, the program uses clear, measurable criteria to assess how well operators are protecting players and promoting safer gambling.
What sets it apart is its depth and independence. Operators are evaluated through a structured process that includes policy reviews, staff training assessments, and on-site or platform-based evaluations. This ensures that accreditation reflects real practices—not just written policies.
Land-based venues and online gambling platforms operate in very different environments, so RG Check applies tailored standards to each.
For physical venues, the focus is on staff interaction, on-site player behavior, and environmental controls. For Internet gambling sites, the emphasis shifts to digital tools such as account limits, self-exclusion features, and real-time player monitoring systems.
This separation ensures that each type of operator is assessed fairly based on how gambling actually takes place in that setting.
The development and maintenance of RG Check standards are supported through a combination of accreditation fees and funding from responsible gambling initiatives. These resources are managed to maintain independence and ensure that the standards remain evidence-based and free from operator influence.
Importantly, funding is structured so that it supports ongoing research, updates to best practices, and continuous improvement of the accreditation process.
The Responsible Gambling Council shares general information about RG Check accreditation, including which operators have been accredited and the overall purpose of the program.
However, detailed assessment results and confidential operational findings are not made public. This balance helps maintain transparency about accreditation status while protecting sensitive evaluation data and encouraging honest participation from operators.