A ceremony older than most of the sites that quote it

Longevity is the one virtue nobody can buy in this trade, and the International Gaming Awards have it: the twentieth edition falls in 2027, which puts the first one somewhere around 2008 and makes this the senior survivor among the eleven bodies we read (senior by first edition rather than by size, since it runs one series where others run four). Age ought to mean a deep archive, and here it means three years of one.

The awards are run by Clever Duck Media Ltd (a media company, and neither a regulator nor a players' portal) as a single series rather than as a family of regional ones, and the 2026 ceremony fell on the eighteenth of January in Barcelona, the evening before the industry's largest trade fair opened its doors (the nineteenth to the twenty-first of that month, in the Gran Via halls). Scheduling a ceremony the night before a fair is a commercial decision, and a sensible one at that.

The objection, and what an unpublished process does to it

The objection to an industry award is usually that the process is rigged, but the sharper version is that there is no process to rig because none has been written down. This body states that it has "judges" (a panel whose size, names and employers are not set out on the page we read) and that it takes "nominations" (entries filed by somebody, in categories that somebody chose), and it stops at those two nouns.

What that silence costs is not the result itself, which may well be perfectly sound; it is the reader's ability to argue with the result on any ground except taste.

A published scoring rule can be criticised by anybody who disagrees with it, a published "shortlist" (the losers listed beside the winner) can be counted and checked against a claim, and a published conflict rule can be shown to have been broken on a particular evening. None of those three exists here, so a reader is left holding a name and a year and asked to be satisfied.

How a winner is chosen, as far as anybody is told

The declared method amounts to the existence of judges and the existence of nominations, which is a statement about furniture rather than about procedure.

There is no "adjudicator" (a third party brought in to supervise the tally) named anywhere, which is the position of nine bodies in the eleven and therefore the rule rather than the exception, the "entry terms" (what an entry costs, if it costs anything) go undeclared, and the finalists in each category are never published.

That last absence is rarer than you would expect, since only two of the eleven bodies share it. Nine print their finalists, which is the single cheapest transparency measure available to anybody running an award, because the list already exists in the organiser's spreadsheet before the envelope is opened. Not printing it is therefore a choice and not an oversight, and on this page it is recorded as a choice.

What it keeps, which is the last three editions

The archive is where this body falls furthest behind its own age, and the shape of the gap matters rather more than its size. The site links the winners of 2024, of 2025 and of 2026, and it keeps a page of "outstanding contributions" (a single honorary category, running from 2008 to 2022) beside them. For the ordinary operator categories there is nothing whatever between 2008 and 2023, so a result from 2021 or from 2022 can be read only in the trade reporting of its own year, and your badge has nowhere else to point. Three editions out of about eighteen.

The four wins one brand holds here, and where each was found

Videoslots holds four wins at this body, and all four reached us through the "trade press" (the magazines of the business, which report a result without having decided it) rather than through the organiser itself. "Slots Operator of the Year" in 2021 came from a report on the Maltese firms that took the mobile, online, safer and slots operator categories that year; "Online Casino Operator of the Year" plus "Slots Operator of the Year" in 2022 came from a single report that describes the pair of them as a "double" (two categories on one night, which the organiser never confirmed on a page of its own); and "Online Casino Operator of the Year" in 2023 came from a third report, again in the trade press.

Four wins, three years, two categories. All four went to the website itself and not to its parent company, which is worth saying because it does not hold for most of the long runs here, and the recipient line is the first thing we check.

Set beside the Casinomeister record the same brand holds, the shape is interesting rather than flattering. One body gives it eight results with a page for every year (eight results across five years, each year at its own fixed address), while the other gives it four results with no page whatever, and it is the four unverifiable ones that look better on a homepage.

"Videoslots won the EGR Operator rising star 2024 and the IGA Rising Star of the Year 2024"

Both went to Mr Vegas, a sister brand of the same company, and not to videoslots.com.

"Videoslots won the Gaming Intelligence Best Slots Operator 2016 and the IGA Best Slots Operator 2018"

Both are rows of an encyclopedia table with no citation we could reach, and nothing in the trade press confirms them.

"Videoslots won the IGA Slots Operator of the Year 2026"

The 2026 "Slots Operator of the Year (Online)" went to Mr Vegas, a sister brand of the same company. Videoslots won that category in 2021 and in 2022, and in 2026 there is no IGA award to videoslots.com. Check it.

The two claims that did not survive a reading

Two things said about this body and these brands failed when we went looking. A "Rising Star of the Year" trophy dated 2024 belongs to a stablemate of the same owner and not to the casino it usually decorates, and a "Best Slots Operator" line for 2018 traces back to rows in a reference table with no citation anybody can open (an encyclopedia entry, copied onward until it acquired the look of a record).

Neither failure is dramatic, and both show the ordinary way a claim decays: a stablemate's result migrates, and an uncited table gets copied. It happened once more in 2026, when "Slots Operator of the Year (Online)" went to Mr Vegas rather than to the casino that had taken the same heading in 2021 and in 2022. The second kind is the more dangerous, because a table looks like evidence and a press release at least announces its interest.

The check, which has to run the other way round here

With nothing on the body's own pages before 2024, the usual procedure fails for every year that matters here, and a different one takes its place. Find two independent reports of the same category in the same year, published close to the ceremony (within days of it, while the organiser could still have objected) and carrying the category heading in full, and treat the word "winner" as earned only where both of them agree. One report is a start, a company's own release is weaker still, and a reference table with no link under it is worth nothing at all.

That gives you a rule with some teeth in it, and it is the rule we applied to the four wins above before any of them went onto this site. Age is not an archive! Where only one source existed, the claim went onto a list of its own headed "claims we will not make", and we found that list runs longer than this page!

• 

  Videoslots

  MGA/CRP/258/2014, Videoslots Limited (Malta)

  Visit
• 

  888 Casino

  Virtual Digital Services Limited under MGA/CRP/121/2006, as the operator's own terms state · 888 UK Limited, Gambling Commission account 39028, in Britain

  Visit
• 

  Spin Genie

  MGA/CRP/171/2009/01, Skill On Net Limited (Malta)

  Visit

Questions