The best public score on the site, and the award we had to remove

This brand carries the highest public review average of any name we list, and it is also the one page where a claim had to come off the ledger before publication, which makes the two halves of this review worth exactly the same amount (the score and the correction, in that order). A site that prints only the first half is advertising, and a site that prints only the second is settling a score.

Taking a claim away will look to some readers like exactly that kind of score-settling. The editions are published on one page.

The award it did not win

The claim going round is that this brand has won an AskGamblers Award, and the winners pages of that body say otherwise across every single edition they have published, from the first in 2017 to the ninth in 2026. The name is absent from the "winners", absent from the runners-up, and absent from the ten "finalists" each category produces, which is three separate places (first place, the places behind it, and the shortlist) where the name would have had to appear.

How that body works is what makes an absence meaningful rather than merely unproven. Registered players nominate in a first round, then players and reviewers together choose ten finalists per category in a second, and the "archive" prints first, second and third place for every year from 2017 onward (nine editions, every one of them at a fixed address).

The origin of the claim is a sentence shape rather than a document. Pages mention this brand and a "player-voted" award in the same breath, name neither the year nor the category, and leave a reader to assemble a "win" out of simple adjacency; that is not evidence, and on this site it is not printable.

One limit on our own side belongs beside all that. The portal's main site refuses our working environment outright (a flat refusal, repeated from two addresses), so no AskGamblers rating appears anywhere on this website, and what we could read was the awards archive rather than the brand's card.

What the public figures say, and on which day

Trustpilot gave luckydays.com four point three over 1,381 reviews, a figure it files as "Excellent", on 20 October 2026, when both of these numbers were taken (1,381 writers, and the band name belongs to the portal). That is the strongest public average behind any brand on this site, and it is also the youngest file of reviews we have looked at (the brand opened in 2019), which is a pairing worth holding in mind.

Casino Guru, read that same day, had the brand at eight point nine, a "Safety Index" result it files under "High", with forty-four complaints on file and a record of resolving them that the portal itself calls "very good". Forty-four is a substantial file for a brand of this age, and the ratio is the part that matters.

The useful reading of that pair is about ratios rather than totals, and it reverses the ranking a graphic would give you. A large complaint file with a good "resolution record" (the ratio, and never the total) describes an operator that gets into disputes and then settles them, which is a different animal from one with a small file and no record of settling anything, and the second looks better on a graphic while telling you less.

Here the two instruments agree, which happens on very few pages of this site, and agreement is weaker evidence than it appears. Both figures describe recent behaviour of a brand that only opened in 2019, so what they really establish is that nothing has gone badly wrong in seven years (seven, against thirty-two on another page of this site), which is a far shorter test than most of our entries have faced.

A third public figure would have helped here and was not available to us (two attempts, on two separate days). The community card at LCB answered our requests with a "rate limit" rather than a page, so two readings is what this review has, and we would rather say so than quietly present a pair as a "consensus".

Who runs it, and the two companies involved

The operator is Raging Rhino N.V., holding licence OGL/2024/1675/0903 from the Curaçao Gaming Control Board and dated 26 March 2025. That is a licence issued under Curaçao's new regime (the board replaced a system of master licences and sub-licences), which means the supervisory arrangement behind this brand is younger than the brand itself.

A second arrangement runs through Kahnawake, and the company holding that one is not the operator. Monkey 9 Ltd of Cyprus, which acts as the "payment agent", appears as the "permit holder" for both luckydays.ca and luckydays.com on the commission's own list, checked on 21 September 2026; a reader pursuing a dispute should know that the company taking the money and the company running the games are two separate businesses, which is the sort of detail that only becomes interesting at the moment it becomes urgent.

Two registers, and no entries in either

A British licence is not part of this arrangement, which keeps the brand out of the Commission's register in both directions. Searching the pair of registers that do govern it turned up no "regulatory action" against either company named above.

The nine-page check for any player-voted award

The instrument here is specific to the commonest kind of award claim in this trade, which is the player vote, and it works because those bodies publish their archives. Open the winners page, pick the year the claim names, and search it for the brand; if the claim names no year, search every edition in turn (2017 to 2026, one page each), because nine pages take you about four minutes and settle the matter completely.

We did that here, and the result is the shape of this review. The scores are the best on the site, the resolution record is genuinely good, and the award that everybody attaches to this brand belongs to somebody else entirely (the best figures here, and a correction fewer sites would print)!

• 

  Videoslots

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

  Visit
• 

  Spin Genie

  MGA/CRP/171/2009/01, Skill On Net 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

Questions