About FF Info

Who we are

FF Info exists to publish a review methodology for UK-licensed betting operators that consumers can hold up against every other reviewer in the market. We are a small independent editorial team. We prioritise transparency over persuasion and evidence over opinion.

Our editorial policy centres on one principle: the reviewer must be able to describe how they scored an operator without reaching for adjectives. If the reasoning cannot survive a table of evidence, it should not be published as a score.

Our editorial approach

We work from a documented rubric. Each dimension in the rubric is defined by observable evidence, not by prose. The bands are fixed and versioned. Where the rubric changes, previous versions remain accessible so historical scores can be interpreted against the ruler that produced them.

We do not accept fee-for-placement. Editorial rankings sit above any commercial arrangements and are updated on evidence, not invoices. Where a commercial arrangement exists on a page, it is disclosed on the page itself in plain UK English.

We correct errors visibly. A retracted claim is struck through, not deleted, and the correction is dated. This keeps the editorial record honest even when we get something wrong.

Coverage scope

We cover operators licensed by the UK Gambling Commission and holding a live licence at the time of review. Operators outside the UKGC's remit are out of scope, and we do not write directional content about how to interact with unlicensed operators. This scope choice is deliberate: consumer-protection framings only work when the regulatory framing is clear.

Within scope, we prioritise operators with meaningful UK market share and operators whose recent behaviour is being publicly discussed. That does not mean we ignore small operators; it means we allocate our testing time where it produces the most useful editorial output for UK readers.

Editorial standards

Every rated operator carries a named byline. Every score has an evidence trail. Every dispute is logged. Where a reader challenges a score, we walk the evidence with them and either confirm or concede. That is the professional standard we hold ourselves to, and we welcome having it applied by our readers.

We publish plain UK English. We prefer the passive voice sparingly and the active voice usually. We avoid marketing adjectives. We treat wagering-related claims with the same care as any other consumer-finance claim, because the effect on the reader is often financial.

Advertising and disclosures

The site may carry advertising in future. When it does, adverts will be clearly labelled and separated from editorial. Ranking positions are never for sale. Advertising placements will not appear inside a rated operator's profile page.

Where we accept a testing account funded by an operator, that arrangement is disclosed on the profile in a dated line at the top of the review. We do not accept undisclosed testing accounts.

Corrections and complaints

To report an error or challenge a score, use the contact page. We aim to acknowledge within five working days and to publish a correction within twenty working days if the challenge succeeds. Corrections carry a visible strikethrough on the original text.

Complaints about advertising standards or disclosure practice can be raised through the same channel and are handled by the editor personally. Serious complaints — for example, a claim that a score was traded for a commercial arrangement — trigger an internal review and, where appropriate, a public statement.

Contact and team

Editorial enquiries reach us through the contact page. Alex Ridley is Consumer Editor and byline-writer for every current ranking. Alex has built operator-review frameworks since 2018, testing what a fair, verifiable UK betting-site review actually looks like when affiliate incentives are stripped out.

18+ Content on this site is intended for a UK adult audience.

We are UK-focused by editorial choice, not by accident. Consumer-protection framings only work when the regulatory framing is stable, and the UK Gambling Commission's remit gives us the stability we need. Extending the ranking beyond UKGC operators would dilute the ruler.

Our team is deliberately small. A small team can maintain a fixed rubric consistently; a large team drifts. Where we scale, we do it by lengthening the testing window and by publishing testing rota changes in advance so readers can hold us to the new frame.

Reader input shapes the rubric over time. The bands you see today are the result of successive rounds of challenge from readers who spotted where our definitions were fuzzier than they should have been. We expect that iteration to continue and we welcome it.

Alex Ridley — Consumer Editor

Alex writes the rubric first and the ratings second.