Natalia Szula, Head of the iGamingNuts.com project, chats to SBC News about the affiliate sector in the UK, and whether affiliates should be licensed moving forward. Having just launched iGamingNuts in the UK, the affiliate has plenty of international experience and Szula leverages this experience to assess whether greater accountability is required for affiliates to protect players from illegal operators.
SBC News: What are the arguments for and against affiliates being licensed in the UK?
Natalia Szula: There are strong points on both sides of the debate. Licensing could bring greater transparency and accountability to the affiliate space, which would benefit not only players, but also operators and regulators. With clear rules in place, it would be easier to weed out misleading practices and ensure that affiliates uphold the same standards expected of licensed operators, especially when it comes to responsible marketing and player safety.
At the same time, there’s a real concern that introducing licensing without proper consultation could unintentionally shut out smaller affiliates. Many of them operate responsibly, but might not have the resources to navigate complex or expensive compliance processes, especially if the model is borrowed directly from operator licensing. That kind of setup could lead to more market consolidation and less room for innovation.
SBC: Do you think that self-regulation amongst affiliates has been a failure? If so, why?
NS: I wouldn’t call it a total failure, but it’s definitely not enough. Many affiliates, especially those who take their work seriously, have raised their own standards over the years. But without any real enforcement, there’s still plenty of room for shady or misleading practices.
That’s especially true when it comes to international affiliates who target UK players but ignore local rules. In the end, self-regulation only works for those who already want to do things the right way. It doesn’t stop bad actors from using aggressive SEO tactics or paid traffic to promote questionable brands.
SBC: What are iGaming Nuts’ player protection guardrails?
NS: From the start, we’ve focused on transparency, trust, and common sense. We don’t publish promotional material disguised as reviews. Every casino listed on our site goes through a structured rating process that looks beyond just bonuses and game selection. We pay close attention to things that really impact the player — like payment speed, clarity of terms, site usability, and overall user feedback.
We also make a strong effort to educate players. That means explaining how to try games for free, what to expect during account verification, or how to properly understand bonus terms. Our goal is to help users make informed choices and avoid common pitfalls — not to push them toward the first flashy offer.
SBC: What good practices does iGN have to ensure that it would be compliant with any such regulatory frameworks?
NS: At iGN, we follow internal standards that already reflect much of what formal regulation would likely require. All content is fact-checked by more than one team member, and we avoid vague or overly promotional language. We also don’t publish paid content disguised as independent reviews.
We clearly outline our affiliate policy on the site, so users can understand how we make money and how that may affect listings. On top of that, we regularly update our content to make sure it stays accurate and in line with any changes to local rules.
SBC: How difficult would it be to get affiliates to agree to a licensing regime?
NS: It really depends on how the system is set up. If the requirements are fair, the costs reasonable, and there are clear advantages, like a trust badge or access to more trusted operator deals, many affiliates, especially the responsible ones, would likely support it.
But if the model ends up being too complex or expensive (similar to what’s expected of operators) then it could push out smaller affiliates who already operate on tight budgets. The affiliate space is very broad, and any licensing regime would need to reflect that. Without real benefits or flexibility, it’s hard to see wide adoption happening quickly.
SBC: What kind of licensing and regulation regime would you be in favour of?
NS: We’d support a system focused on transparency, quality content, and ethical marketing, without treating affiliates like operators. A tiered approach could work well, with different requirements depending on traffic or business model (e.g., SEO vs. paid ads).
Key elements should include clear marketing rules, regular content checks, and disclosures of commercial relationships. It would also be useful to have a public register of licensed affiliates. Importantly, the process should be overseen by an independent body with both regulator and affiliate input.
SBC: Are there any other jurisdictions that you would take inspiration from in terms of the way they regulate affiliates and third-party marketing partners?
NS: The Netherlands offers a strict but interesting example. Affiliates there have very clear rules on things like language, tone, and where content can appear. If these rules aren’t followed, there’s quick action. While it’s a tough market, it’s pushed affiliates to be more careful and responsible in how they communicate.
Romania, on the other hand, has a more relaxed approach, with affiliate licensing but fewer hoops to jump through. It shows that regulation can still be effective without being too heavy. A UK system could take inspiration from both: the clarity of the Netherlands and the more flexible approach of Romania.
SBC: Do you anticipate that there will be a move to regulate the sector? What do you expect to see in the future?
NS: Yes, it seems more and more likely. Operators are already under a lot of pressure to stay compliant, and it makes sense for affiliates to be next in line for some form of oversight. Whether that’s through licensing, clear rules of conduct, or stricter partnerships, we’re likely to see more regulation in the coming years.
With the sector growing and attracting more attention, it would be unexpected if regulators didn’t step in to bring more clarity and control.
