Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in gambling is an independent process for resolving a complaint between a player and a licensed operator when the operator's own complaints procedure has been exhausted without agreement.
Definition
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in gambling is an independent process for resolving a complaint between a player and a licensed operator when the operator's own complaints procedure has been exhausted without agreement. Licensed regimes typically require operators to be signed up to an approved ADR provider and to tell players how to escalate to it.
The ADR body reviews the evidence from both sides and issues a decision; in many schemes the decision is binding on the operator but leaves the player free to pursue other legal routes.
ADR exists because the alternative — court — is slow and expensive relative to the size of most gambling disputes, and because a regulator cannot adjudicate every individual case. It covers disputes about withheld winnings, closed accounts, bonus terms, KYC hold-ups, and self-exclusion failures.
It does not usually cover commercial disagreements that are not about a specific transaction, and it is not a route for the operator to pursue the player.
In context
For affiliates, ADR is one of the most useful pieces of practical information to include in an operator review and in complaints-oriented content, because it tells a reader with a genuine grievance exactly what to do. A good review states which approved ADR provider each operator uses, and the site's complaints guidance should walk through the sequence: raise it with the operator first and get a final response, then take it to the named ADR body with the evidence, within any time limit.
This is concrete, decision-useful content that also tends to rank well because it answers a real question.
The presence and identity of an operator's ADR provider is also a quality signal. A licensed operator will have one; an unlicensed site typically will not, and a player who deposits there has no independent recourse — another practical reason affiliate content should favour licensed brands.
Affiliates should present ADR accurately: it resolves specific transactional disputes, decisions are often binding on the operator but the player keeps other rights, and it is free or low-cost to the player. Framing it as a guaranteed way to overturn any operator decision would overstate it; omitting it entirely leaves readers with a grievance and no path.
Worked example
An affiliate's complaints guide lays out the steps: get the operator's final response, then escalate to its named ADR provider with all evidence within the time limit. Each operator review lists the ADR body used.
A player whose withdrawal was withheld over a bonus-terms dispute follows the guide, submits to the ADR provider, and receives a binding decision in their favour.
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Browse the full iGaming & affiliate glossary — hundreds of EN/RU terms with examples.
← Back to glossary