We read 41 casino brands in seven countries. The conditions are published — where almost nobody looks.

We opened each brand's own promotion page from a connection in its market — Brazilian pages from Brazil, Greek pages from Greece — and read what was there.

Every number on this page has a source and a quote. Nothing is copied from another comparison site, and where we could not read something, we say so instead of leaving a blank that looks like an absence.

⚠️ That distinction matters more than it sounds. «The brand does not publish it» is an accusation. «We could not read it» is a limitation of ours. We got that wrong repeatedly, and the next section is about why.

Start with a measurement. On the KTO promotion page in Brazil, we asked the browser three different questions about how much text the page contains:

The entire page content lives in a shadow DOM — a browser feature that deliberately walls off a component's internals so that outside code cannot reach in. It is not a trick and it is not hiding: it is how modern web components are built, and most large casino platforms are built that way.

⚠️ But the side effect is real. Standard ways of reading a page — the ones used by scrapers, by comparison sites, and by us until we measured this — stop at that wall. Anyone who reads casino terms with a tool rather than with their eyes will conclude the conditions are absent, and be wrong.

Once we walked into the shadow root, the same KTO page handed over clause 8 of thirteen — «não possuem requisitos de aposta (sem rollover)» — with no clicking, no account, and no ambiguity. Two Japanese brands did the same on the first attempt after the fix.

Our own count went from seven brands to thirteen in an afternoon, and not one website changed. That is the honest headline of this study: the industry's transparency problem is less about what is written and more about where it is reachable.

Thirteen brands publish the wagering requirement on a page you can reach without an account. Six of those say it is zero.

> Os ganhos obtidos com as rodadas grátis … não possuem requisitos de aposta (sem rollover) *(KTO, Brazil — clause 8 of the promotion terms)*

> Además 50 GIROS GRATIS con tu primer depósito — SIN TRUCOS SIN ROLLOVER *(Retabet, Peru)*

> BONO DEL 200% + 30 GIROS SIN ROLLOVER *(Strendus, Mexico)*

> La Rueda UZU — premios en efectivo sin requisitos de apuesta *(PlayUZU, Mexico)*

> Promoción de Bienvenida: ¡Apuesta Gratis y Sin Rollover! … sin rollover sobre la Freebet *(Doradobet, Peru)*

⚠️ That last one carries a qualifier worth reading. Doradobet says «sin rollover» about the free bet — the offer also includes 300 spins, and the statement does not cover those. A brand that qualifies its own claim is being more careful, not less; it just means the headline needs finishing.

> 賭け条件は異世界のゼロ倍！【すぐに出金可能】 — *«wagering requirement: zero times. Immediate withdrawal possible»* *(Konibet, Japan)*

Three publish an actual figure: Meridianbet in Peru asks for 5× the deposit (not the bonus), Mystino in Japan asks for 25× the bonus across three deposits, and Yuugado in Japan asks for 15,000 yen of slot play to release a 1,500 yen free bet.

⚠️ Mystino is worth reading closely, because it publishes what the multiplier applies to. «ボーナス額の25倍» — 25× the *bonus amount*. That sounds like a detail and is not.

Apuestatotal in Peru does not publish a number, but publishes the rule the others leave out: «el rollover (rotación) absoluta del depósito más el bono» — the requirement counts on deposit plus bonus, not on the bonus alone.

Same multiplier, more than double the work. Deposit S/30, receive S/30, and a 20× requirement means S/1,200 wagered rather than S/600. No offer comparison anywhere shows that difference, because almost no brand states the base.

⚠️ And where the number is published, it sits NEXT TO THE BONUS, never in the general terms page.

We spent a long time opening /bonus-terms pages — one of them 18,990 characters — looking for a figure that lives on the offer itself. The KTO promotion states it in thirteen numbered clauses; clause 8 is the one that matters. A general terms document explains how bonuses work at that brand. It cannot tell you what this one requires, because it was not written about it.

Nossa Aposta, in Portugal, gives 25 free spins for registering — no deposit — and asks for 2× wagering on whatever they win, within 21 days:

> The winnings from the Free Spins have associated wagering requirements of 2 times, and new Players have 21 days to meet the minimum wagering requirements. *(our translation)*

For comparison, the range across the forty-one brands runs from 2× to 40×, and six brands say zero. A 2× requirement on a no-deposit offer is close to the zero-wagering end without being marketing: it is a real number, published, with the game named — Pot O' Gold — and a deadline attached.

⚠️ Low is not the same as absent, and that is the point of publishing it. A zero-wagering claim on a banner tells you nothing about the deadline, the eligible game, or the maximum win. Nossa Aposta states all four.

One brand publishes everything, on the page, before you register — and it is not the one we expected. Bacanaplay, in Portugal, states five numbers, the base of the calculation, and the maximum bet, in plain sentences:

> To convert the bonus balance into withdrawable balance, you must meet a wagering requirement of 30× the deposit plus the bonus, valid for 30 days. Only bets on slots count. *(our translation)*

⚠️ That last row is the one almost nobody publishes, and it voids bonuses. Bet above the cap while a bonus is active and most operators cancel it. Bacanaplay writes the cap down.

And the base matters as much as the multiplier. At the €10 minimum with a €10 bonus, 30× on deposit-plus-bonus is €600 of play. The same 30× on the bonus alone would be €300 — the base doubles the work, and the number looks identical either way.

It also states what each free spin is worth — €0.10, making 50 spins a €5 offer — the third brand of forty-one to do so, after Leon in Greece and KTO in Brazil.

Portugal is a licensed market: the SRIJ publishes the operator list and the rules require the conditions to be available. That is the argument for regulation that nobody makes with data — the most readable offer of forty-one brands, across seven countries, comes from the market with the strictest disclosure rules.

Two brands both say «20×». One asks you to bet twenty times the bonus; the other, twenty times the deposit plus the bonus. On a €30 deposit with a €30 bonus that is €600 against €1,200 — the same number, more than twice the work.

Almost nobody states the base. These four do, and they disagree with each other:

⚠️ That last row is not a bonus condition, and it is the one most likely to catch someone. Bons requires you to have wagered three times your deposit before withdrawing — one time if you bet on sports. Deposit, change your mind, ask for the money back, and they reserve the right to keep 10% or refuse.

Nobody accepted a bonus in that scenario. The rule applies anyway.

And there is a third variable underneath both: which games count. Verde in Greece publishes that slots contribute 100% but Big Bass Hold & Spin contributes 15%. Clear the same requirement on that game and you bet almost seven times more.

So a wagering requirement is really three numbers, and most brands publish at most one of them: the multiplier, the base it multiplies, and the contribution of the game you play it on.

Chasing that number across forty-one brands turned up something more useful than the count: there are two completely different ways of documenting a bonus, and they are not equally answerable.

Terms per promotion. KTO in Brazil publishes thirteen numbered clauses for that specific offer — the dates, the R$5 entry, the game, the four-day window, and clause 8: «não possuem requisitos de aposta (sem rollover)».

One general document for everything. Ivibet in Greece links «Terms and Conditions» from the offer page — and the link goes to a 19,000-character document covering every bonus the brand runs. The figure for that particular offer is not in it.

⚠️ The second kind is not dishonest. It is unanswerable. A general document can tell you how bonuses work at that brand; it cannot tell you what this one requires, because it was not written about this one.

So the useful question is not «do they publish the terms». It is: do they publish terms for THIS offer, or terms in general? Brands doing the first can be compared. Brands doing the second can only be asked — and the answer arrives by support ticket, after you have already decided whether to deposit.

Meridianbet, Peru — and it is not close. It publishes five numbers on the same page, which no other brand does:

The requirement — «un depósito mínimo de s/20 y rejugarlo x5»

The minimum deposit — S/20

The deadline — «los giros son válidos por 1 día»

The game — Veni Vidi Vici

The maximum win — S/200

⚠️ And that last one is why the banner needs reading. The offer says «500 free spins». They arrive 50 at a time, «a la misma hora en los días siguientes», each batch valid for one day — miss a day and that batch is gone — and the whole thing is capped at S/200 in winnings.

Publishing the conditions does not make the offer bigger. It makes it understandable, which is a different thing and worth more.

This is the pattern that runs through all six markets.

«500 free spins» — 50 a day for ten days, each batch expiring in 24 hours, capped at S/200. *(Meridianbet, Peru)*

«Up to 1500 EUR + 150 spins» — spread across four deposits. *(22bet, Greece)*

«Up to $1,000 + 150 spins» — spread across three. *(CasinoSecret, Japan)*

«275% + 375 spins» — that is the slots offer; a separate live-casino offer gives 300, and they are easy to confuse. *(Jugabet, Chile)*

⚠️ None of this is hidden. The breakdown is written next to the headline in every case. But the headline is set in 40 point and the breakdown in 11, and that is a design decision, not an accident.

One brand does the opposite: InterCasino in Japan publishes the three tiers separately — 150% up to $500, then 50% up to $350, then 75% up to $200 — instead of adding them into one number.

This is the number that decides what an offer is actually worth, and only two of forty-one publish it.

> Πάρε 50 Δωρεάν Περιστροφές αξίας 0,20 € η κάθε μία στο παιχνίδι Wild Bandito της PG Soft *(Leon, Greece)*

> 25 rodadas grátis de R$ 0,20 cada no jogo Gates of KTO Super Scatter *(KTO, Brazil)*

Fifty spins at €0.20 is a €10 offer. Twenty-five at R$0.20 is R$5. In both cases you know before deciding.

⚠️ Everywhere else, «50 free spins» could be worth five units or fifty, depending on a stake nobody states. Two offers with identical spin counts can differ tenfold in value, and there is no way to tell them apart from outside.

It costs one line to publish, and the two brands that do it make every other spin count on this page harder to interpret by comparison.

The regulator changes what a reader can check before depositing, and the six markets are genuinely different.

Brazil — authorised brands use a .bet.br domain and publish an SPA/MF authorisation number and CNPJ in the footer. Two checks you can do from the address bar and the bottom of the page.

Greece — the regulator publishes a blacklist of unlicensed domains. It also explains why several brands run addresses with numbers in them — leon179.bet, iv2153.com, 22bet4me.com — the previous ones were blocked.

Peru — Law 31557 put remote gaming under a public registry you can consult.

Mexico — the permit number itself encodes four things: who issued it, the year, the validity and which type of game it authorises. ⚠️ A raffle permit does not authorise casino.

Chile — no online casino regulator. There is no list to check.

Japan — ⚠️ no licensing regime at all. No brand holds a Japanese licence because none exists. Any site claiming one is misstating it.

This is the finding that surprised us most, and it holds across every market.

Licensed brands are as likely to omit the wagering requirement as unlicensed ones. Supervision covers whether the operator behaves — segregated funds, age checks, a complaints route. It does not require putting the number where you can see it.

⚠️ The Greek brands make this vivid. They are the only ones across all six markets with dedicated bonus terms pages — and the requirement is not on them. One has the longest terms page we found anywhere, 18,990 characters, covering minimum stakes and account verification and in-game feature buys. The number for the actual offer is not there.

Having the page and leaving the number out is a more interesting result than having no page at all. The format exists. The disclosure is a choice.

Ask for the requirement and the deadline together. 35× over 30 days and 35× over 7 days are not the same offer — the second one demands you play every single day.

Check what gets multiplied. Bonus alone, or bonus plus deposit? The same «35×» can mean twice the work.

Ask for the maximum bet while the rollover runs. Most brands enforce one; few publish it; exceeding it usually costs the bonus and the winnings.

Ask what the maximum withdrawal is, especially on no-deposit offers.

⚠️ And ask in writing, before accepting. At most casinos, accepting locks your balance — including your own deposit. If nobody can tell you the number, that is the answer.

Market by market, with every quote and source: Brazil · Chile · Mexico · Peru · Greece · Japan