Are Casino Affiliates Hurting or Helping Players?

A player logs into a newly advertised online casino, lured by a generous bonus featured on a popular gambling blog. The blog doesn’t disclose its ties to the casino. Days later, the player has lost hundreds of dollars. Behind this interaction lies a complex and often opaque industry powered by casino affiliates—marketers who earn money by directing users to gambling platforms. The question that looms is whether these intermediaries are helping users make informed decisions or exploiting them for profit.

Affiliate marketing has become a foundational element in the growth of online gambling. These marketers use blogs, social media, email campaigns, and streaming platforms to target potential gamblers across the globe. Their effectiveness has made them indispensable to casino operators. But the structure of affiliate compensation—often based on how much a player loses—raises pressing ethical and regulatory concerns. At its core, the system creates a direct link between affiliate earnings and player losses, incentivizing high-risk behavior and opening the door to deceptive marketing practices.

The Business of Player Losses

Casino affiliates typically operate under four main compensation models: Revenue Sharing (RevShare), Cost Per Acquisition (CPA), Cost Per Lead (CPL), and Hybrid arrangements. Each model offers different incentives, but all are rooted in performance metrics tied to user behavior.

RevShare is the most controversial. Affiliates receive a percentage—commonly 30% to 40%—of the net losses from referred players over their lifetime. This structure financially rewards affiliates for driving high-value losses. Studies show a significant portion of online gambling revenue stems from problem gamblers, suggesting a troubling alignment between affiliate profits and user harm.

CPA models pay affiliates a flat fee, often between $50 and $250, for each player who signs up and deposits. While less dependent on continued losses, this model encourages high-volume signups, sometimes at the expense of user education or protection. CPL, based purely on registrations, poses fewer risks but can still involve misleading tactics.

Hybrid models combine upfront payments with RevShare incentives, blending immediate and long-term profits. Regardless of the model, affiliates often use tracking tools, affiliate networks, and targeted promotions to optimize conversions. These methods allow precise targeting—and in some cases, predatory marketing.

Ethical Fault Lines

The alignment of affiliate earnings with player losses has generated deep ethical fault lines within the industry. While some affiliates genuinely aim to guide players to legal and regulated platforms, many others blur the line between guidance and manipulation. RevShare models in particular have drawn scrutiny for encouraging affiliates to promote excessive betting and target individuals likely to incur high losses.

Social media influencers have become a powerful extension of this ecosystem. With unclear or undisclosed commercial relationships, their endorsements often reach young and impulsive users who may not grasp the risks. Affiliates have been known to promote unrealistic expectations of winning, downplay gambling risks, and even offer workarounds to jurisdictional restrictions. Some direct users to offshore gambling sites using VPNs, including sites that may not comply with local self-exclusion programs.

The lack of transparency around these financial relationships exacerbates consumer vulnerability. When affiliates pose as independent experts or community leaders, players often mistake promotional content for unbiased advice. Some affiliates have reportedly helped illegal operators target self-excluded individuals and minors, further amplifying the risks.

Regulation in a Borderless Industry

Affiliate oversight remains fragmented across jurisdictions, and regulation struggles to keep pace with innovation. While some markets, such as parts of the U.S., impose licensing requirements on affiliates, others rely on casino partners to enforce compliance.

Google and major ad platforms impose their own advertising rules, but enforcement is uneven. Country-specific legislation, such as Australia’s Interactive Gambling Act, adds additional complexity. A notable example of regulatory flux occurred when the Massachusetts Gaming Commission temporarily halted RevShare and CPA affiliate deals.

Efforts to address ethical breaches have gained momentum. Regulatory bodies have acted against affiliates for misleading advertising, while the industry has responded with initiatives like the Responsible Gambling Affiliate Association (RGAA), which seeks to promote higher standards. Academic research continues to expose flaws in affiliate models, particularly the RevShare structure, and calls for more robust safeguards to prevent harm.

Despite these measures, the affiliate sector remains a high-stakes intersection of profit and player vulnerability. A stronger commitment to ethical standards, improved transparency, and coordinated regulatory frameworks may be essential to ensure that affiliates serve as responsible gatekeepers rather than enablers of gambling harm. Without structural reforms, the conflict between affiliate incentives and player well-being will persist—and so will the risks to millions of online gamblers.