A player opens a familiar slot on an online casino. The logo belongs to a provider they recognise. The graphics look right. The soundtrack is familiar. Nothing on the screen suggests that the game could be a counterfeit or that the mechanics behind it could differ from those its creator intended. That familiarity makes counterfeit games difficult to spot. A fake can borrow the reputation of a legitimate provider while it conceals an altered product. An operator may have accepted questionable content through its supply chain or may have deliberately substituted a copy. In either case, the player has little reason to question what sits beneath it.
In Episode 19 of the iGaming AFRIKA podcast, Victoria Abiodun speaks with Gamecheck’s Head of Sales, Jack Crabtree, and Partnerships Manager, Elizabeth Mcdermott, about how fake games reach online casinos and why players may not spot them. They explain how Gamecheck checks whether a game is real and explore how players can trust a game when they cannot see how it works.
Africa offers plenty of room for online casinos to grow, but Crabtree and Mcdermott argue that businesses must protect the players they hope to attract. A seal on a website is only part of that work. Games need regular checks after their first approval, providers need to confirm that they are genuine, and players need a simple way to check them on the devices they use.
A familiar game can conceal a different bargain
Before she joined GameCheck, Mcdermott did not know fake casino games were something she needed to worry about. What surprised her was that some operators and game providers she met were unaware of the problem too. These were people who worked in the industry, supplied its products and dealt with players. Some still needed an explanation of what a fake game was and how it could reach a casino.
“It’s just not something that you necessarily think of when you’re on these websites and there’s almost this implicit trust of if this website looks and if it feels natural and it’s well designed and there’s all these other elements to it, you just kind of subconsciously believe, oh well this is just a fun game, I’m going to continue playing. What is the worst thing that can happen?”
The copies were no longer easy to dismiss as poor imitations. Crabtree shared that some of the people behind them had hired developers who worked on the originals. Older fakes could give themselves away through poor graphics or music that sounded wrong, but experience with the genuine product makes those mistakes easier to avoid. He believes artificial intelligence has also made games easier to reproduce. A player could recognize the name, pictures and sound without realizing that the version on their screen had been changed to pay back less. The details that make the game familiar would offer reassurance while the changes that affect their money remained hidden.
He also explained that GameCheck treats a game as fake when it differs from what its provider intended players to receive. This often involves changes to the return to player, or RTP, or to how the game works. He says RTP manipulation is the main problem they encounter, with some altered games having an RTP as low as 40–50%.
“By and large, we see RTP manipulation being the biggest thing. We have seen that go as low as 40–50%. It is pretty brutal when you look at the maths. You’re like, ‘That’s pretty hard,’” Crabtree explained.
A player may not suspect that a game has been changed to pay back less, even after a heavy loss. They know losses can happen, but they still expect the game to work as its creator intended. An altered copy takes advantage of that trust.
How fake games reach the casino
Some operators knowingly buy fake games, while others believe they have found a better deal. Crabtree described offers through channels such as WhatsApp and used a hypothetical example of a game offered at 70% RTP rather than 94%. The lower figure would leave more money with the casino, making the offer tempting. But the difference should also prompt questions about the supplier and whether the original provider has authorised that version.
“I think what’s happening is some operators are getting a WhatsApp and it’s basically we can get you this game this RTP worth a chat now you know some operators who may not understand this is fake I think genuinely will sit there and go okay like yeah I was duped,” he said. Whether the purchase is deliberate or the buyer is misled, players can receive an altered game without their knowledge.
Checking the supplier does not remove the need to check what happens afterwards. Crabtree explained that an operator can start with genuine games, then replace them with copies or switch on fake versions for selected customers, especially those known to spend heavily. An inspection could therefore find the original while another player receives a counterfeit.
Certification needs a life after the first check
A game can pass an inspection and still be replaced later. That possibility is the basis of Crabtree’s criticism of reliance on one-time checks. He acknowledges the value of tests that examine RTP and other features, but argued that their value does not remove the need to assess what an operator actually serves after that initial approval.
According to him, operators should not know when those checks would happen, since advance notice gives them an opportunity to present genuine games for inspection and substitute copies afterwards. “We work with testing houses, and that’s the big problem testing houses have. They will come in and say, ‘We tested this game.’ Well, yeah, because they knew we were coming in. What kind of idiot is going to put a fake game up whilst you’re being tested?”
GameCheck’s investigators enter casino sites as ordinary players and collect evidence without revealing which games they will examine. Crabtree explained that the company does not need a commercial relationship with the operator to investigate its content. The evidence goes to the original provider, which confirms whether the game is genuine. “They send that evidence back to us through our system, and we hand it straight to the provider. The provider tells us whether that game is real or fake. The big thing we said is that it has to be irrefutable. Working directly with the providers allows us that irrefutable bridge.”
Read Also: Tackling Fraud and Risk Management in Kenyan iGaming: A Podcast with Gertrude Kirenga
A seal must be clear about its limits
A player who sees GameCheck’s seal on a casino website might assume that every game has been checked. Crabtree explained that it means the company has carried out more detailed checks across more providers and has not found fake games in those checks. It does not mean that every title in the casino’s catalogue has been examined.
He also made clear that an operator without the seal should not automatically be suspected of supplying copies. “That’s not to say that people without the seal are operating fakes. People who have the seal are making a statement about how real their games are, and they are prepared to go there. What does the seal not cover? I would say long-tail games.”
GameCheck also has to protect the seal against misuse. Crabtree explained that each seal is linked to a blockchain record of the check, allowing that record to be verified. The company monitors its QR codes and receives alerts when they appear on website addresses it does not recognise. He recalled cases where operators placed a seal on additional domains and the team detected the use within minutes. The seal applies to the website authorised to display it, rather than every site an operator owns.
Africa needs protection that fits its players
Mcdermott urged African markets to learn from mistakes made elsewhere as they attract more investment. Her concern was that businesses with money and influence could take advantage of players who know little about counterfeit games. “I think it’s just ensuring that kind of the iGaming industry within Africa just learns from kind of the previous errors that have happened in Latin America that have happened in North America that have happened in Europe that have happened in all these different areas.” Crabtree agreed that past mistakes offered useful lessons, but argued that protection also needed to reflect local conditions, including the widespread use of phones in the continent.
That protection, Mcdermott argued, requires more than a statement on an operator’s “About Us” page on the website. She recalled conversations with businesses that questioned the need for verification because they already told customers how much they valued player care. Her response was that those promises needed evidence behind them. A counterfeit can damage trust in a genuine business when players blame the name attached to the copy, and that damage can be difficult to undo.
“You kind of have to show the proof is in the pudding there. You have to show that you are investing within this. Otherwise, what is your business going to be within the next one year, two years, five years?” She also viewed player education as part of that investment, so customers could better understand the risks and the tools available to them.
She also encouraged players to use those tools, ask questions and share what they learned with friends and family. She reminded them that the industry depends on their participation. “So it’s just recognizing that you have power in this equation. You are the most important thing. Without players, these gaming sites are not a thing. So it’s just making sure that you’re protected, that you’re kept safe.”
