IBAS vs eCOGRA 2026: How Often Each One Rules for Players

During 2024/25, IBAS reported that 54% of cases concluded in favor of the player. A total of 1,495 cases were concluded during the year. Of the cases, 737 cases were determined through an informal resolution between the operator and IBAS. A further 65 cases were upheld by a written ruling. The remaining 693 cases (46.4% of total cases) concluded in favor of the Operator.

In the same period, eCOGRA determined in favor of the player in 17.8% of 411 cases. Overall, eCOGRA reported 14% of cases concluded through an informal resolution between the Operator and eCOGRA in the previous year.

The two processes are inherently different. Overall, the cases determined through IBAS include proceedings related to Betting Shops and Sports.

The greatest reason for refusals was that players failed to exhaust the casino’s own complaints process. It was the biggest reason at both services during the review period, i.e. 1,073 by IBAS and 361 by eCOGRA, and 72% of the invalid disputes at eCOGRA. Players were advised to obtain the casino’s final response in writing or to wait for the 8 week period to lapse, before approaching either service.

The second most common reason at both IBAS and eCOGRA was that the complaint was of a regulatory nature, for example a complaint that a licensee permitted a customer to gamble too much or that self-exclusion failed. eCOGRA reported 69 such complaints, and IBAS 415. All such complaints are outside the jurisdiction of IBAS. IBAS also refused 248 complaints and eCOGRA 19 because the operator was registered with a different dispute service.

eCOGRA and IBAS observed the same trend and stated that customers were concerned and confused when asked to provide ID or source of funds documents.

Disputes are locked out from one service to the other. Likewise, both services refuse to consider cases that have been previously considered by a third-party dispute resolution service or a court of law. A casino’s failure to name the service or services that it uses raises a number of questions about its commitment to alternatively dispute resolution (ADR). The UK Gambling Commission mandates that all licensed operators appoint a recognized ADR service. Therefore, it is expected that all licensed operators have a named ADR service.

Whether it is IBAS or eCOGRA, the process to either service is the same and is detailed in our casino complaints process.

According to the Gambling Commission, both IBAS and eCOGRA’s decisions are “non-binding”. eCOGRA has also published that, in its experience, all decisions that are in favor of the player have been implemented. eCOGRA also describes its process as “mediation”. Among the casinos that we have reviewed, both BetVictor and Midnite also state that IBAS’ rulings are binding. Furthermore, kwiff states that eCOGRA’s decision in a dispute is binding.

If a casino is bound by IBAS’ or eCOGRA’s decision, and the ruling is in your favor, you should notify the ADR service about the casino’s failure to comply with the ruling.