Is any operator SASFA certified?

No. No operator, game or software provider has been assessed or certified by SASFA, and no SASFA Verified mark has been issued. The scheme is in design.

Will certification cost money?

Any fee structure would be published in full alongside the certification methodology, including how it is set and what it does and does not buy. A scheme whose funding is unclear cannot credibly certify anyone.

Would certification mean a site is safe to use?

It would mean specific, named things had been checked and found to be as claimed. It would never be a general assurance of safety, and the framework is being designed to say precisely what was and was not examined.

Certification

Know what you are playing. Know who built it.

A certification framework being designed around one idea: that a consumer should be able to establish what has actually been verified about a gambling product, rather than taking a claim on trust.

Status: in design. Nothing is certified. SASFA does not currently assess, certify or endorse any operator, game or software provider. No SASFA Verified mark has been issued to anyone. This page describes how the scheme is intended to work so that it can be argued with before it exists, not after.

What would be assessed

Operator

Identity of the licensee, the provincial licence it holds and the licence reference it publishes.

Software

The platform and game suppliers actually running, and the version in production.

Game integrity

Published mathematics, and whether outcomes can be independently verified.

Random-number generation

Whether the RNG has been independently tested, by whom, and when.

Responsible gambling

Which player-protection controls exist, and whether they work at the point of decision.

Recourse

The complaints route, its stated timeframes and where it escalates to.

The Verify idea

The consumer-facing end of the framework would be simple: enter a game, an operator or a software provider, and see what is actually known about it. Which parts have been independently tested, which have not, who supplies the technology, and whether certification is current.

The point is that an honest answer includes the gaps. A verification tool that only ever returns good news is marketing.

The Verify tool is not built. When it exists it will be published here, and it will show unverified and not-certified results as plainly as certified ones.

Why certification has to come last

Certification is only worth anything if the standards behind it are settled, the methodology is published, and the organisation running it can explain its own funding and conflicts. Issuing a mark before that is done would make SASFA exactly the kind of thing it exists to argue against: a reassuring badge with nothing verifiable behind it.

The order is therefore standards first, methodology second, certification third. The seven draft standards are the current work.