What the bonus terms actually say

Thirty operators are in this register — the ones whose own restricted-territory list was read and does not name Japan. Their promotional pages were fetched from a server, rendered in a real browser engine so that client-side pages would resolve, and saved.

Thirteen answered with a readable page. Nine answered with a bot check instead of the page. Six answered with a country block aimed at the machine doing the fetching, one returned a Telegram contact page rather than a casino, and one domain did not resolve at all.

The six country blocks say nothing about Japan. The capture server sits in the Netherlands, and the operators said so themselves: Cloudbet answered that it does not serve players from the Netherlands, and Nine Casino printed our own IP address back at us next to the country code NL. Six of these pages suggested, in so many words, that a VPN would fix it. None was used — the same operators' terms treat location masking as a breach of contract, and this site is not going to do quietly what it tells its readers not to do.

These are transcribed exactly as printed, capitalisation included, on 28 August 2026. Where a wagering figure was published anywhere we could reach, it is in the third column; where the cell says not published, it means we could not find one on the operator's own promotional or bonus-terms pages, not that no requirement exists.

Read the third column before the second. Eight of these ten headline percentages arrive with no published figure attached, and the two that do are the two smallest-sounding offers on the list.

Wild.io is the only operator in this register whose bonus terms were both reachable and complete enough to follow from headline to withdrawal. It is used here not because it is the worst — it is unusual in publishing this at all — but because it is the only one where the exercise is possible, and because the gap it shows between headline and terms is the gap the other nine headlines are silent about.

The headline is 350% plus 200 free spins. Clause 1.8 says that unless stated otherwise, the maximum bonus amount for bonuses exceeding 150% is 500 USDT or the cryptocurrency equivalent. So the percentage stops mattering above a fairly small deposit: 350% of a large deposit is still 500 USDT.

Clause 2.7 sets the multiplier: “Unless stated otherwise, our bonuses have a wagering requirement of 40x”, and the clause gives its own worked example — a 10 mBTC bonus requires 400 mBTC of wagering. Applied to the 500 USDT ceiling, that is 20,000 USDT to be staked before the bonus becomes withdrawable.

Clause 1.14 caps the bet while a bonus is active at 5 USDT (or 0.000045 BTC, 5 USDC, and so on down a list of twelve coins), and exceeding it forfeits the bonus and everything won with it. Clause 1.3 gives the whole welcome package seven days. Twenty thousand at five a spin is four thousand spins, minimum, inside a week — and clause 2.5 restricts which spins count: slots contribute 100%, while table games, video poker, jackpot, accumulator and live games contribute 0%.

None of those four clauses is hidden or unusual for this market. All four are absent from the headline, and three of them — the ceiling, the multiplier and the max bet — are what decide whether the headline is worth anything.

Wild.io clause 1.1 withholds bonuses from players in Sweden entirely, and clause 1.25 lists roughly a hundred countries barred from no-deposit free spins — Austria, France, India, Indonesia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Greece and a long tail of others. Japan is on neither list. That is the kind of fact this site exists to surface: an operator can accept a country and still exclude it from the promotions it advertises to that country, and the only way to know is to read the bonus terms separately from the terms of service.

The second is Winz.io's. It is the only operator here whose headline carries its own wagering figure, and the figure is zero — “Zero wagering requirement” on the welcome bonus, “zero rollover requirements” on the sports free bet. A zero is a claim like any other and it is not tested here; what is checkable is that Winz.io is willing to print a number on the offer, which nine of the ten others were not.

Rocketpot sits in between, and is a useful illustration of why a promise is not a figure. Its promotions page says it does not believe in “fine print” traps or impossible wagering requirements that lock your funds forever. That is a sentence about wagering requirements which contains no wagering requirement.

Which bonus is best value. Ranking offers would require the missing multipliers for nine of them, plus a judgement about game contribution and expiry, and the honest version of that table is mostly empty cells.

Whether any operator honours what it publishes. No money went into testing anything here, so a clause saying winnings are paid is logged as a clause and never as an outcome.

What the twenty operators whose offer we could not read actually offer. Their absence from the table above is a fact about a capture run from a Dutch server on one day in August 2026 and nothing more. Several of them are among the largest brands in the market; the bot walls they answered with are ordinary infrastructure, not evidence of anything.