About LegitPH
LegitPH republishes PAGCOR's public registers and quarterly statistics as readable tables, each carrying the as-of date printed on the source document. It is written by Eric, founder of RedClaw, an agency that buys advertising for gaming operators in Southeast Asia. That commercial interest is disclosed on every page rather than buried, and it is also the reason the advertising coverage exists at all.
Most English-language writing about Philippine gaming licences repeats the same three errors. It quotes the wrong register. It drops the as-of date. It presents a ranking as though the regulator produced one. This site exists because those errors are avoidable with an afternoon of parsing.
What does this site publish?
Parsed extracts of PAGCOR’s public filings, with the regulator’s own dates attached, plus analysis of the advertising rules that govern how licensed operators may market themselves.
The current extracts cover 258 land-based venue licensees dated 31 July 2026, 32 accredited game content providers and 22 accredited game aggregators dated 12 August 2026. Source documents are PDFs published at pagcor.ph. What each register does and does not establish is set out in the licence section.
Alongside the registers, PAGCOR releases two quarterly series. Industry figures reach back to 2014 and currently run to the second quarter of 2026. Player-exclusion figures reach back to 2022 and currently run to 30 June 2026. Both are republished with their original dates in official PAGCOR data.
Why does an ad agency run a licence tracker?
Because the advertising rules are the part of this market that moved during 2026, and reading them from the buy side produces a different account than reading them from the outside.
That is the honest answer and it cuts both ways. Running acquisition campaigns for licensed operators means we see what a prime-time advertising ban does to media cost, and what removing an e-wallet deep link does to deposit completion, before either effect appears in commentary. It also means we have a commercial interest in this industry continuing to exist. Readers should weigh both facts. Our position is that stating them plainly is worth more than the appearance of neutrality we could have manufactured by using a pen name, which is what a great many sites in this niche do.
What will this site not do?
No ratings, no rankings, no sold placement, and no review markup in the page source.
The reasoning is specific rather than pious. Schema.org review markup asserts that a rating exists and was collected. Publishing that markup without collecting ratings is a fabricated review, which Google’s own spam policies treat as a violation regardless of intent. A licensing tracker carrying invented five-star scores would be undermining the exact claim it is making about accuracy. So the markup is absent by design, and its absence is one of the automated checks that has to pass before anything ships here. The full check list is in the methodology.
How is the site funded?
At present it is not. No affiliate agreement is in place and no advertising is sold.
Outbound links to operators route through a tracked redirect so that click volume is measured from the first day rather than reconstructed later. If a commercial arrangement is signed in future it will be stated here and on the affected pages, and it will not change any list order, because no list here is ordered by anything other than the source document.
How current is any given page?
Every page carries a published date and a last-updated date, and every figure carries the as-of date printed on the source document.
Those are different dates and the difference matters. A page updated this week can legitimately quote a register dated six weeks ago, because the register is what PAGCOR last published. The archive of source documents behind the figures is described in official PAGCOR data, and the advertising measures we track are collected in advertising rules. Correspondence about anything on this site can go to the author, whose background is on the author page.
Who is the intended reader?
Two groups. Players checking whether a brand appears on a register, and operators or their agencies working out what the current advertising rules permit.
The second group is why the advertising section exists at all. Most licence trackers stop at the register and never address the rules that determine what a licensee can actually do with the licence. That gap is the reason this site was worth building.
How do you report an error?
Through the author, with the source you think we got wrong. Corrections are made in place and the last-updated date is changed so the change is visible.
We do not silently edit. A licence tracker that revises figures without marking the revision is asking readers to trust a number whose history it has erased, which defeats the purpose of publishing dates at all. Where a figure changes because PAGCOR republished the underlying file, the new as-of date replaces the old one and the previous PDF stays in the archive described in official PAGCOR data.
What outside rules constrain what we publish?
Google’s spam policies, primarily the parts covering scaled content and fabricated reviews.
Google’s published spam policy treats invented rating data as a violation whatever the intent behind it, so this site emits no review markup and an automated check refuses to publish any page containing it. The same document defines scaled content abuse in terms of purpose rather than production method, which is why our internal standard measures how much of a page is original rather than how it was written.
The two independent trade outlets we lean on most, Inside Asian Gaming and AGB, matter for a different reason than filling a reference list. A licence tracker citing only the regulator it tracks is structurally incapable of noticing when the regulator’s own account is incomplete or contested. The 32 million versus 10 million dispute at the February 2026 Senate hearing is exactly the kind of thing a single-source page reproduces without flagging, because it has nothing to check the regulator against. Reading the regulator and the trade press against each other is the only mechanism available for catching a claim the primary source has an interest in framing.
Frequently asked questions
Who writes LegitPH?
Eric, founder of RedClaw, a performance-marketing agency whose clients include iGaming operators. His background and the reason it is relevant are set out on the author page.
Is LegitPH paid to include operators?
No. No placement on this site is sold, and no list here is ordered by any commercial arrangement. Where an outbound link to an operator exists, it is routed through a tracked redirect so the click is measurable.
Does LegitPH rate or rank operators?
No. The site publishes no ratings, no scores and no top-ten orderings, and emits no review markup. PAGCOR does not rank its licensees, and inventing an order would present our opinion as the regulator's.
Disclosure. LegitPH is written by Eric, founder of RedClaw, a performance-marketing agency whose clients include iGaming operators. We publish no ratings and take no payment for placement in any list on this site. How we source and check every figure is set out in our methodology.