Makeberry Affiliates

Makeberry Affiliates — one marketing umbrella, three separate owners, and a 9.8 and a 3.2 sold from the same shop window

This page maps a commercial network, not an operator. Makeberry Affiliates — run by Makeberry OÜ, an Estonian company with a public registry entry, an EU VAT number and a named director — handles the marketing and affiliate side of three casinos that belong to three different companies: RocketPlay, owned by Scores55 Tech B.V.; LuckyHills, owned by Complete Technologies N.V.; and WinSpirit, whose ownership our file currently records as conflicted between the umbrella company itself and Complete Technologies — a question a certificate will settle. One shop window, three separate ledgers behind it — and the reason this site records the network and the owner as two separate facts on every brand page.

Two things make this network worth a full report. The first is the spread: the same program sells the joint-highest-rated casino in our catalogue and a brand sitting at 3.2 “Very Low” with a withheld-payouts finding against it — a 9.8, a 6.7 and a 3.2 under one umbrella, which is the widest quality range we have ever documented inside a single commercial stable, and the cleanest proof this series has that a shared marketing operation tells you nothing about where your money actually sits. The second is an integrity finding at the umbrella level: one brand’s own affiliate kit contains a written instruction to market a formally unserved jurisdiction — and the same brand’s trail includes placed promotional content carrying a fabricated safety score. We credit this umbrella for a transparency the industry rarely offers, and we discount its unverifiable claims for the same documented reason. What follows is built accordingly: on certificates, watchdog records and award records — the claims that can be checked — and on nothing that cannot.

Who sells you the casino vs who holds your money

These are two different questions, and this network is the clearest illustration in our catalogue of why we answer them separately. The seller is Makeberry Affiliates — and, unusually, it is the most identifiable umbrella we track: an EU-registered company with a public VAT number and a named director, where most affiliate programs in this industry are a brand name and a login page. At one brand the relationship is even declared on the casino’s own footer, logo and name verbatim — the strongest first-party network attribution in our files. That transparency is genuine and we credit it as such.

The holders are another matter. Whichever of these casinos you play at, the company holding your balance is the operator named in that brand’s footer and on its licence certificate — and across this stable that is three different answers, in different jurisdictions, on different licences, with no corporate connection between two of them beyond the shared marketing desk. One wrinkle makes the point sharper still: the umbrella company is not only the seller here — at one brand it is (per its own materials) also the owner, one entity wearing two hats. And one boundary matters in the other direction: this is not the marketing arm of the RocketPlay owner’s wider casino family. That operator runs five brands; exactly one of them is sold through this program. Commercial networks and operator families overlap without coinciding — which is why RocketPlay appears both on this page and on its operator family’s own page, each answering its own question.

Three brands, three owners, three verdicts

All three brands are documented first-party from the program’s own materials, with live-site and register checks layered on top. The table is the stable at a glance — each brand with its owner and the facts that most define it.

A written instruction, and what it costs the whole program

Affiliate kits overstate; that is their nature, and this series prices it in as a matter of routine. What we found in one of this stable’s kits is a different category. At the brand on hold, one jurisdiction sits on the official restricted list — formally unserved — while the same kit ranks that jurisdiction as the brand’s top marketing geography, ships one of its domestic payment rails, and, decisively, carries a written instruction to continue marketing it “for SEO” while it remains officially unserved. This is not a template error or a localization leftover, the explanations available for the restricted-but-served contradictions this series documents elsewhere. It is the contradiction with the intent stated in writing, first-party, in the operator’s own commercial materials. The same brand’s promotional trail includes placed content carrying a fabricated safety score — a rating that corresponds to no listing at any watchdog we track.

We draw the consequence at the level the evidence sits: the umbrella. A program whose materials contain a written instruction to market around its own compliance line, and whose promotional trail includes an invented rating, forfeits the benefit of the doubt on every claim that cannot be independently checked — at all three brands, not just one. That is not a boycott; RocketPlay’s paper is verifiable and verified, and it stands on it. It is a sourcing rule, and this page applies it explicitly: from this program, certificates, register entries, watchdog records and award records carry weight; kit claims alone do not. Readers comparing these casinos across the wider web should know that placed promotional content for at least one of them exists — and that any rating you cannot trace to a real listing deserves the treatment we gave it here.

Clean terms, restrained money

WinSpirit’s file is the inverse of a terms problem, and it is worth being precise about that shape. Its contract reads clean — the watchdog found no unfair clauses — and its product surface is substantial. What drives its 3.2 is conduct evidence: a very high value of restrained payouts relative to the casino’s size — the money-contest class of finding this series treats as the heaviest available, because it measures the failure mode as money rather than anecdote — alongside complaint themes that include a documented payout stall in the hundreds and bonuses attached to deposits without the player’s request, the latter a mechanism that can quietly convert a withdrawable balance into a wagering-locked one. Around the money sit three structural notes: the ownership conflict described above; a footer that a desk check found missing the licence number — at a brand whose sister declares its network on the footer, the contrast is not cosmetic; and a responsible-gambling floor where self-exclusion exists only as a request to support, not a self-service control. Any one of these alone would be a caveat. Together, at a brand whose own kit carries the instruction documented in the previous section, they are a hold: WinSpirit is documented on this page and not promoted anywhere on this site, pending the certificate, the operator’s answers, and movement in the complaint record.

The house signature — and where the sharing stops

The stable does share a design language, and its best element deserves naming: bonuses are non-sticky across all three brands — real money is played first and the bonus can be abandoned with winnings intact — a structure consistent with the fairness award at the flagship and materially more player-favourable than the sticky norms this series documents elsewhere. The promotional calendar is shared too: the same weekly rhythm of cashback and free-spin days runs across the stable, at percentages that differ by brand.

Everything else is per-brand, and the divergences are not rounding errors. Withdrawal caps run on entirely different frames — a weekly-plus-monthly model at the flagship against daily-plus-monthly ceilings at the other two — with welcome caps, wagering requirements and maximum-win limits diverging just as sharply. Geography runs on three different models inside one stable: a long blacklist at one brand, a short blacklist at another, and a whitelist — open only where named — at the third, with markets restricted at one sister and absent from another’s list entirely. Even the VPN stance is opposed inside the umbrella: prohibited outright at one brand, tolerated with registration-country identity at the others. And the responsible-gambling floor is uneven — a full limit stack at the flagship, a minimal set at the newcomer, and support-request-only self-exclusion at the brand on hold. The rule this stable teaches is the rule this series keeps arriving at from the opposite direction: a shared umbrella is a marketing fact, and every number that governs your money is a per-brand fact. Read the rulebook of the casino you actually play at.

What a shared shop window does not tell you

Set the three records side by side and the finding writes itself. At one end, a 9.8 — the joint-highest rating we track — on an operator whose paper we have verified on the regulator’s own register, carrying an industry fairness award and strong user sentiment at scale. In the middle, a 6.7 that reads as a young casino’s score: clean terms, no conduct findings, not yet enough history to climb. At the other end, a 3.2 driven by restrained payouts — the heaviest class of conduct evidence — at a brand whose paperwork questions are still open. Sixty-six index points of spread, sold through one program, promoted with one design language, on one shared calendar.

The lesson generalises beyond this stable. A commercial network is real infrastructure — shared kits, shared calendars, shared bonus philosophy — and none of it is a safety signal in either direction. The flagship’s excellence does not launder the sister on hold; the sister’s record does not stain the flagship, whose owner and licence are entirely separate. Judgement attaches to operators and to brands, never to the marketing layer — which is exactly why this site records the network and the owner as two different fields, and why this page hands out three different verdicts under one umbrella without contradiction. No first-party payout cycle from our own desk exists yet for any brand here; everything above is documented research, stated as such, at the time of research.

Fields we quarantine, and one brand on two pages

Two hygiene notes keep this page honest. First, lookalike properties: the newcomer’s orbit includes a near-namesake domain and a market-specific promotional site, which we quarantine from the brand’s own record — data found on a lookalike attaches to nothing on this page until the operator’s own materials claim it, and the placed-content finding above says this stable’s wider promotional trail deserves the same default suspicion. Verify the exact domain before attaching any datum in this report to a casino — and before attaching any other property’s content to these brands. Second, the double listing: RocketPlay appears on this page as a member of the commercial stable and on its operator family’s page as one of five brands under its owner. That is not duplication; the two pages answer different questions — who sells the brand, and who holds the money — and the full picture of that casino requires both. Neither of its stablemates here has any connection to that operator family, and nothing from that family’s file transfers to them.

Practical steps, in order of impact

Identify your counterparty first: the operator on your brand’s footer and licence certificate is who holds your balance — it differs across this stable, at one brand it is currently ambiguous, and at that same brand the footer omits the licence number, so record what the certificate link and the terms say and keep the screenshot. Read your own brand’s rulebook for every number that matters — caps and their timeframes, wagering, maximum wins, the restricted list, the VPN clause — because inside this stable each of those differs per brand, sometimes in direction and not just degree. Check your bonus balance after every deposit at the brands where complaints describe bonuses attaching without request: a bonus you did not ask for converts withdrawable money into wagering-locked money, and declining or removing it is a support conversation best had before you play, in writing. If you rely on self-exclusion tools, know your brand’s design before you deposit — at one member the only path is a written request to support, which is a slower and more exposed process than a dashboard control. Take the stable’s genuine positives with their conditions: non-sticky means your real money plays first, so track which balance you are wagering at any moment. And treat third-party ratings for these brands with the scrutiny this page applied: trace any score to a live listing at a named watchdog before believing it, because for at least one brand in this stable, promotional content with an untraceable rating exists.

Three verdicts, one sourcing rule

Per-brand, as the structure demands. RocketPlay stands as a promotion-grade flagship on independently verified paper — certificate, watchdog record, award record — and is covered in depth alongside its operator family. LuckyHills is coverable with the caution owed to a 2025 launch: clean so far, unproven at scale, watched. WinSpirit is on hold and not promoted: a Very Low rating on a withheld-payouts finding, an unresolved ownership question, a footer missing its licence number, and the written marketing instruction that triggered this page’s umbrella-level sourcing rule. That rule is the report’s lasting output: from this program, only claims that can be verified outside the program carry weight — a standard we would apply to any affiliate operation caught instructing around its own compliance line, our own industry included. The open items are stated as such: three certificate pulls with the URLs in hand, the ownership resolution at the brand on hold, two numbers to pin where kit and desks disagree, the complaint threads to read, and the market question put to the program directly. The record will move as those close, and this page will move with it.

Information accurate at time of research (July 2026) — based on first-party program materials and brand kits, live-site and footer checks, regulator register links on file, and third-party listings and complaint records. Licence statuses and terms change; verify the operating entity, licence status and restricted list on the live site before signing up.