Sticky Wilds Casino are owned by Mountberg Limited B.V. This company is, in our opinion, closely associated with Danguad Limited, a group that holds Blacklisted status with this service.

A significant number of operators that previously ran on the Danguad Limited license switched to an alternative license under the name of Mountberg Limited, which at the point of coming to our attention operated solely properties that were previously owned by Danguad Limited. As such, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mountberg Limited are either a new license run by the same parties as Danguad Limited, or the casinos running on Mountberg Limited are all owned by the same group who have switched to a new provider.

While they were running on the Danguad Limited license a person claiming to be a "manager" of one of the Mountberg Limited properties - Vegas Berry - communicated to other parties within the affiliate industry that their Blacklisted status with this service because: "thepogg put all sites who does not want to pay them [on the Blacklist]". This is a demonstrably untrue statement. Their Blacklist status was due to their association with a Blacklisted license (Danguad Limited) and we have communications from the same individual over multiple mediums during this time period asking for information on what deal they would need to offer us to get a "good position", which never received any request for payment of any sort.

Given that the communications sent to other affiliates are demonstrably untrue and disparaging of this service, Vegas Berry will remain on our Blacklist despite moving off the Danguad Limited license. As it's likely that either the Mountberg Limited license is associated with the operators of Danguad Limited or that they are being operated by the same people running Vegas Berry, the Mountberg Limited properties will also be Blacklisted.

The Danguad Limited operators are part of a network that have engaged in retroactively changing their terms and conditions to restrict a game after two players had significant wins that they did not want to pay. One of the players in question presented evidence to demonstrate that the term had not been in place at the time they played. In response to this evidence the operator looked to discredit, suggesting that it was not reliable. However, we then checked our own ChangeDetection.com report and found that not only had the player been correct when they asserted that the term had not been in place at the time they played but that the terms document had been updated at the time the change was made to contain a 'Last Updated' date that was significantly before the date of change (the update was made on the 27th of November but the terms document was changed to state that the last update occurred on the 1st of September).

Another operator on the Danguad Limited license have refused to pay a player based on what they claim is a violation of their maximum bet rule. However upon examination there was no betting combination on the game in question that could have resulted in that bet size. When we challenged the operator about this they claimed that the player used the double feature and that is how the bet size was listed at the value it was. The problem with this explanation is that the game in question does not have a double feature. When asked about this the operator became non-responsive.

An employee of an operator on the Danguad Limited license has posted an abusive message on our Facebook page.

An operator in this group has been found accepting deposits and wagers from a country that they cannot issue payment to - effectively free rolling players by allowing player from that country to lose without the possibility of ever winning.

We consider this group to be fundamentally dishonest in their practices and would strongly advise all players to choose an alternative casino to play with.

For references see Danguad Group Player Issues and Mountberg Limited Issues.