GLI-19 is the most cited standard in online casino technology and among the least precisely understood. What it covers, what review involves, and why nobody is simply 'GLI certified'.
GLI-19 is Gaming Laboratories International's standard for Interactive Gaming Systems — the technical requirements an online gambling platform is expected to meet. It sits alongside GLI-11, which addresses gaming devices and is frequently referenced for game-level requirements.
It is a reference standard, not a law. Regulators adopt, adapt or ignore it as they choose, which is why a submission is always to a specific regulator in a specific market, informed by the standard rather than satisfied by it in the abstract.
There is no generic, portable certificate that makes a platform permanently certified. Certification is a laboratory's attestation that a specific version of a system meets a named standard, normally within the scope of a particular market submission.
This matters commercially. A supplier claiming to be 'GLI certified' without naming a version, a scope and a market is describing something that does not exist in that form. Ask which build, which standard revision, and for which regulator.
Slotty Labs is explicit about this: the platform is built to GLI-19 standards with a complete evidence package prepared in advance, and formal certification is completed per market as part of each operator's own submission, under their engagement with an accredited laboratory.
Laboratory review is less mysterious than it sounds. It concentrates on a small number of areas where failure is both likely and consequential.
The single biggest variable in certification duration is not the laboratory's queue — it is whether the evidence exists when review begins.
A lab cannot verify an RTP claim without a written math model and reproducible simulation output. It cannot assess an RNG from a description. It cannot confirm that a disputed round is reconstructable without seeing the round log format and a replay. Every one of those artefacts takes weeks to produce properly, and producing them under time pressure after review has started is how a quarter disappears.
This is why Slotty Labs assembles a seven-dossier package in advance, including a laboratory quick-start guide, source-code packaging tooling and a CycloneDX SBOM, so an accredited lab can begin technical review promptly once scope is confirmed.
The generator's construction, its entropy sources, its statistical behaviour, and whether it is isolated from anything the player can reach. A standards-based construction with continuous self-tests is the expected answer.
The written math model, the theoretical RTP derived from it, and simulation evidence that observed behaviour matches. Reproducible fixed-seed runs matter more than a large round count alone.
Whether balances can go negative, whether retries can double-credit, whether the books reconcile, and whether player obligations are demonstrably covered.
Whether every round is persisted, tied to the exact game version, and replayable outcome by outcome — and whether administrative actions are logged tamper-evidently.
Whether limits, reality checks, time-outs and self-exclusion are enforced by the system in the money path, rather than presented in the interface and bypassable elsewhere.
Authentication strength, administrative role separation, tenant isolation, key handling, and whether the audit log can be altered by the people it records.
No, and we do not claim to be. The platform is built to GLI-19 standards with a complete certification evidence package prepared. Formal certification is completed per market as part of an operator's submission, under their engagement with an accredited laboratory such as GLI, BMM or eCOGRA.
That the system is engineered to the standard's requirements and the evidence package — math models, simulation output, RNG documentation, audit trail design, SBOM — is assembled in advance, so laboratory review can begin quickly rather than waiting on document production.
The operator engages the laboratory as part of their market submission. The supplier's role is to provide the system and the evidence the lab reviews.
It depends far more on evidence readiness and the laboratory's scope than on the platform itself. Submissions that arrive with a complete dossier move markedly faster than those assembling documents during review.
Requirements vary by jurisdiction and change over time — confirm current obligations with counsel. Building to GLI-19 is a sound default because it satisfies the technical questions most regulators ask, whatever they call them.
Book a technical demo — we will walk through the math models, the simulation output and the certification dossier directly.