When NDAs and public criticism collide!

I want to be upfront about something that genuinely surprises me.

Joao Mar has publicly said that he signed 13 non-disclosure agreements with gambling operators. That number alone is remarkable. NDAs in this industry rarely cover just one narrow issue. They usually extend far beyond a single casino. They normally include the platform provider, corporate service providers, trustees, payment partners and in many cases the wider operational circle around an operator.

That is exactly why I struggle to understand how someone who signed that many NDAs is still able to publicly write about so many actors in the gambling ecosystem without constantly risking overlap.

When you think about it logically, platforms run multiple casinos. Corporate service providers act for dozens of operators at the same time. Trustees and technical partners sit behind entire networks. With 13 NDAs in place, the chances of not touching something that overlaps with one of those agreements feels extremely slim.

That alone raises questions. Not accusations. Questions.

Silence contracts versus public commentary?

An NDA is not a badge of honour. It is a silence agreement. It means something happened, it was resolved privately and both sides agreed not to talk about details. That is normal in disputes.

What is unusual is when the same person regularly highlights how many NDAs they signed while continuing to criticise the industry in very broad terms. Operators remain silent because they contractually have to. One side speaks. The other side cannot. The public only hears one version of events. That dynamic alone should make anyone cautious.

Money is part of the story whether we like it or not!

Another part that is rarely discussed openly is the financial side. I have seen NDAs in this space that settle for a few thousand euros. Sometimes more. Sometimes less. Even if you take a conservative figure and multiply it by 13, you are no longer talking about symbolic amounts. You are talking about real money.

I am not saying that is wrong. Compensation can be justified. Harm can be real. Settlements exist for a reason. But once public campaigning is combined with repeated private settlements, it becomes reasonable to ask whether confrontation itself turns into a revenue model. Again, this is not an accusation. It is a structural observation.

How many deals were never disclosed?

What also puzzles me is that only some NDA signatories are mentioned publicly. Others are not. That leads to another open question.

If 13 NDAs are openly acknowledged, how many other operators, platforms or grey market actors might have quietly paid refunds or settlements after being threatened with public exposure, regulator complaints or sustained social media pressure?

There is no answer to that question. But pretending the question does not exist would be naive.

Hundreds of reports and constant escalation!

In his own recent posts, Joao Mar has spoken about filing hundreds of reports to authorities and regulators. He presents this as evidence of impact and persistence. It certainly shows activity. But volume alone is not the same as outcome. When escalation becomes permanent and pressure becomes the default tool, the line between advocacy and confrontation blurs very quickly.

The convenient narrative about Malta Media…

There is also an irony here that needs addressing. According to Joao Mar and his current boss Jordan Lea, we’re now framed as some kind of crisis manager or affiliate for large companies. That is the story they prefer to tell.

What they do not mention is what actually happened in the first half of 2025. We spent months fighting takedown notices, copyright abuse, infringement filings and cease-and-desist letters from large companies. We pushed back and we documented everything. That context disappears because it does not fit the narrative. It is easier to label someone than to look at the full timeline.

When bridges are burned

Once someone like Joao Mar has publicly confronted enough operators, the practical reality is simple. No one wants them as a customer anymore. Many casinos run on the same platforms. Once access is cut

across a network, there is no way back in. At that point, the only remaining path is criticism. Exposure. Reporting. Escalation.

That does not require bad intent. It is how incentives work. If you cannot participate, you investigate. If you cannot settle, you escalate. If you cannot monetise quietly anymore, you monetise publicly.

Why this feels off to us?

What makes this situation uncomfortable is not that criticism exists. The gambling industry deserves scrutiny. What feels off is the combination of silence contracts, public moral authority, private settlements and professionalised activism all sitting on top of each other. You cannot claim total transparency while being bound by dozens of silence agreements. You cannot claim moral high ground while benefitting from conflict without acknowledging that incentive. That contradiction matters.

This is not about denying harm. It is not about defending the gambling industry. It is not about accusing anyone of criminal behaviour. It is about calling out a structure that does not sit right. If you sign 13 NDAs, your freedom to comment is not expanded. It is narrowed. And when criticism becomes the business itself, credibility becomes fragile whether anyone likes it or not. That is a conversation this industry needs to have openly.

FAQs

What are NDAs in the gambling industry?
NDAs, or non-disclosure agreements, are contracts that prevent parties from publicly sharing details about disputes, settlements or sensitive business operations in the gambling sector.

Why is signing 13 NDAs considered unusual?
Signing 13 NDAs is notable because these agreements often cover wide networks of operators, platforms and partners. The overlap makes it difficult to comment publicly without risking contractual breaches.

Can someone publicly critique operators after signing multiple NDAs?
Technically, yes, but commentary must avoid any information covered under the NDAs. The combination of public criticism and multiple NDAs can create credibility and legal complexities.

Do NDAs involve financial settlements?
Yes. Many NDAs settle disputes for significant sums of money. Even if individual settlements are modest, multiple NDAs can represent substantial compensation.

Does signing NDAs affect moral authority in criticism?
It can. Publicly criticizing operators while benefiting from private settlements or NDAs can create perceived conflicts of interest and weaken claims of total transparency.

What impact does repeated reporting to authorities have?
Filing hundreds of reports shows activity and persistence, but volume does not guarantee outcomes. Overuse of escalation may blur the line between advocacy and confrontation.

Why might some NDAs never be publicly disclosed?
Not all settlements or agreements are publicly acknowledged. This raises questions about the full extent of private resolutions and undisclosed financial arrangements.

How does public confrontation affect access to operators?
Frequent public criticism can result in being excluded from operator networks, making professional participation in the industry difficult and leaving escalation as the main path.

Is public criticism inherently wrong in the gambling industry?
No. Scrutiny and critique are necessary, but combining criticism with undisclosed financial settlements and silence agreements can create a perceived structural contradiction.

Why is the situation described in the article considered uncomfortable?
The tension arises from overlapping NDAs, private settlements and public criticism. The mix of moral authority, financial incentives and professional activism challenges credibility and transparency.