Mobile traffic, CGNAT & “duplicate IP” a recurring issue with some casino programs.

[MPDigital]

I’d like to share an observation and ask whether others are seeing the same pattern.
In recent months, we’ve experienced similar situations with more than one casino program where traffic was flagged by the fraud team due to “anomalies”, with duplicate IPs cited as a key reason. In both cases, the traffic source was community-based (FB / Telegram), with a strong mobile component.
What’s important here is that a large percentage of users were playing on mobile networks (LTE / 5G). As most people in the industry know, mobile carriers use CGNAT, which naturally causes multiple unrelated users to appear under the same public IP address.

In our case:

• Users showed very different behaviors (low deposits, medium deposits, and some high-value players).
• No chargebacks.
• No reused payment methods.
• No clear behavioral or device-level correlation.
• The only repeated signal mentioned was IP overlap.

From a technical perspective, using IP duplication alone as a fraud indicator for mobile traffic seems outdated and misleading. CGNAT-related IP overlap is normal, especially in T2/T3 and mobile-first markets.
What’s concerning is that:

• No concrete examples or logs were shared.
• No correlation beyond IP was provided.
• The wording and timing of the explanations were very similar across different brands.

This raises a broader question for affiliates working with community or mobile-heavy traffic:

Are some programs still treating IP duplication as a primary fraud signal, despite how mobile networks work today?
I’d be genuinely interested to hear:

• Whether others have faced similar explanations
• Which programs clearly differentiate between CGNAT-related IP overlap and actual fraud
• How people are protecting themselves from this kind of situation before scaling traffic

We tested several hybrid deals, and on a weekly revenue share basis, performance was clearly positive — typically in the range of $650–$800 RS per week. At the same time, however, CPA conversions were systematically flagged and reversed as “fraud”, effectively nullifying the CPA component of the hybrid.
This creates an uncomfortable impression that:

• RS is allowed to run as long as it generates value,
• while CPA payouts are retroactively removed using broad fraud labels,
• often without transparent, case-level evidence.

The goal of this post isn’t to attack any brand, but to understand whether this is becoming a wider industry issue and how affiliates should adapt.
We would genuinely welcome input from the operator side as well