Quote:
Originally Posted by pacers31
Yeah Bryan I too hope someone will step up and add a little more legitimacy to this whole document thing. It seems unbelievable to me that these same casinos that are so concerned with rules and regulations are so quick to take action from US players in clear violation of US federal law. I would think they would want to take care of the customer in as smooth and expedient manner as possible so as not to draw unwanted attention to themselves by jerking customers around and getting in the "news" so to speak at sites like this. Smart money would be to keep providing, we'll keep playing, and keep it as quiet as possible until the atmosphere improves in the online world. Just another angle on this whole ridiculous thing. Sure makes the casinos look bad when they hassle the customer that wins while continually sucking up the same customers deposits no questions asked.
|
This is because they can be selective about which laws to obey. Clearly, they have to obey the laws of their licencing juristiction, but this would not include the US. Publically listed companies have pulled out of the US, since it would not be wise for such a company to be seen openly flouting the laws of another country. Casinos that do take US players can do so because their licencing juristiction and software vendors have no clause preventing it, and they stand to lose a great deal of money if they simply do it themselves on the grounds of obeying laws of all countries, regardless if said countries' authorities can "get them". What is oddest, is that some casinos that accept US players against the UIGEA then quote the money laundering regulations of said USA and other countries as the reason for requiring documents, perhaps notarised. In this case, this is bollox, they have not given the true reason behind their requirements, which is all about not wanting to lose money to "dodgy players".
Club World (above) DO seem to be doing the right thing, which is a compromise between asking for documents on registration and driving away new players, and never asking till the first withdrawal.
I would like to know how much lost revenue Club World thinks this has cost them from players not making further deposits after being asked for ID after the first, yet were legitimate players, and not frauds put off by this early ID request. Other casinos seem to think following this Club World strategy would cause them to lose player revenue to such an extent that they are willing to "bend" the money laundering regulations by only requesting ID upon first withdrawal, however much the player has deposited.
As for "F U Clauses". Yes, pretty much every business has one (or more), HOWEVER, unlike online casinos, such companies can be ordered by the courts to strike out such clauses if they are deemed to be unfair, or the contract too one sided in favour of the business. UK banks have just had their own "F U Clauses" which they used to charge £25 for going overdrawn by as little as 1p ruled as reviewable under consumer "unfair consumer contract" laws. This could mean them having to refund all these "confiscations" that they have made for these various "services".
Online casinos are not answerable, for the most part, to the courts, but only to voluntary codes, such as eCogra, where they are members. These voluntary regulators, unlike courts, cannot FORCE them to pay up, but can only expel them from the scheme as a last resort.
Casinos licenced in the EU MAY be answerable to the courts for their actions, but it would take players to bring a case, or sufficient complaints to warrant the authorities to bring one on behalf of consumers, which is what has happened to our banks.