This (the AGCC decision) is absolute nonsense, and takes us back to the dark days when players were so frequently and unfairly screwed by the use of this iniquitous "bonus abuse" allegation, often allied to the notorious
FU clause in which management reserves the right to do pretty much what it wants to.
I can't understand why PKR and the AGCC are seemingly incapable of grasping the contractual fundamentals here:
If a casino designs and offers a T&C for a promo and offers it to a player, and that player accepts this and plays within those T&Cs, then the casino has an obligation to pay the player what it has promised in terms of the T&Cs.
Everything turns on compliance with the T&Cs, which should not be corrupted by unfair and non-specific
FU clauses or anything else, other than player dishonesty such as fraudulent ID, multiple accounts etc.
Should the casino operator then decide that the player is undesirable, he can bar him from future promos or even from the website entirely....BUT FIRST HE PAYS THE PLAYER WHAT WAS PROMISED IN THE T&Cs.