[CLOSED] Misleading Bellerock terms, DO NOT play there.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by anniemac

Meaning no disrespect here, but I knew that you could only collect a signup bonus at 1 of the BelleRock casinos and I, sad to say, am one of the players that don't read the T & C's like I am suppose to. I've been playing at Riverbelle for years so it's been there a while.

Like it's always said here, read the T & C's and take responsibility.

In the past, it was generally the rule that players could claim ALL the sign-up bonuses within the casino group. Casinos were marketed individually, with little reference to the group as a whole. This worked well for the industry, as they could make more money from an individual player if they played several accounts. It is only in the last year or two that the position has changed, and it is now the general rule that you can ONLY have ONE bonus over entire casino groups. Players who have just carried on thinking nothing had changed would find out the hard way. Veteran players should not get caught out by these nasty terms, as they should know such things exist, and go looking for them. Naturally, this makes them harder to attract, as they ignore all the software tricks that try to get you to blindly make that first deposit before the casino has even finished installing itself.
It is players new to the industry, who have been used to downloading Windows update and internet software, and have skipped the terms and conditions either because they are irrelevant to the ordinary user, or they are intending to pirate the software without paying and know they are in breach of the terms without having to read them.
Most Windows users are used to having their hand held by nannying Windows applications, and have the belief that the software will tell them if they have tried something invalid, and enter online gambling with their eyes shut.
Players would be better off starting with the assumption that any new casino is a potential rogue, and then looking for signs that they are, in fact, reputable. Often the assumption is the opposite, and players only find out when it is too late.
Players who do not frequent forums are at a disadvantage, as they receive no guidance on what to look out for. Most players who post here about being shafted by a rogue outfit are new posters, who have done their research only after they got screwed over.
Just reading the forum, it should be clear that this issue (bonuses), and the issue of "wrong currency" are the two chief causes of confiscated winnings, and the casino policy on each should be researched beforehand. Any casino that does not make it easy to find out what is, and is not, allowed should be avoided.
Reputable casinos need to ensure they do not make themselves look like the rogues by sloppy procedures, out of date websites - in particular promotional and general rules, and poor standards of customer service.
If player after player keeps falling foul of the same issue, then it is clear that there is not enough importance given to it on the casino home page, and the operators should be addressing this, or they will find themselves accused of operating a deliberate entrapment policy (and some rogues do indeed deliberately set out to trap players in this manner, pulling some obscure rule out when they want to avoid paying).

[BBKPoker]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

In the past, it was generally the rule that players could claim ALL the sign-up bonuses within the casino group. Casinos were marketed individually, with little reference to the group as a whole. This worked well for the industry, as they could make more money from an individual player if they played several accounts. It is only in the last year or two that the position has changed, and it is now the general rule that you can ONLY have ONE bonus over entire casino groups. Players who have just carried on thinking nothing had changed would find out the hard way. Veteran players should not get caught out by these nasty terms, as they should know such things exist, and go looking for them. Naturally, this makes them harder to attract, as they ignore all the software tricks that try to get you to blindly make that first deposit before the casino has even finished installing itself.
It is players new to the industry, who have been used to downloading Windows update and internet software, and have skipped the terms and conditions either because they are irrelevant to the ordinary user, or they are intending to pirate the software without paying and know they are in breach of the terms without having to read them.
Most Windows users are used to having their hand held by nannying Windows applications, and have the belief that the software will tell them if they have tried something invalid, and enter online gambling with their eyes shut.
Players would be better off starting with the assumption that any new casino is a potential rogue, and then looking for signs that they are, in fact, reputable. Often the assumption is the opposite, and players only find out when it is too late.
Players who do not frequent forums are at a disadvantage, as they receive no guidance on what to look out for. Most players who post here about being shafted by a rogue outfit are new posters, who have done their research only after they got screwed over.
Just reading the forum, it should be clear that this issue (bonuses), and the issue of "wrong currency" are the two chief causes of confiscated winnings, and the casino policy on each should be researched beforehand. Any casino that does not make it easy to find out what is, and is not, allowed should be avoided.
Reputable casinos need to ensure they do not make themselves look like the rogues by sloppy procedures, out of date websites - in particular promotional and general rules, and poor standards of customer service.
If player after player keeps falling foul of the same issue, then it is clear that there is not enough importance given to it on the casino home page, and the operators should be addressing this, or they will find themselves accused of operating a deliberate entrapment policy (and some rogues do indeed deliberately set out to trap players in this manner, pulling some obscure rule out when they want to avoid paying).

Not to mention the fact that many web portals, affiliates, webmasters etc, advertise these sites together. I'd imagine Bellerock themselves have some sort of promotional link that includes more than one Bellerock site and could easily lead to multiple signups.

I'd also wager that Bellerock selectively enforces this T&C and doesn't steal from the people they want to return.

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by BBKPoker

Not to mention the fact that many web portals, affiliates, webmasters etc, advertise these sites together. I'd imagine Bellerock themselves have some sort of promotional link that includes more than one Bellerock site and could easily lead to multiple signups.

I'd also wager that Bellerock selectively enforces this T&C and doesn't steal from the people they want to return.

Indeed BelleRock do just that. They have all four with tabbed browsing access the summary of all 4 bonuses, there is nothing to suggest that there is anything wrong with taking all four. As for the GENERAL terms and conditions, well, they are only accessible "below the fold", and are not any more prominent than the other links at the bottom.

Why are terms and conditions hidden "below the fold" in this manner, why do they not have a prominent link at the top, visible as soon as the browser displays the page. Sometimes it seems they are designing the site such that careless players will miss the terms and conditions unless they are thinking straight and make the effort to bypass the technicolour advert and look for the link.

Two buttons that are VERY prominent are "download now" and "play now", both of which conveniently bypass the GENERAL terms and conditions, with the installer only showing the legalese of the software agreement, and less prominently than the old "wise installer" application that MG casinos used to have.

[BBKPoker]

Any progress? This looks like a pretty egregious case from what VWM has posted in terms of screenshots.

[MJackson]

I've always been amused by the stunning contradiction between what the casinos claim is the "spirit of the bonus offer" namely something along the lines of "for entertainment and to prolong the gaming experience" and what by it's very nature it is to read and fully comprehend the promotional and general terms and conditions.

Although Belle Rock does not directly state in it's terms that the purpose of it's bonuses is for entertainment and to prolong the gaming experience thus attracting loyal customers, I am assuming that they would agree with those commonly given reasons as also being their own.

So if the purpose of the bonus offer is for entertainment and prolonging the gaming experience in an effort to attract loyal customers then why would you require of them an excercise that would likely only be entertaining to lawyers and bonus seekers who are "entertained" chiefly by monetary profit?

1.1.7. You hereby authorize us and our designated agents in rem suam, as and when we require, to confirm your identity and your right to use the monies that you wager at the Casino. - From the River Belle General Terms

Rem Suam? I don't know what that means because I'm not fluent in Latin.

I wonder what percentage of customers who checked the "I have read the Terms and Conditions" box comprehended the phrase rem suam at the time they checked it. I would venture to guess the number is close to zero.

That would immediatley put all of those players in violation of term 1.2.1.8 which acknowledges that they player has,

...read and understood these Terms and Conditions.

But even though almost all players freely violate that term it doesn't threaten the validity of the contract because as term 8.3 discusses,

If any part of these Terms and Conditions is deemed unlawful, void or for any reason unenforceable, then that part shall be deemed to be severable from the rest of these Terms and Conditions and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of these Terms and Conditions. In such cases, the part deemed invalid or unenforceable shall be amended in a manner consistent with applicable law to reflect, as closely as possible, our original intent.

And they intend to enjoy immunity from all liabilites no matter what the cause.

4.2. In no circumstances whatsoever shall the Casino, its directors, officers, employees, shareholders, agents and affiliates, the ultimate parent and parent companies of the Casino and any of its subsidiaries be liable to you in contract, tort, negligence or otherwise, for any loss or damage howsoever arising from any cause whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, or for any amounts whatsoever (even where we have been notified by you of the possibility of such loss or damage).

They also retain the power to,

refuse to register you as a Player or elect to deregister and exclude you or suspend you as a Player from the Casino at any time and for any reason whatsoever.

And then,

1.4.1.1. withhold payment to you of any contested funds whether such contested funds are deposits, refunds, bonuses, free monies, casino credits, payouts or the like.

And if they see fit,

1.4.1.4.2 have forfeited to us any contested funds that may be derived by you from fraudulent, illegal or similar misconduct.

How are the terms "fraudulent", "illegal" and "similar misconduct" defined?

8.10. Applicable Law & Jurisdiction

The validity, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by Gibraltarian law and shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Gibraltarian superior courts to which the parties hereby submit, except that a Party may seek an interim injunction in any court of competent jurisdiction.

I'm sure most weekend sign ups will find thrilling and challenging the necessary task of aquainting themselves with Gibraltarian law in order to comply with term 1.2.1.8.

On and on it goes with one FU clause bested by the next, leaving the player to fend for themselves in a maze of legalease designed to lose anyone who dares to enter. And for a casino rep to invoke the General Terms and Conditions, particularly ones written in this kind of anti-player rights tone, as a substitute for a properly designed bonus claim system and as an excuse for extra judicial confiscation of money is essentially a non-argument. IMO by resorting to the invocation of the out-of-the-way General Terms and Conditions the player rep is essentially conceding the following:

The only obvious conclusion after having read the unaddressed points by Vinylweatherman and others is that Belle Rock doesn't like a certain class of customers and has decided to design a system by which they can profit in monetary terms from those customer's exclusion from their casinos.

I am stating that I think bell rock conciously and intentionally sat down and designed this system with the goals of

1) Trapping those who abuse bonuses and generating a large edge for the casino by "freerolling" with the the players' funds

2) Attempting to use this tactic to discourage other similar players from taking advantage of their promotions.

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

The casino broke it's terms by granting the additional bonus in the first place. If the CASINO can't get it right, why should the players be expected to be 100% perfect.

That's purdy damn plain and simple there Bellerock.....

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by winbig

And it would take how many words to, as a courtesy, actually remind the user (on the promotional page) of this before they make their first deposit and claim the SUB?


Karma goes a looooooooooong ways. Courtesies do as well.

Think about it, would you rather have a CUSTOMER remember your group as the one that seized $x,xxx of winnings, or as a group that went the extra mile and made sure there was no confusion as to whether or not they were entitled to a bonus BEFORE the fact?


Edit: While we're on the subject, if the whole group only allows one SUB per casino (this goes for any group), then why not simply have one login that works at all of the casinos in the group? A lot less confusion there.

That's what's nice about playing at the Grand Prive Group of casinos...they have had this in place for quite some time now...

[RobWin]

Originally Posted by vinylweatherman

In the past, it was generally the rule that players could claim ALL the sign-up bonuses within the casino group. Casinos were marketed individually, with little reference to the group as a whole. This worked well for the industry, as they could make more money from an individual player if they played several accounts. It is only in the last year or two that the position has changed, and it is now the general rule that you can ONLY have ONE bonus over entire casino groups.

I was around back then and used all the individual bonuses seperately at each casino. Hell back then the casinos would not even admit to being associated with another in the same group and would even go as far as denying any association.

I certainly think that it would be to Bellerocks benefit to pay attention to this thread...

[vinylweatherman]

Originally Posted by RobWin

I was around back then and used all the individual bonuses seperately at each casino. Hell back then the casinos would not even admit to being associated with another in the same group and would even go as far as denying any association.

I certainly think that it would be to Bellerocks benefit to pay attention to this thread...

When casino-on-net launched Reef Club, it was marketed aggressively by an exit pop-up from the casino-on-net website. Players pretty much had the Reef Club bonus rammed down their throat. Soon, Reef Club starting screwing over some of the players, and then Casino-on-net flatly denied ANY kind of association with Reef Club other than by software. This lie was so very obvious, since NO online casino would aggressively market it's own players to a direct competitor. The fact they thought players would swallow this was an insult to our intelligence. Their reputation has never really recovered, and even being based in Gibraltar doesn't help.

As for "rem suam", I have never seen this one before, and I have seen many examples of "legalese". I would agree that close to ZERO players have fully understood all these terms, (unless they are lawyers).
I have a friend from my schooldays who is a BARRISTER, so perhaps as an exercise I will print of the BelleRock "legalese" and set him the challenge of fully understanding them. If he cannot, then this would be pretty damning, since this would prove that the overwhelming majority of players really DO simply tick "I have read and understood..." based purely on the "trust" they perceive as being in existence between what they believe to be a "reputable" casino company and themselves as ordinary consumers.

These are the player's ONLY means to fight back:-

If any part of these Terms and Conditions is deemed unlawful, void or for any reason unenforceable, then that part shall be deemed to be severable from the rest of these Terms and Conditions and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of these Terms and Conditions. In such cases, the part deemed invalid or unenforceable shall be amended in a manner consistent with applicable law to reflect, as closely as possible, our original intent.

8.10. Applicable Law & Jurisdiction

The validity, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by Gibraltarian law and shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Gibraltarian superior courts to which the parties hereby submit, except that a Party may seek an interim injunction in any court of competent jurisdiction.

In particular note:-

except that a Party may seek an interim injunction in any court of competent jurisdiction

This little snippet means that a player can seek an INTERIM court injunction ALMOST ANYWHERE who's national courts are recognised by the international community as of "competent jurisdiction". EU based players would find that EEC law would make it easy to get such an interim injunction locally, before having to go to Gibraltar for a ruling. If taken to Gibraltar's courts, such a player would need to attack those terms that could be challenged as "unlawful" for CONSUMER CONTRACTS under Gibraltean law. These terms would then not apply if ruled unlawful, leaving the unchallenged terms still in place. This would effectively redefine the contract. Once ONE case has been brought on this basis, it will stand as a "legal precedent", and the outcome used to pursue similar cases through the Gibraltean legal system.
Big business is actually VERY WARY of allowing it's terms to come before a court in this manner, as they want to avoid the setting of a disadvantageous "legal precedent". Such a situation has existed here in the UK with Bank and card penalty charges. Someone found a rule relating to consumer contract law, which says that where contracts are breached, only the costs of remedying the breach can be recovered, and that applying any punitive penalty was illegal. The UK banks would take consumers right to the edge on occasion, but would simply never turn up in court, preferring instead to go for the "out of court settlement", which meant the complainant was paid off, but no court ruling was made, thus no legal precedent was set that could be used in future claims. Finally, the regulators forced the issue to a court hearing by using the procedure of "supercomplaint", similar to a class action, but with no actual complainants. This case will establish whether there are grounds for the charges to be challenged as "illegal".

In the case of casinos licenced in well run juristictions, all it needs is a player whose confiscated amount is large enough to make a full pursuit of the issue worthwhile. They would need legal advice from an expert in Gibraltean law, and this could be expensive, with no guarantee of a successful outcome until a legal precedent has been set.
This may catch out the casino, as I would bet that they don't even understand their own terms and conditions. They have probably hired a lawyer to write them, asking for them to be as wide ranging and tight as possible, so that they could pretty much get away with anything if they felt the need. The idea being that for "good quality" players, they would never invoke these nasty terms, but that if they needed to get rid of someone, and not pay them if they felt they had been taken advantage of, they could pretty much act with impunity.
As the industry matures, it is likely that one day one of the casinos will have their "ass kicked" in a court of "competent juristiction", and this would probably act as a catalyst in the industry, since one success would galvanise other aggrieved players to follow suit. I would expect they would quickly redesign their terms so as not to suffer further court rulings against them.

[RobWin]

Well Vinyl all I can say to that is "Yep"..LOL

You summed it up purdy damn good in that post...