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

[SlotsWizard]

I've escalated this issue to the assistant gambling supervisor in Gibraltar thanks to a very helpful message from a member here. Also eCogra responded to my last email and told me they would investigate the issue further since I emailed them that the terms were not present to sign up.

Make sure to point them to this thread if need be, because the Belle Rock representative admitted that it wasn't necessary to explicitly agree to the terms (although they could argue that you implicitly agreed to them due to that catch-all term buried deep in the legal mumbo-jumbo).

[vinylweatherman]

What STILL needs to be addressed is the "economy of truth" in their advertising, in particular the BelleRock home page that cross markets ALL FOUR sign-up offers, yet makes NO MENTION in the main advertising that the player may only choose ANY ONE of the four offers, and NOT ALL FOUR.

There IS a link to the general terms, but this is hidden "below the fold" of the internet page, meaning that the player has to scroll right down to see it, and it is in small, unbolded, text - of the same prominence as the links to such things as affiliate sign-ups, about us, and other inconsequential matters.

The term exists, but it is buried with a load of legalese that would NOT normally catch out those players who do not read terms and conditions. Reading only the PROMOTIONAL terms gives no real clue that a PROMOTIONAL rule (5.6) is hidden among all the GENERAL rules that normally relate to excluded countries, and agreeing to privacy policies, and agreeing not to rip off the Client Viper software for commercial gain (disassemble, reverse engineer etc...).
The mere fact that this term is "5.6" and not 1.(something or other) shows that it is pretty much "buried" past a raft of "legalese", which is probably enough to make most people give up before they even get as far as 5.1!

This is what the UK Credit card companies were up to, NOW - they are REQUIRED to include ALL THE IMPORTANT POINTS in what is known as a "Summary box". This has to include ALL the terms that are likely to directly affect the general consumer, AND they have to be in PLAIN ENGLISH, not "lawyer speak". This "Summary box" is supposed to give sufficient information such that a consumer who cannot (or does not bother to try to) read or understand the "small print" is not going to suffer any "hidden" penalties while using the product for the purposes, and the benefits within, the main advertising copy that lead them to make the agreement in the first place.

There is a very simple solution, simply add to the BelleRock home page, and the download pages and promotions pages of ALL the casinos a nice highlighted sentence to tell the player that they can only have the one bonus through the whole group.

While we all seen to wonder why such simple measures are beyond the wit of business, I think I will find the answer by having a look at my niece's coursework. She is studying BUSINESS STUDIES, and PSYCHOLOGY.
These advertising mishaps are NO ACCIDENT - there are university level psychologists behind the design of everything from the order of display of supermarket products, to the lay out of positive news (in big bold print), and negative news (buried in tiny print and hidden away) in major product and service launches. THESE are the people who are "blocking" any attempts to introduce clarity and transparency in product advertising and the presentation of benefits and consumer contracts. It is all designed to "mess with our heads" so that we perceive a "sow's ear" offered up to us as the proverbial "silk purse".

Occasionally, a TV documentary seeks to blow the whistle on such practices, but they ALWAYS have a fight on their hands because the companies behind the deceptions keep trying to get "gagging" orders from the courts to disrupt the broadcasts. It is when such "gagging" orders fail, or are quashed, that we get to see exactly what the companies were trying to hide, and can judge for ourselves the possible motives for wanting the program to be off the air. In this modern "information age", such deceptive practices are increasingly failing, and it only makes companies, and even entire industries, look bad when the truth finally comes out.

(Just ask Absolute Poker..)

[BBKPoker]

What STILL needs to be addressed is the "economy of truth" in their advertising, in particular the BelleRock home page that cross markets ALL FOUR sign-up offers, yet makes NO MENTION in the main advertising that the player may only choose ANY ONE of the four offers, and NOT ALL FOUR.

There IS a link to the general terms, but this is hidden "below the fold" of the internet page, meaning that the player has to scroll right down to see it, and it is in small, unbolded, text - of the same prominence as the links to such things as affiliate sign-ups, about us, and other inconsequential matters.

The term exists, but it is buried with a load of legalese that would NOT normally catch out those players who do not read terms and conditions. Reading only the PROMOTIONAL terms gives no real clue that a PROMOTIONAL rule (5.6) is hidden among all the GENERAL rules that normally relate to excluded countries, and agreeing to privacy policies, and agreeing not to rip off the Client Viper software for commercial gain (disassemble, reverse engineer etc...).
The mere fact that this term is "5.6" and not 1.(something or other) shows that it is pretty much "buried" past a raft of "legalese", which is probably enough to make most people give up before they even get as far as 5.1!

This is what the UK Credit card companies were up to, NOW - they are REQUIRED to include ALL THE IMPORTANT POINTS in what is known as a "Summary box". This has to include ALL the terms that are likely to directly affect the general consumer, AND they have to be in PLAIN ENGLISH, not "lawyer speak". This "Summary box" is supposed to give sufficient information such that a consumer who cannot (or does not bother to try to) read or understand the "small print" is not going to suffer any "hidden" penalties while using the product for the purposes, and the benefits within, the main advertising copy that lead them to make the agreement in the first place.

There is a very simple solution, simply add to the BelleRock home page, and the download pages and promotions pages of ALL the casinos a nice highlighted sentence to tell the player that they can only have the one bonus through the whole group.

While we all seen to wonder why such simple measures are beyond the wit of business, I think I will find the answer by having a look at my niece's coursework. She is studying BUSINESS STUDIES, and PSYCHOLOGY.
These advertising mishaps are NO ACCIDENT - there are university level psychologists behind the design of everything from the order of display of supermarket products, to the lay out of positive news (in big bold print), and negative news (buried in tiny print and hidden away) in major product and service launches. THESE are the people who are "blocking" any attempts to introduce clarity and transparency in product advertising and the presentation of benefits and consumer contracts. It is all designed to "mess with our heads" so that we perceive a "sow's ear" offered up to us as the proverbial "silk purse".

Occasionally, a TV documentary seeks to blow the whistle on such practices, but they ALWAYS have a fight on their hands because the companies behind the deceptions keep trying to get "gagging" orders from the courts to disrupt the broadcasts. It is when such "gagging" orders fail, or are quashed, that we get to see exactly what the companies were trying to hide, and can judge for ourselves the possible motives for wanting the program to be off the air. In this modern "information age", such deceptive practices are increasingly failing, and it only makes companies, and even entire industries, look bad when the truth finally comes out.

(Just ask Absolute Poker..)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[scrabble73]

eCogra finally responded to me today and told me that my dispute was invalid because I should reasonably have been expected to find their terms on their homepage and the omission of the checkbox that requires a player to accept their terms was only a technical error, so the casino isn't culpable.

I don't even know what to do, I'm so frustrated I could cry. I did a pitch a bitch awhile ago but I haven't heard anything about it. Gibraltar has sent me an email or two, but I'm not sure how much progress I'm going to have there either.

Is there any response on my pitch a bitch?

[maxd]

Is there any response on my pitch a bitch?

No. It's been forwarded to the rep. We'll let you know when there's something to report.

LATER: Not quite true, see here.

[vinylweatherman]

eCogra finally responded to me today and told me that my dispute was invalid because I should reasonably have been expected to find their terms on their homepage and the omission of the checkbox that requires a player to accept their terms was only a technical error, so the casino isn't culpable.

I don't even know what to do, I'm so frustrated I could cry. I did a pitch a bitch awhile ago but I haven't heard anything about it. Gibraltar has sent me an email or two, but I'm not sure how much progress I'm going to have there either.

Is there any response on my pitch a bitch?

This is why eCogra have lost a good deal of respect among the player community. In effect, they are saying that the casino are allowed to make mistakes, but the PLAYER has to be 100% PERFECT.

eCogra have even ruled in favour of FU Clauses in some cases, based on the fact that the term is there. So long as a casino have a term allowing them to do something, eCogra will rule it OK. Even predatory behaviour is sanctioned, where the design of software and websites is intended to obsfucate the truth and lure the player into false expectations.

It would be interesting whether Gibraltar agree with eCogra, and it might be worth getting a legal opinion on the design and wording, as well as positioning of the terms under CONSUMER CONTRACT LAW. This might help if it shows that eCogra are denying players the additional protection given to CONSUMERS, but rather holding players to the far higher expectations of BUSINESS TO BUSINESS contract law, where BOTH sides are expected to have had their LEGAL TEAM go over any contracts before they are put into place.
CONSUMERS receive these additional rights because of this unfairness of balance, businesses can make the rules, they can employ expensive lawyers, marketing agents, copywriters, psychologists etc to construct their side of the transaction, whereas the consumer only has their own wit to pit against this when reading, understanding, and agreeing to the provision of services for payment.

It might actually be possible to challenge eCogra directly through the courts, and sue THEM for damages for negligence in consumer protection.

eCogra need to take a hard look at the things they are allowing casinos to get away with, as it could damage their "play it safe" seal, and it will become more like the seals of the so called "fake" watchdog sites that some casinos use. They should allow the PLAYER the same leeway for "human error" as they seem to be allowing the casinos. They should also go one step further, and require that their seal holders have all such promotions pre-vetted before launch, and any kind of marketing trickery that could lead to players making errors should be BANNED.
eCogra already have a credibility fight on their hands due to the way they are funded by the software suppliers for those they seek to regulate - this has already lead to accusations that their decisions are unduly influenced by the industry, the same accusations that have been made about the way the Kahnawake operate.

[BBKPoker]

This is why eCogra have lost a good deal of respect among the player community. In effect, they are saying that the casino are allowed to make mistakes, but the PLAYER has to be 100% PERFECT.

eCogra have even ruled in favour of FU Clauses in some cases, based on the fact that the term is there. So long as a casino have a term allowing them to do something, eCogra will rule it OK. Even predatory behaviour is sanctioned, where the design of software and websites is intended to obsfucate the truth and lure the player into false expectations.

It would be interesting whether Gibraltar agree with eCogra, and it might be worth getting a legal opinion on the design and wording, as well as positioning of the terms under CONSUMER CONTRACT LAW. This might help if it shows that eCogra are denying players the additional protection given to CONSUMERS, but rather holding players to the far higher expectations of BUSINESS TO BUSINESS contract law, where BOTH sides are expected to have had their LEGAL TEAM go over any contracts before they are put into place.
CONSUMERS receive these additional rights because of this unfairness of balance, businesses can make the rules, they can employ expensive lawyers, marketing agents, copywriters, psychologists etc to construct their side of the transaction, whereas the consumer only has their own wit to pit against this when reading, understanding, and agreeing to the provision of services for payment.

It might actually be possible to challenge eCogra directly through the courts, and sue THEM for damages for negligence in consumer protection.

eCogra need to take a hard look at the things they are allowing casinos to get away with, as it could damage their "play it safe" seal, and it will become more like the seals of the so called "fake" watchdog sites that some casinos use. They should allow the PLAYER the same leeway for "human error" as they seem to be allowing the casinos. They should also go one step further, and require that their seal holders have all such promotions pre-vetted before launch, and any kind of marketing trickery that could lead to players making errors should be BANNED.
eCogra already have a credibility fight on their hands due to the way they are funded by the software suppliers for those they seek to regulate - this has already lead to accusations that their decisions are unduly influenced by the industry, the same accusations that have been made about the way the Kahnawake operate.

Realistically, given the legal costs and time costs of going through the legalese to pitch some sort of legal battle, no typical player is going to find it worth it. It would take some monumental win of probably $50,000 or more for it to even be worth pursuing, and casinos take advantage of their players with this knowledge in mind.

Bellerock looks extremely bad here to me, and eCogra seems like they have been more or less rubber-stamping everything that is put in front of them in regard to "bonus abuse" or winnings confiscation these days. I don't know if its because casinos threatened to leave Microgaming software for a more handsoff platform or what, but the number of Microgaming complaints in these forums regarding bonus abuse, advantage play, etc, etc is seriously troubling. In cases where it is obvious that players are not made aware of the terms of a site, or where the casino has made a mistake or engaged in misleading marketing campaigns that will result in confiscation, the player should be given the doubt. Currently, the burden of proof and effort is against the player, and that is reprehensible. They have their withdrawls stalled and have to go through tedious waits and complaint processes for a glimmer of hope of getting paid. Players are the customers, and they should be respected and treated well. If any other business engaged in the shenanigans that Bellerock is willing to, they'd be out of business and at the end of a number of law suits.

AND STILL

BELLEROCK HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE FOLLOWING POINTS:

1.) Cross-marketing of their casinos and promotions with nothing on their splash pages explaining only one bonus may be claimed.

2.) The premise that even though as I documented earlier, no terms and conditions were needed to signup, that they should be able to enforce them, even after voluntarily allowing the player to register an account at another casino in their group and voluntarily providing them with a bonus.

3.) That they have a policy of issuing bonuses then stealing winnings which is a carrot and stick act of trying to get players to lose their deposits, but having to payout if they win rather than simply excluding these players from getting a bonus or registering an account in the FIRST place as many other sites do (including more than one Microgaming group).

4.) Not prominently displaying the terms and conditions on the promotion page clearly stating that bonuses are one per group and may not be claimed if they have already been claimed previously (with the whole caveat regarding the 100x wagering stuff)

[maxd]

No. It's been forwarded to the rep. We'll let you know when there's something to report.

Oops, my bad. The rep had replied to me soon after I sent them the text of the PAB, and have confirmed their position.

Simply stated it is this:

We raised this issue with our lawyers and have confirmed that we are not required to make sure that a player reads the terms and conditions, we simply have to make sure that they are easily (reasonably) available for the players to read. As mentioned in my post we have met this obligation by putting a link to the Terms and Conditions on every single page of the site. As many of the posters have pointed out we did not mention this term in the promotion specific terms and conditions (it is not unique to this promo), but we do mention that there are a set of Casino terms and conditions that apply over and above the promo specific terms, giving the player every opportunity to go and read these terms and conditions.

eCOGRA raised the issue and have agreed that we have been reasonable in our approach and cannot be held responsible if a player does not read the terms and conditions. eCOGRA have been particularly thorough in this regard wanting legal opinion before conceding that we had more than met our obligation. ...

Based on the above we will be sticking with our original decision of returning her purchase and closing her account.

Apparently you opened no less than 5 accounts within their casino group over the space of two months, and did have to check off on their T&Cs at the non-English sites.

Presuming that you are fluent in German and French (the aforementioned non-English sites) the question becomes whether your awareness of the Terms in other languages could reasonably translate into an awareness of same in English. I'd have to say that yes, in all fairness it should.

It appears as if you found what you thought was a loophole in the English T&Cs and are trying to exploit it. While I'll agree that the casino could have made things a little more fool-proof in that specific sign-up process there appears to be neither moral nor legal grounds on which to pursue your claim.

[RobWin]

Oops, my bad. The rep had replied to me soon after I sent them the text of the PAB, and have confirmed their position.

Simply stated it is this:


Apparently you opened no less than 5 accounts within their casino group over the space of two months, and did have to check off on their T&Cs at the non-English sites.

Presuming that you are fluent in German and French (the aforementioned non-English sites) the question becomes whether your awareness of the Terms in other languages could reasonably translate into an awareness of same in English. I'd have to say that yes, in all fairness it should.

It appears as if you found what you thought was a loophole in the English T&Cs and are trying to exploit it. While I'll agree that the casino could have made things a little more fool-proof in that specific sign-up process there appears to be neither moral nor legal grounds on which to pursue your claim.

So basically scrabble73 is being accused of player fraud ?

[maxd]

So basically scrabble73 is being accused of player fraud ?

What would you call it if I read your terms in French and German and then claimed not to understand that they applied in English as well? If it isn't fraud it is some shuffling about with the truth.

If this situation were different, if the player wasn't intimately familiar with the group's sign-up process in several languages, then I'd say it's probably an honest mistake. Personally I'd ask that the casino pay them their money and then send them on their way if they felt that to be necessary, and patch up their sign-up process to avoid such confusion in the future.

But that's apparently not the case here. Here the player is claiming ignorance in one language while they presumably knew it was not the case in the other languages. If that's what's happening then it's manipulation and IMO it's unsupportable.