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

[Casinomeister]

I'm just getting caught up on this issue, and what an unfortunate one. Yes, it can be confusing especially when some casino groups have no restrictions on players receiving sign-up bonuses on all their brands, or just one. This is something that everyone should be aware of.

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'll ensure that on the "Accredited Casino" section this is noted (as with the Grand Virtual Casinos)

...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...

So the player had five opportunities to catch this term?

@scrabble - correct me if I'm wrong, you did read the terms and conditions at the other brands - didn't it say basically the same thing?

Unfortunately, I don't know what is going through your head when signing up at these casinos - did you really think that it was okay, or did you notice a loophole like Max surmised and hoped to exploit it?

The bottom line is the terms and conditions exist. Whether or not it's hidden or misleading is strictly subjective: it's there and players confirm that they read these by the mere fact that they sign up.

I would expect after this incident that this casino group makes this term more prominent.

[BBKPoker]

I'm just getting caught up on this issue, and what an unfortunate one. Yes, it can be confusing especially when some casino groups have no restrictions on players receiving sign-up bonuses on all their brands, or just one. This is something that everyone should be aware of.


I'll ensure that on the "Accredited Casino" section this is noted (as with the Grand Virtual Casinos)

That's a good idea, and this situation maybe isn't panning out to be as clear cut as we thought, but what about the process of awarding bonuses then confiscating them? Why should affiliates be required to post terms for a casino? I doubt that most players would find those terms, what if a perfectly legitimate player sees one of their many splash pages that are company owned (VWMs shot is a good one) and doesn't advertise the bonus is one per group and has a win confiscated?

Why is it that Vegas Partner and other groups are perfectly capable of this and Bellerock is not? Even if this player deserves their winnings confiscated, that's a lot of dolphins getting caught in tuna nets, especially given the fiasco regarding the terms on their site. There is really no reason I can think of to award a bonus and then lock accounts, confiscate winnings, etc when the player wasn't qualified to receive the bonus in the first place. Not to mention the mess it makes on here.

[TDTAT]

I would expect after this incident that this casino group makes this term more prominent.

Thanks CasinoMeister! I removed my bellerock banners just to be safe.
I can find no good reason not to make the terms regarding
bonus within the group more prominent. I would be happy and replace banners if this is cleard up

[Casinomeister]

...There is really no reason I can think of to award a bonus and then lock accounts, confiscate winnings, etc when the player wasn't qualified to receive the bonus in the first place. Not to mention the mess it makes on here.

It boils down to the demands of the player - instant gratification. The player expects that bonus immediately. Operating a casino is extremely competitive, and if you don't have a leading edge on satisfying a player, they will click away to somewhere else.

To ensure that a player has fulfilled his/her obligation or to make sure they have not signed up at a sister casino may be time consuming. Cross checking player accounts may be difficult if the player is using different email addresses, etc. Cross checking usually takes place when the player is cashing out.

The bottom line is that the casino expects that the player has read the terms and conditions. The player agrees to these terms during the sign up process.

So far, this is the only player complaining about this, and yes - she has no less than five accounts at this group of casinos. I'm not convinced that she didn't know what she was doing.

[RobWin]

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.

Max, I have to respectively and totally disagree with your synopsis of the situation here for the simple fact that Bellerock issued this player a bonus and the player played and won using her money and the bonus money regardless of how many other accounts she has within this group.

I myself have an account at every casino in this group and the Neptune group too and have had them for years now and I am also intimately familiar with the group's sign-up process but each time I take a bonus with them I am not going to go and read thru pages of terms and conditions because I trust them to be fair with me and to do the right thing but in light of this situation I guess I will not be playing anymore at any of their sites based on how they elected to handle this situation.

If eCOGRA allows these casinos to get away with using these types of terms and conditions and hidden T & C's to get out of paying a player legitimate winnings then this industry is going down a spiraling blackhole. If they did not want her play and now they refuse to pay her winnings then they should not have taken her deposit in the first place.

That would be like me walking into Harrah's and cashing in my $100.00 bonus coupon they sent me and I sit down to play a slot machine and win a jackpot and then they tell me that they are not going to pay me my winnings because I cashed in another coupon across the street at the Rio and hour earlier. That's insane....

[maxd]

That would be like me walking into Harrah's and cashing in my $100.00 bonus coupon they sent me and I sit down to play a slot machine and win a jackpot and then they tell me that they are not going to pay me my winnings because I cashed in another coupon across the street at the Rio and hour earlier. That's insane....

No, walking into Harrah's and asking for a $300 match-deposit bonus (or whatever) would be insane, at least that's what they'd think if you tried it. On-line and B&M aren't nearly the same thing, and the rules of the road are different depending on where you drive.

I respect your disagreement but my job it sometimes to draw the line between what the player should reasonably expect and what the casino should reasonably offer. In this case the casino offer was good enough for the player to snap it up five times over. To then claim that on the 5th time around they want the rules to be different because of what amounts to a technicality strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

You're assuming the casino was trying to pull a fast one. I don't see it that way, if anything it appears to be quite the reverse.

No argument that the casinos ought to try to tighten these things up a bit but in this case the player almost certainly knew what they were doing and so their claim is highly suspect.

[RobWin]

No, walking into Harrah's and asking for a $300 match-deposit bonus (or whatever) would be insane, at least that's what they'd think if you tried it. On-line and B&M aren't nearly the same thing, and the rules of the road are different depending on where you drive.

I respect your disagreement but my job it sometimes to draw the line between what the player should reasonably expect and what the casino should reasonably offer. In this case the casino offer was good enough for the player to snap it up five times over. To then claim that on the 5th time around they want the rules to be different because of what amounts to a technicality strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

You're assuming the casino was trying to pull a fast one. I don't see it that way, if anything it appears to be quite the reverse.

No argument that the casinos ought to try to tighten these things up a bit but in this case the player almost certainly knew what they were doing and so their claim is highly suspect.

I've actually got a coupon right here in front of me now from the Rio in Las Vegas for $400.00 Cash that is good thru the end of June 08 that I can just walk in there and cash it and walk back out if I choose to without gambling a dime of it...No T's & C's involved whatsoever...and if there were, they would be printed right there on the back of the coupon.

That was exactly my point in my previous post where I stated I had an account at everyone of those casinos in both groups and if I remember correctly I took a sign up bonus at everyone of them, they may have changed their terms since I did that though...it's getting to the point where no body will be able to keep up with their T & C's though as often as they change them !

[vinylweatherman]

What absolutely STINKS is that BelleRock sought legal advice on whether they could get away with NOT ensuring the player was steered into reading the Terms & Conditions, and when they were told this would be OK, decided to do the minimum necessary, have the terms AVAILABLE, but to make the player actively go and look for them by scrolling the page down (the link being at the bottom, not the top), clicking the GENERAL terms, to find a PROMOTIONAL term that covers multiple sign-up bonuses.
They can't even make it a CLEAR term, but have all these caveats about 100x wagering etc. This would lead to a player believing the award of multiple SUBs was discretionary, and not an absolute "NO". Since bonuses are awarded MANUALLY, it would be reasonable to believe that they had been given "at the discresion of management" when they are credited into the account.

As for this:-

It boils down to the demands of the player - instant gratification. The player expects that bonus immediately. Operating a casino is extremely competitive, and if you don't have a leading edge on satisfying a player, they will click away to somewhere else.

Not in the case of BelleRock. It can take 72 HOURS to receive a bonus after filling in the claim form, so that's plenty of time to run a few simple checks to see if the player has taken the SUB at another group, or are we to believe that they just take this long for the hell of it, just to make the player wait.

...and this:-

So the player had five opportunities to catch this term?

@scrabble - correct me if I'm wrong, you did read the terms and conditions at the other brands - didn't it say basically the same thing?

At least it seems this was a "Tuna", and not a "Dolphin" this time, but a REPUTABLE casino should be seen to do what is necessary to minimise the risk to "Dolphins", and seeking legal advice as to what they can get away with NOT doing, rather than seeing what they CAN be doing to protect the "Dolphins", does their brand no end of harm.

[RobWin]

What absolutely STINKS is that BelleRock sought legal advice on whether they could get away with NOT ensuring the player was steered into reading the Terms & Conditions, and when they were told this would be OK, decided to do the minimum necessary, have the terms AVAILABLE, but to make the player actively go and look for them by scrolling the page down (the link being at the bottom, not the top), clicking the GENERAL terms, to find a PROMOTIONAL term that covers multiple sign-up bonuses.
They can't even make it a CLEAR term, but have all these caveats about 100x wagering etc. This would lead to a player believing the award of multiple SUBs was discretionary, and not an absolute "NO". Since bonuses are awarded MANUALLY, it would be reasonable to believe that they had been given "at the discresion of management" when they are credited into the account.

As for this:-



Not in the case of BelleRock. It can take 72 HOURS to receive a bonus after filling in the claim form, so that's plenty of time to run a few simple checks to see if the player has taken the SUB at another group, or are we to believe that they just take this long for the hell of it, just to make the player wait.

...and this:-



At least it seems this was a "Tuna", and not a "Dolphin" this time, but a REPUTABLE casino should be seen to do what is necessary to minimise the risk to "Dolphins", and seeking legal advice as to what they can get away with NOT doing, rather than seeing what they CAN be doing to protect the "Dolphins", does their brand no end of harm.

Excellent post Vinyl, you've absolutely nailed it down there man...it only seems shady now that they did actually seek counsel on the issue to try to avoid paying the player...

[maxd]

I've actually got a coupon right here in front of me now from the Rio in Las Vegas for $400.00 Cash ....

Ok, so my analogy sucks. The point remains the same though, and is actually underscored by your coupon situation, that they're different ballgames, at least for the foreseeable future. What flies at a B&M is DOA online, and vice versa. We all know this, there's nothing to debate there.

As to the ever-changing T&Cs ya, sure, I agree with you, it's a pain. And it is who's responsibility to punish the casinos for this and get them to behave in some different manner? We're starting to get into windmill territory here if you ask me.