Palace Group Rules Shenanigans

[chuchu59]

Sometimes I just cannot understand how it is possible for such terms and conditions to stand. In any contract there is the element of there being a possibility of performance. This term does not allow anyone to be able to perform ie the very last bet must be 100% of the remaining balance. While we should always respect contractual obligations this one is unforceable.

I think its time to have a hard look at this issue. When we sign up there are a whole lot of conditions that we agree to adhere to. While most of them are there for the protection of the casino some are just plain ridiculous and there is no element of consideration. Take the example of where there are restricted games when playing out a bonus. On the surface, if restricted games are played, the bonus is void and all winnings confiscated. But what is the consideration here? None because only the winnings from the restricted games should be voided and not winnings from the allowed games. It may be argued that winnings from restricted games increases your bankroll and hence you make bigger bets on allowed games to win more. However, this is not a reason to introduce a blanket confiscation of all winnings.

Simply put, it is time the industry condemns these kind of clauses/terms. I could be saying that any winnings at slots thru clicking your mouse with your left hand is void and I think the casinos will be thinking along this line if only they can prove it.

[maxd]

I think it's already been convincingly shown by Spearmaster and others ....

Spear has his opinion, I have mine but I don't think anything has been "convincingly shown", hence the ongoing debate.

What I think has emerged is a general consensus that no one liked the Term as it was originally written .. hence B's efforts to get it changed .. and hence the change. Voila! Progress! Everyone should be happy, or happier, right?

No, what we're really talking about now is the OP's responsibilities in this -- as a general issue, not singling this particular player out personally -- and there is quite obviously a lot of ongoing disagreement over that.

Max, you been hanging in the hood this week bro??

[jetset]

Have to agree with Max's post 155 on this.

"Intuitive" and simple T&Cs would truly be great, but the operators and their legal advisers possibly fear that some players will take advantage if every point is not painstakingly covered to be nit-picking proof...we see that quite often in postings where a player and a casino are in dispute.

So it is important that players know what they're signing up for when they click that "I agree" box.

In this particular case the T&C was not fair or reasonable, and it's encouraging to note that Bryan was able to get it changed without delay.

[gingeanth89]

I'm sure I speak for many when I say that they are not out to scam or take advantage of anyone. This is the only case that I am aware of where they negated a player's winnings because of breaking this specific term.

Players need to be responsible for their activities. He agreed to this term and he chose to play in a manner that breached this term. This was his choice; not mine, not yours, but his.

Hey hold on a a minute. I played at a casino that is marked with the eCogra seal indicating fairness. This casino is also on the Casinomeister accredited casinos list - lending it further credibility. I dont think anyone in this thread, not a single person would agree that this casino has acted fairly here.

YES, I signed up under their rules and agreed to them, but I agreed to what I thought was the spirit of the rules, not some extremely narrow interpretation which makes everyone who ever lost their deposit and bonus at the casino a rule breaker. As I said in my first response to the rep, if you are acting fairly, then you should either pay me or pay back everyone who ever lost their last bet out of their deposit plus bonus. You cant have it both ways, the rule means this if you win and something else if you lose, that is clearly NOT fair!

Just because this is the only case you have ever seen where the casino abused its rules in this particular way to avoid a payout does not make their actions any fairer and Im guessing that Im just the most vocal complainant.

As it stands, Spin Palace should still pay me. I dont think they have gone far enough with clarifying their rules and on the issue of fariness, well, there just hasnt been any. Im shocked that anyone would still claim they have been acting fairly.

[KasinoKing]

As I said in my first response to the rep, if you are acting fairly, then you should either pay me or pay back everyone who ever lost their last bet out of their deposit plus bonus. You cant have it both ways, the rule means this if you win and something else if you lose, that is clearly NOT fair!

I'm sorry, but you're being the unreasonable one here.
The original term said:

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance and bonus, all of which shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes. Should the Casino deem that practices such as this have been utilized, the Casino reserves the right to withhold any cashins and/or confiscate all winnings.

"reserves the right to", not "will".
In other words, if someone breaches the term they might confiscate winnings.
Also, it doesn't say anything about returning your deposit.

Apart from that, I'm 100% on your side & think you should be paid your winnings in full.

KK

[gingeanth89]

I'm sorry, but you're being the unreasonable one here.
The original term said:

"reserves the right to", not "will".
In other words, if someone breaches the term they might confiscate winnings.
Also, it doesn't say anything about returning your deposit.

Apart from that, I'm 100% on your side & think you should be paid your winnings in full.

KK

I wasnt suggesting that they should do that, I was just making a silly example of a situation that could be true because of this rule as it stood. I am chuffed that the members of this group making their feelings known has got the rule changed as well, kudos to palace for makiong an improvement. I still dont think it goes far enough which would be a fair, simple set of rules that everyone understands.

[vinylweatherman]

Max says we shouldn't play at casinos that have this kind of term.

eCogra gives it a seal, and it is accredited here.

It follows therefore that an eCogra seal, and CM accreditation should NOT be taken at face value, and as reason to make ASSUMPTIONS about the terms and conditions.

Unfortunately, this also weakens the player's ability to use these measures to select a casino in a simple manner.

I would have hoped that having this kind of term would be against the criteria for receiving these kinds of accreditations, with casinos applying for such status being told they need to review the terms before it will be granted.

RECREATIONAL players often don't understand most of the terms. It is not even as if they are written in clear "every day" language either. Many players start at the top, see a load of lawyer speak they don't understand and think "screw this, I wanna PLAY!!", and just select "I agree" without having much of a clue to what they have agreed to.

Where a casino decides "in it's discresion" to confiscate winnings, rather than using an EXPLICIT breach, they are simply refusing to honour a bet because they don't like the result. Terms that allow this should be outlawed, since IF casinos have legal teams to help them, they should be capable of writing a proper set of terms and conditions.

Casinos complain that PLAYERS who may be "bonus hunters" will go through terms and exploit loopholes, but often CASINOS do just the same, especially if they think that a big winner will never give it back.

Insurance companies are just as bad, they look at claims to find reasons NOT to pay, and often very minor nuances in the terms and conditions are used.

Here is an example from the UK:-

1) Woman diagnosed with breast cancer.

2) Critical illness insurance refuse to pay because it is not "critical illness" because it has not spread. Said they WOULD have paid if it had, but woman was caught early enough to have mastectomy, considered NOT critical by insurance company.

3) Turns out this little nuance is present in many such policies, but is certainly against the SPIRIT of the insurance product.

Woman fell into this trap because everything was written in "legaleze", not English, so she had to ASSUME she would be fairly treated, and agreed anyway.

If consumers really DID refuse to agree to terms and conditions they didn't understand, perhaps by losing confidence that they would by definition be fair, even though they couldn't understand them, a great many businesses would go to the wall, and those that escaped that fate would have to fight hard to restore confidence.


Casinos appear to being less "fair" now than ever before, and they are mostly being judged NOT by whether they were acting within the terms, but whether they were acting FAIRLY in the eyes of PLAYERS reading the tales, and responses from the casinos.

The most unfair of all is "we have confiscated all your money, we don't have to say why, you agreed to allow us to do this at our discresion".

This would be something in the terms, but they would find few players who would immediately see this as fair, but many that would worry that they too could suffer the same fate, and without knowing why it happened in that case, have no way of guarding against it happening it to them.

This case is puzzling, since the new and "fair" terms now implemented would NOT have caused this player to have their winnings confiscated, yet this doesn't seem to be a case of players pouncing on a loophole and acting in consert to clean out the casino. It seems this is the only player known to have had this term applied to them, so why have they been singled out for this extra harsh treatment?

[kingkong098]

If this term has been in place for a year and you disagreed with it, why have they been left accredited and only now been requested to change the rule after someone got trapped by it.

They caught me with this rule too a few months back, but my cashout was only $400 so I never made a complaint about it. As with the OP, I understood the term to reference your beginning balance, not current. There are certainly others out there that have had winnings voided.

You seem to be speculating here, since no one knows how this would be dealt with by differing jurisdictions. These terms have been there for over a year and have been reviewed by the casino, the casino's legal team, their licensing jurisdiction, and (I'm assuming) most players who have taken a bonus there. To argue that the term is "invalid" is debatable and falls in the realm of legalese. Sorry, but we're not here to offer legal help or to give legal advice. I can point you into the direction of some excellent gaming lawyers, but that is about as far as it goes.

We are here to affect change, assist when we can, and to do our best to set a level playing field for everyone. In this situation, we have done all three.

This issue came to us late Friday afternoon, and it was debated amongst us even up until now. The player posted on Monday, I contacted the casino operators on Tuesday letting them know how I felt about the situation. They looked at this and were responsive to your (and my) suggestions, and these terms and conditions were changed within hours.

As most of you are aware, the Palace Group is not some fly-by-night organization, they've been around for years and are committed to providing players an excellent playing experience. I'm sure I speak for many when I say that they are not out to scam or take advantage of anyone. This is the only case that I am aware of where they negated a player's winnings because of breaking this specific term.

Players need to be responsible for their activities. He agreed to this term and he chose to play in a manner that breached this term. This was his choice; not mine, not yours, but his.

Like Max said, if you think a term sucks - don't play there. You know the deal - vote with your feet (wallet).


Man, I wish it were still 1999 sometimes, but too bad, it ain't like this anymore.

[chuchu59]

Kingkong,

Unwary players like yourself were caught out by them on this clause. Nothing against you and possibly a multitude of other players, but if any of you did register a complaint against these creeps maybe they would have been forced to alter this ridiculous term earlier.


We live and learn. No matter how small a cashout is, if we feel that the casino has acted unfairly by all means have it debated in the open. Frankly, the recent antics of Irish Luck, Spin Palace and Inet leave a bad taste in the mouth. They are exploiting loopholes in their terms and conditions so that they dont have to pay winnings to the players. When a terms and condition is set there must be a reason for its existence and the casino cannot just say "You didnt adhere to our terms so your winnings are confiscated". It has to use its discretion to judge whether the act by the player was against the spirit of the term. I dont see it happening here and I am afraid this bodes ill for the industry.

[spiderlegz]

Firstly to address a few additional points raised in this thread:
30. Spin Palace Casino reserves the right to pay all Progressive Jackpot winnings in US dollars. The amount to be paid, will be determined by the US Dollar Progressive Jackpot amount on the Progressive Game played, at the time the jackpot was won.
We pay progressives in the currency the player played in. The term does need updating and will be done so accordingly.

The Finnish site will be updated to have the same terms as the rest of our the casino sites. Thank you for pointing these out.

In response to the original post.

We have been targeted and abused by a number of players using certain betting patterns (which for obvious reasons I cannot divulge). We do not take the bets at face value but delve into the actual game play to determine whether someone has transgressed the terms and conditions or not.
The problems come in when we look at trends and play and see definite signs that someone is betting a certain way after receiving bonus money which is not in the spirit of fair play and not the reason we give offers and bonuses to our players.
Our terms do state what we do not allow and if players would like to clarify what they may or may not do prior to claiming and betting they are welcome to contact us.
The 20% bonus offer on the reversal was an error and should not have been sent out. This does not detract that once the withdrawal was submitted and analysed the player did in fact break terms which they agreed to when registering with us.
Players who play with us know we are a reputable group who does not need to revert to any underhand tactics. We do however strongly believe that a business needs to protect itself.



Regards,

The Palace Group

You still have that term. A nice opportunity to pocket some extra cash if someone playing in GBP or euro hits an progressive.

OT And I hate Detroit Redwings.