It was a close shave for them though, with this quote:-
Also I'd like to inform you that we have ensured that our Terms and Conditions comply with the local regulations of all countries we offer our services in.
This seems not to be the case, and I am pretty sure that if these terms were put before the UK OFT as a "hypothetical case" they would have said they looked unfair, and in breach of a number of provisions in the regulations. This would have been a SERIOUS embarrassment for Party Casino, and it is good to see they chose to avoid it by having another look at the terms.
I also noted the point in Rusty's post from the UKGC rules.
Customers must be notified of changes to terms before they come into effect.
Almost EVERY online casino breaks this one, since they mostly rely on a clause of the form...
It is the player's responsibility to revisit these terms and conditions at least once a month............
This has lead to many problems, since it allows the casino considerable leeway to chose a random mid-month date to make a change, and apply it from that date, meaning that even players who check the terms every month could miss changes for up to 30 days.
It should be a simple matter to email existing players a notification that the terms had changed, and for players yet to register they should ensure offers have start dates and expiry dates.
Some casinos make changes that are hard to spot, since they don't highlight them, giving the player no clue as to where to look in what could be more than a dozen header items in the terms.
Outside of online gambling, changes to consumer terms, and their notification, has been dealt with.
The onus is on the BUSINESS to notify the CUSTOMER of any changes. IF the changes are detrimental to the customer, they must give 30 days notice before the changes come into effect, which gives the customer time to decide whether to accept the changes, or leave. There is also a right to leave a contract early if a detrimental change is made part way through that was not mentioned in the initial agreement. Customers CANNOT "opt out" of their basic consumer rights. This means that the often used argument of "the player agreed to these terms when they signed up" means nothing if these terms include clauses that imply the consumer has agreed to forego some of their basic rights.
I am rather surprised there have not been more complaints about this policy while it was in force, but suspect the reason might be down to bonuses, with players who use bonuses automatically gaining their 15% worth during the process of meeting WR, and perhaps never encountering the rejection of a withdrawal for this 15% Party Points reason. The maths seems to support this, with 30x deposit easily being covered by the WR that would be expected with a bonus.
It seems peverse that it was players who did NOT take bonuses that were being targeted by this rule, since such players must surely be the best catch of all, as if there is one thing they are NOT - it is an "advantage player/bonus abuser", supposedly the scourge of online casinos.
The low level of complaints might also indicate that very few players decide to opt out of the bonuses at Party Casino.
Empty Fruities Astern Capt'n
Back to port for unloading.
Full Sails - before we get raided ourselves.
Bookmarks