Rushmore- sucky rule to confiscate funds

[silcnlayc]

no costs were made in holding the customer's account

There are costs involved in maintaining an opened account. Just as most bank charges monthly fees, it takes manpower to reconcile their ledgers and find where it is not balancing out, when there is money "floating" around for many months, and when no activity is made in the account, it becomes a writeoff.

I agree there should be an email saying something to the effect of confiscations for inactivity within x amount of days, but it is in their T&C
's.

Let me say this, I do not agree with the policy, but it is in writing.

.

[Mouche12]

Well, we're not lawyers - never claimed to be, and this is a common term that's posted in most terms and conditions. Hell, the casinos licensed in Malta turn the winnings over to the LGA after 180 days

When you sign up at an online casino, you agreed to the terms. It's your responsibility to abide by them whether you think they are fair or not. If you don't like them - don't sign up. It's pretty simple.

True, just a paralegal, but based on what I have seen at international law firms in the field of consumer law, I believe this is definitely an unreasonable term that can be contested successfully. The principle of fairness and reasonableness is an important legal principle and it definitely applies in this case. Seek legal assistance.

[elscrabinda]

Well, we're not lawyers - never claimed to be, and this is a common term that's posted in most terms and conditions. Hell, the casinos licensed in Malta turn the winnings over to the LGA after 180 days

When you sign up at an online casino, you agreed to the terms. It's your responsibility to abide by them whether you think they are fair or not. If you don't like them - don't sign up. It's pretty simple.

Almost every casino has the "we reserve the right" clause. Using your logic noone then has any grounds for complaint about anything a casino does as they have "agreed to the terms". Being accredited here should, in my opinion, mean that players can expect that though such terms exist, they will only be enforced with good reason, fairly, and not solely used as an excuse for confiscating balances. Unless Louise/Rushmore can come up with a better reason than "we're allowed to" for doing this I will continue to consider it unjustified

[Casinomeister]

One thing everyone needs to remember - these are winnings, right? Not the actual funds that the player deposited - so in other words, the player is not out of pocket.

I would consider this unfair if the casino wiped the account clean and included deposited funds, but from what I can tell, this didn't happen.

[jas2587]

all tho I dont agree with the taking all of the cash closing the account either

it has been 10 months that the account was doormat
dead no 1 logging in

maybe if you had a unexplained illness that lasted 10 months
or family illness that prevented you from playing it would
make more sense

it made up my mind on these casino's tho

Good Luck
Cindy

[elscrabinda]

One thing everyone needs to remember - these are winnings, right? Not the actual funds that the player deposited - so in other words, the player is not out of pocket.

I would consider this unfair if the casino wiped the account clean and included deposited funds, but from what I can tell, this didn't happen.

Without wanting to be facetious, how do you end up with "1 or 2 thousand" in your account without depositing? I guess I could have received a no deposit bonus (I didn't) but I'm not sure why you jumped to that kind of conclusion? I honestly can't remember how I won there, chances are there was a bonus involved, but it most definitely included deposit(s).

[Casinomeister]

Almost every casino has the "we reserve the right" clause. Using your logic noone then has any grounds for complaint about anything a casino does as they have "agreed to the terms". Being accredited here should, in my opinion, mean that players can expect that though such terms exist, they will only be enforced with good reason, fairly, and not solely used as an excuse for confiscating balances. Unless Louise/Rushmore can come up with a better reason than "we're allowed to" for doing this I will continue to consider it unjustified

Sorry, I disagree. Using my logic - you are bound by their terms and conditions that you agreed to when signing up. Are they obligated to make an exception? If so, why?

You aren't privy to the inner workings of a casino, so making guesses as to why casinos do this is irrelevant. Sure it sucks - but just about every MGS powered casino have similar policies, and I'm pretty sure most Playtech casinos do as well. If you don't like it, then vote with your feet and don't participate with casinos that have policies like this.

From what I can tell, you never gave this casino a chance to look into this and possibly make an exception. Instead of using a bit of tact and discretion by perhaps PABing or contacting the casino rep here, you took it upon yourself to make this a public issue. Not the smartest move IMO.

[Casinomeister]

Without wanting to be facetious, how do you end up with "1 or 2 thousand" in your account without depositing? I guess I could have received a no deposit bonus (I didn't) but I'm not sure why you jumped to that kind of conclusion? I honestly can't remember how I won there, chances are there was a bonus involved, but it most definitely included deposit(s).

Okay - I was making an assumption here. I figured that any deposits that were sitting in the account would have been returned and your winnings voided. That's how I read it. Perhaps Louise can let us know what the deal was.

[elscrabinda]

Sorry, I disagree. Using my logic - you are bound by their terms and conditions that you agreed to when signing up. Are they obligated to make an exception? If so, why?

You aren't privy to the inner workings of a casino, so making guesses as to why casinos do this is irrelevant. Sure it sucks - but just about every MGS powered casino have similar policies, and I'm pretty sure most Playtech casinos do as well. If you don't like it, then vote with your feet and don't participate with casinos that have policies like this.

From what I can tell, you never gave this casino a chance to look into this and possibly make an exception. Instead of using a bit of tact and discretion by perhaps PABing or contacting the casino rep here, you took it upon yourself to make this a public issue. Not the smartest move IMO.

Maybe I should have mentioned that yes I had contacted Louise here and got a "I can't do anything" response. I didn't PAB, for the very reason that I accept that they are within their rights to do it. I also do not claim that they are "obligated" to do anything.

Making it a public issue is not about being vindictive or trying to get revenge- I just happen to think that a casino that does this kind of thing will also not think twice about other imo unscrupulous behaviour (whether or not their t&cs allow them to) and that other players should be warned about this.

Reputable MG casinos may indeed have the term, I haven't heard of them using it though and that is the difference.

[elscrabinda]

I have also criticised in the past the dormancy fees levied by Intercasino- however they at least warn you about them before they are imposed (or at least tell you shortly after so that you can avoid it next time, I can't remember). Here there was no communication and unless it was a completely automated system over which they have no control it seems entirely unfair that they would close the account and confiscate the funds with not so much as a single courtesy email.