Fortune Affiliates Retroactive Terms

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by dominique

Well, negotiations have come to a halt - Fortune insists that it's actions are legal.

It is no rocket science to see that they are not. They seem to be quite sure that no one will sue them.

I am very disappointed.

Since when was this decided? I was under the impression that there were still people looking into this, and no one has said any different to me.

Are you saying that their terms and conditions are not legally valid and applicable? As far as I know, FA has a pretty good legal team. I don't think they would screw their terms up.

Perhaps you should forward their T&Cs to your lawyer and see what he thinks. We're getting a lot of "legal" comments in this thread, but since no one here practices law - perhaps someone should recruit someone who does so we can have an expert opinion.

[spearmaster]

I don't think they would screw their terms up.

This is not the issue. They are doing as they please and I doubt they even bothered to consult their legal team.

I will consult with some people to see what actions can be taken to remedy this situation - but the offending programs would probably be well-advised to take action on their own to resolve the matter quickly and amicably. I've already seen some opinions on the matter which would not favor their stance, and not one that would favor it.

It is not the terms and conditions that are being challenged. It is the retroactive application of these terms against deliverables under the old terms and conditions that is being contested.

[dominique]

There is not a civilized country where you don't have to pay for what you ordered - and exactly the amount you agreed to pay.

You want to order some cheaper stuff in future - no one will complain.

Every player from every country can tell you that changing T&Cs retroactively is illegal. Why should it be ok to do the same to affiliates?

Just recently Fortune cleaned up some problems they had with players about retroactive changes to player T&Cs, unless memory fails me.

But it's ok to screw affiliates?

[dominique]

Well, Referback just joined the mayhem with the worst changes yet.

The only option I see anymore is a class action suit.

I suppose this will be interesting to do internationally.

[rowmare]

Referback has the worst T&C's ever.

New definition of "active player":

Active Casino Customer': A New Casino Player who after purchasing and playing for the first time at a Merchant Casino returns to make a second successful purchase at the same Merchant Casino. The aforegoing applies to Active Casino Customers aquired from (and including) 1 August 2005.

This means that, unless any player you send make a second deposit, you make nothing at all from that player.

Even though this applies to players from August 1, 2005, on, it's total b.s. and unacceptable.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by dominique

Well, Referback just joined the mayhem with the worst changes yet.

The only option I see anymore is a class action suit.

I suppose this will be interesting to do internationally.

Then why hasn't anyone here gotten some legal council involved? I'm really starting to tire of all this "this is legal - this ain't legal" whatever, and not one person has tried to get professional advice on this - apparently.

If you have done so (received legal counseling), how about sharing this information? This thread has just turned into a bitch session that has gone nowhere.

When you decided to get into the business of promoting online casinos, nobody promised anyone a cake walk. If they did, then you should have thought twice. This industry is in a fetal stage - it's not even a baby yet. There are going to be changes made because of the dynamics of the online casino industry and marketing. That's just the way it is - get used to it.

Sure, what Fortune Affiliates did sucked for some, for others it didn't make much difference. Like Peralis said earlier, these people (FA) have done a lot for affiliates on a one-to-one basis. And as far as I can tell, it's still a damn good program.

A number of you are freaking out that they bundled the casinos together, if it was the other way around would you be so upset? Over the past several years, a number of affiliate programs have gone through enormous changes. Fortunately, most of these changes have been for the "good". (increase of revenue share, cross promoting, etc.). But as I mentioned in an earlier post, aren't these "changes" breaches of the contract according to some of your definitions? They apply to already delivered players don't they?

From my understanding, when Vegas Partner Lounge took over Cinema Casino, 777 Dragon Casino and Arthurian Casino a year or two ago, these casinos were "bundled" together. Then VPL decided not to do this anymore. No one complained back then that there was a breach of contract and terms being made retroactively. Why didn't this cause an outcry then?

But now VPL is bundling them back together and everyone (most everyone) is freaking out. What's up with that?

Anyway, in my opinion there are more evil things to tackle. I wish some of you were just as riled up over site scraping, copyright theft, and players getting screwed by bullshit casinos THAT ARE STILL BEING PROMOTED. I think there is some misdirected passion here.

Anyway, I know lawyers. And if anyone wants me to refer you to them. Just let me know. I think that this is the time to get organized and take this on head-on instead of just talking about it. Class action suit? I'm sure there are more than enough interested parties.

[spearmaster]

I disagree.

I will not listen to the "If this... If that..." arguments - they have breached their contract. There is NOT any "If this... If that..." argument that is going to change this simple fact.

If a casino has to honor the T&Cs that were in force when a player signed up for a bonus, then the casino must honor the T&Cs that were in force when an affiliate agreed to promote them.

There is absolutely NO difference. So I'm a bit confused as to why you are adamant that they can do this.

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, aren't these "changes" breaches of the contract according to some of your definitions? They apply to already delivered players don't they?

A breach in contract occurs when one party attempts to do something (ie. modify the terms) which is to the DETRIMENT of the other party. If they make an amendment which BENEFITS the other party, of course the other party isn't going to complain. This does NOT work both ways. If both parties agree, there is no breach.

Had they ASKED each affiliate before amending the terms such that the other party agrees to accept an amendment which is to their detriment, there would be NO discussion.

They did NOT do this. At all. They simply modified the terms and told us to like it or else.

Now I think that's absolute bullshit no matter which way you look at it. I don't need a lawyer to tell me that my explanation is perfectly correct with regards to breach of contract.

But I have also taken your advice to heart and am now contacting legal representation in the jurisdictions where Fortune and its parent/subsidiary companies operate. I am also contacting the manufacturers of the software for their opinion.

We shall see. If it's a class action suit that they end up receiving, so be it - but I am just as prepared to carry this one alone.

The ball's in THEIR court.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

There is absolutely NO difference. So I'm a bit confused as to why you are adamant that they can do this.

I am not Adamant, he was an 80s flash-in-the pan punker who couldn't sing very well.

Originally Posted by spearmaster

Now I think that's absolute bullshit no matter which way you look at it. I don't need a lawyer to tell me that my explanation is perfectly correct with regards to breach of contract.

But that's the thing, a lawyer is what you need to make sense of this. That is what I've been trying to tell people pretty much all along. Don't waste your time beating this to death on the boards. Get some REAL advice.

[dominique]

Talking about the legal aspect - Referback does not look to be in breach except for one paragraph:

If a Customer is deemed by the Merchant to have lapsed, an Affiliate shall no longer be entitled to earn Commission of any nature on such Lapsed Customer. For the purposes hereof, a Customer shall be deemed to be a 'Lapsed Player' if he/ she has neither purchased nor played at a Merchant Casino or Merchant Poker Room for a consecutive period of 6 (six) months.

I signed up for lifetime sharing of profits.

All the new T&Cs are designed to squeeze out percentage affiliates and encourage CPA affiliates. That is why some are more bothered than others - there are a lot of ways marketers are being reimbursed by the casinos. It's the larger programs that are now well established and have players resulting from years and years of us sending them that now think they have had enough of paying for them. Well without us they would not have them in the first place.

Bryan, I am not going on about this because what Fortune did sucks for me - well, it sucks, but I don't need Fortune or any other specific program. I have always diversified so I am at liberty to toss anyone I like (or rather don't like). I am doing it because what they did is break their contract and if you can't rely on people keeping the contracts they sign with you, what can you rely on?

Suing is complicated and I am sure very expensive - Referback for instance says they are subject to law in Cyprus I believe. Fortune is in SA. This would go all over the place...

Re. Vegas Partners - I didn't promote those places before. I joined Vegas Partners under their agreement, and it did not bundle. It depends on what contract you signed - its no different from players and casino T&Cs.

People are discussing these things at CAP now too. I'll keep you updated.

One thing I am going to do is to use my seo positions on some terms like casino webmaster programs and blacklisted casinos to tell the tale once it has all unfolded. I am going to review the programs and point out details in their T&C's. And I may start declaring some of them rogue.

[mary]

Basically, it looks like the affiliate programs weren't run super well. They did change terms retroactively in implementing changes to the affiliates' benefit; they should have kept track on a player-by-player basis what terms attach to each player. That would have allowed them to "drop back" to the original terms if they needed to do that. I'm assuming they didn't formalize the new more liberal terms with affiliates. There's nobody going to stop you if your volunteer to overpay a contract.

I think for some "batches" of players that would have been to go back to carrying over losses per casino as that was in effect contractually when those players were sent.

"Bundling" has a similar effect to carrying over losses, so it is a form of dropping back to an earlier state...done in a sloppy unilateral manner.

What a mess. Going forward, if programs want the flexibility to change payment terms, they *must* keep track of which terms attach to which players so that both parties in the affiliate/casino relationship can make fully informed decisions about contract negotiation and fulfillment.