Fortune Affiliates Retroactive Terms

[rowmare]

Talking about it is not a waste of time.

Getting the word out is extremely important. Webmaster affiliates have the traffic and together we can make a difference.

Let's look at it from another angle. A player signs up for a nice bonus. When they sign up, they read the terms and conditions and find that the play-through is 15X bonus and deposit. The player wins some money and, having met the T&C conditions of 15X bonus and deposit, tries to make a withdrawal. The player is told then that the terms have been changed and they must playthrough 20X bonus and deposit.

The casino can do it, because it says right in the T&C's that they can change the T&C's at anytime.

I don't see how it makes any difference when it's the affiliate's getting screwed. Screwed is Screwed.

Lets for one moment forget about the legal issue. If what is happening to the Affiliate T&C's is not legal, does that make it any more acceptable? What do the changes foretell of the future of this business?

Yes, changes are inevitable in a rapidly growing business, but I'm not going to bend over and take it. I'm not going to make it easy for them to screw us, and I'm not going to make it easy for other programs to follow suit.

Keep on Bitchin!

[spearmaster]

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

LMAO... how true.

So who was Insistent?

I've heard some people quoting the "We reserve the right" disclaimer which is standard in most contracts - however, I want to point out that this clause rarely has any teeth in any contract, and a court that looks at a modification which is unfairly to the detriment of the other party will generally throw out this disclaimer as being too vague.

So now Fortune Affiliate, Vegas Partner Lounge, and Referback, of the Microgaming casino groups, are in breach of contract.

And before anyone jumps to Referback's defense and says that they are not in breach, the "one player per month" clause introduced recently put them in breach and they have not rescinded that clause. Furthermore, they are making claims with respect to your players delivered before August 1st (classic percentage) which also breaches the original terms under which most affiliates were signed up.

Hang on tight, affiliates. Because every other casino program will follow shortly if you don't stand up for your rights NOW.

[Simmo!]

For what it's worth, i have put a call in to my lawyer. Although, being over here and not too rich, there's a limit to where i can take this

Frankly I'm less bothered about the financial implications and more concerned with the moral and trust implications. It bothers me that any company, in this industry or otherwise, feels that they can get away with making retroactive changes to an effectively signed contract.

Anyway, I'll let you know my lawyer's thoughts via the CAP boards. Where we go from there is probably going to be a "group" decision.

Cheers

Simmo!


PS. I loved Adam & The Ants! so don't knock 'em or I'll send Simon Le Bon round to duff you up!!

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by rowmare

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.

I just saw this.

Now that's BS and deserves a thread of its own.

[dominique]

Originally Posted by casinomeister

I just saw this.

Now that's BS and deserves a thread of its own.

Lol, yes it is and does. But - this one is not illegal. It is not retroactive. It can't be - lol - or we would have to give back money they paid. I was talking with them this morning and there will be some sort of incentivisation or alteration forthcoming on that one.

The illegal one is this one:

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.

That one is retroactive and not legal.

[Webzcas]

Fantastic . Another Microgaming Casino Group introduces punitive changes to their Terms & Conditions.

This is a rolling stone that is gathering moss now, question is when are the brakes going to be hit?

[dominique]

Ok, Referback is not in breach anymore.

They now only apply the 6 month rule to accounts opened from hereon forward.

That means all the changes are perfectly legal, they just make them a bad deal. Nothing illegal in that.

Fortune, Vegas Partners, Partnerlogic and Wager Junction are still in breach.

With Referback as example, perhaps these other programs will realize that being in breach is not a necessary thing, and coming back into the realm of legality can only be beneficial.

[spearmaster]

They still have to rectify the breach that occurred when they instituted a new "one player per month" requirement which affects your percentage calculation if said players are not delivered.

As far as I am concerned, they are every bit in breach of contract as any of the others - just for a longer period of time.

[mary]

Affiliates could lodge complaints with the Kahnawake Gaming Commision. I've highlighted in blue the text from their regulations that might be applicable.

http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommi...ms/kgcregs.pdf

29. The Commission will consider an applicant suitable to hold an Interactive
Gaming Licence or a Client Provider Authorization as the case may be, if the
applicant can satisfy the Commission of the following:
(a) the applicant’s good character, honesty and integrity;
(b) the applicant's good business reputation, sound current financial position
and financial background;
(c) the applicant has arranged, or is arranging, a satisfactory ownership, trust
or corporate structure;
(d) the applicant has, or is able to obtain, appropriate resources, services and
technical ability to conduct interactive gaming;
(e) the applicant has the ability to conduct interactive games under an
Interactive Gaming Licence or Client Provider Authorization, and
(f) any other matter prescribed under a law applicable within the Territories
or which the Commission deems appropriate.

53. In deciding whether to grant a renewal application, the Commission will consider
any complaints, concerns or problems that may have arisen in the previous
licensing period related to the licence holder or authorized client provider and
will deny the renewal application if, in the Commission's sole discretion, the
complaints, concerns or problems are sufficiently serious or numerous.

[dominique]

Yes, you are right, Spearmaster. Referback is in breach from back then. First one to do it.

Thank you Mary, very interesting.