Glad to see that FirstPartners have backed off on that ridiculous demand that affiliates help fund their progressives!

The attempt to penalise affiliates with e-processor or other financial risk charges is imo not sufficiently thought through and clearly specified.

There needs to be much clearer definition here and transparency so that affiliates know exactly what they're being hit with, how it's been calculated and why.

If affiliates are supposed to be in 'partnership' with the casinos this should be a consultative process and not one arbitrarily announced and imposed as it appeared to be here imo.

Affiliate marketers are running (in the main small) businesses too, and they are entitled to know exactly what circumstances render them liable for unsupported or insured losses incurred by the casinos.

I believe that companies like First trying to impose these sort of 'survival' charges need to integrate the wording and spirit of their affiliate agreements into the equation as well.