Fortune Affiliates Retroactive Terms

[Casinomeister]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[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]

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]

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.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

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 applicants 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.

 

[Casinomeister]

Here are Gibraltar's in case any one is interested:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[dominique]

Thanks. This opens a whole new avenue to think about.

 

[jinnia]

Wager Junction:

They have reverted back to the old Terms and Conditions that state the affiliates will be receiving 35% in Commission.

They have removed the 3-month ruling that stated if you did not deliver an active player for a 3-month period they had the right to close down the account.

They have added to the terms and condition a paragraph that penalizes partners that copy content and sites.

The changes to the Terms and Conditions have been made and are in place.

If they do make changes in the future they will be making these changes on the basis of the change being made going forward.

They do doubt that any further changes will be made.

(received email today about it)

 

[Casinomeister]

Wager Junction:

They have reverted back to the old Terms and Conditions that state the affiliates will be receiving 35% in Commission.

They have removed the 3-month ruling that stated if you did not deliver an active player for a 3-month period they had the right to close down the account.

They have added to the terms and condition a paragraph that penalizes partners that copy content and sites.

The changes to the Terms and Conditions have been made and are in place.

If they do make changes in the future they will be making these changes on the basis of the change being made going forward.

They do doubt that any further changes will be made.

(received email today about it)

Finally some good news

Next, we'll find out their software cheats

(just kidding)

 

[dominique]

Wager Junction took out all their bad T&Cs and added in a nice clause about protection from content thieves. They are not in breach anymore.

Referback has taken out the retroactive clause they introduced this time, although there is an older one remaining in force.

I think things are looking up a bit - two out of five isn't bad! Maybe we are moving now!