All accounts locked at Rival White Labels - no explanation

[mclee321]

Now, I mostly play at independant Rivals (Spartan Slots, Black Diamond etc), but I have have still been playing at Superior Casino, because they have some decent offers and (always for me) cashed out quickly.

Just to set the scene - I only ever play slots. I often take a bonus, but not always. I've always played through bonus requirements with a great deal of playthrough on top. I've only made 1 or 2 withdraws at Superior, compared to 25 odd deposits. The withdraws were probably $500. I've never chargedback, and wouldn't dream of doing so. I don't grind out bonuses after a big win, all my slot bets are between 80cent and $3.

I attempted to log in on Friday (Superior) and was imformed my account was locked. Checking the other white labels (that I don't really play at), I was also locked out of those. I've not played at Superior for over a week, and my last cashout was a month ago at the very least.

I contacted live chat -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All operators are currently assisting others. Thanks for your patience. You are currently placed in queue number 1. The average wait is 31seconds. An operator will be with you shortly.

You are now chatting with '******'
******: Welcome to casino Live Chat. How may I help you?

mclee321: Hi, my username is xxxxxxx and my e-mail address is xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx My superior account (and a few other rival accounts) has been locked out. I was just checking why

******: Your patience is appreciated. I will be with you shortly.

mclee321: Thanks ******

******: We are currently extremely busy. Please be patient I will be with you shortly. I apologize for this delay.

mclee321: Its no problem

******: I will be right with you.

******: The accounts have been closed due to charge backs.

mclee321: ******, that can' be right, i only deposit via moneybookers. I've only ever made 1 credit card deposit.

mclee321: And i've certainly never charged back.

******: I'm sorry my mistake the reason the accounts were closed was a decision made by management.

mclee321: I don't understand, what could I possibly have done? I deposit, I mostly lose. I occasionally withdraw. Any particular reason?

******: I am sorry to inform you but the casino reserves the right to deny promotions to anyone, without disclosing the reason why.

mclee321: Promotions? My account is locked, I not really asking about promotions.

******: The account was locked by management and the reason therefore is not disclosed why.

mclee321: Forgive me, but you first claimed I made a fraudulant act, a chargeback, which I didn't. Then I get get no explanation as to why my accounts is locked at all. I don't want to fight with you ******, I know you have guidelines to follow, but can anyone tell me why?

******: I apologize for the previous statement made but the reason the account was closed was a decision by management and we as support do not know the reason why this was made. You can however send an email to [email protected] inquiring why this decision was made by management and you will be replied as soon as possible per email.

mclee321: Ok thank you ******. I really don't understand the Rival companies sometimes, it like the management go out of their way to alienate genuine playes. Hope you have a better night following this ******, see you.

******: Thank you for using Live Support. Should you have any future questions, please contact us again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I'm accused of making chargebacks, then told thats not the reason and I can't be told what the reason is. They really have hired some special people to manage these casinos.

I e-mail support as advised (no rep here), asking why I had been banned from playing, mentioning the confusing reports I had from live chat. Inevitabily I recieved -

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear xxxxx,

We have checked our records and as we can see, you were already
informed by the representative that assisted you in chat that the
account was not locked by chargebacks but based on decisions made by
management.

We are sorry to inform you that your account will remain closed.

The casino reserves the right to refuse membership in the casino to any
applicant or to suspend an existing member's playing privileges without
notice or cause at The casino's sole discretion.

Sincerely,

Superior Customer Support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


So who knows what they thought I did. If they accused me of making chargebacks, then retracted it, what other fantasy reason could they be using.

I don't want to play here ever again, I just want to make them look incompetent. The monkeys who make these policies, be it managers at Superior or Rival, are truly the most uneducated, brain damaged morons I've ever expeirenced.

Seeing them rogued, would also be nice.

 

[Mousey]

Most are 'Not Recommended' and a couple are Rogued.

Personally, as much as I enjoyed their software, I don't trust them as far as I could toss a bowling ball.

Your problem, unfortunately, is that you don't know their reasoning behind the white labels lock out. If it has anything even slightly to do with payment processing, or your ID, whether the problem is real or imagined, it could cause you difficulty with other casinos and processors in future.

If it's simply because you're ahead (in the black) at their casinos, then congrats, and their lock out assures they don't get a chance to get any of their money back.

Good luck.

 

[voodookitty]

I am not surprised, as they have such unexplainable business practices.
(with the exception of the SlotoCash and Box 24 groups)

I would look at it like this ~ they probably did you a favor!

I stopped playing at them a couple of years ago and really have no desire to ever play at their casinos again.
Long withdrawals times with every excuse in the book, bonus blocked, etc... they did me a favor, by pissing me off!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Try this


Contact the INDEPENDENT Rival casinos and tell them about this unexplained lock-out, and the accusation first of making chargebacks, and then it's retraction and CLEAR suggestion that you have "done something wrong". Tell these independents that you KNOW all Rivals share information, and until this matter is "cleared up" and you get a proper explanation and assurances, you will NOT be making any further deposits because you cannot be confident that this problem will not surface at the independents because you don't know what it is, but it is clearly VERY SERIOUS given the action taken.

With you being a genuine player, rather than a "bonus abuser", the independents will have some common sense, and think "WTF! We are not going to lose a player over this Rival incompetence........".

Since there IS this sharing of data, these independents CAN find out what has been going on

You may find out this is based on some algorithm that determined you are a "negative value player", which can simply mean you don't lose enough, rather than anything to do with HOW you play, and whether this is with, or without, bonuses.

Rival already look bad, and it seems they don't care HOW much worse this gets. Unlike US players though, you have plenty of choice, and there is every chance the independents will "sort this out" quickly, and you will be able to return to playing a few Rival casinos.

 

[mclee321]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Vinyl, my independant accounts (sloto, spartan, black diamond) were never locked out at all.

A clue which backs up your theory is that I was suddenly bonus banned at Spartan slots (at the same time my white label accounts were locked), which means the Rival database made a system wide ajustment to my profile.

Spartan quickly cleared this up. This group and Sloto have always been excellent casinos to use, it's a shame they have to share the negative perceptions of the Bonne Chance white labels.

I had no funds stored in the white labels, but what would have happened if I had? Locked out, no explanation, no way to release the funds and no one willing to explain the issue.

Basically criminal activity on Superior/Rivals part.

If I play by all the rules I expect better treatment, at no point have I done anything remotely wrong. They disgust me.

 

[KasinoKing]

Basically criminal activity on Superior/Rivals part.

If I play by all the rules I expect better treatment, at no point have I done anything remotely wrong. They disgust me.

If you'd like me to, I could get in touch with my contact at Superior to see if he would investigate what exactly has occurred in your case. (I can't make any promises though, obviously).

I didn't offer after reading your first post because it seemed you weren't interested in pursuing it further. Let me know if you'd like me to try for you. (I would need your Superior Casino username).

KK

 

[mclee321]

Thank you KK, I have sent you a PM with the details.

As mentioned to KK, I'm seemingly being accused of being linked to a fraudulent account.

One of the Rival Casinos when logging in claims "your account has been linked to fraudulent action in our database"

This is, of course, Horseshit.

I'm concerned this libelous information could be passed around, therefore I'm grateful for KK's offer.

I'm sorry but how can I let this go. I say again, I have done nothing remotely improper.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Thank you KK, I have sent you a PM with the details.

As mentioned to KK, I'm seemingly being accused of being linked to a fraudulent account.

One of the Rival Casinos when logging in claims "your account has been linked to fraudulent action in our database"

This is, of course, Horseshit.

I'm concerned this libelous information could be passed around, therefore I'm grateful for KK's offer.

I'm sorry but how can I let this go. I say again, I have done nothing remotely improper.

Clearly, it HAS been passed around, which is why ALL your white label accounts were suddenly locked. It has even been passed to the independents, which is TRUE libel, having been shared to a third party not related to Bonne Chance.
ONE independent just bonus banned you, and the other two didn't seem to think the matter important enough to take any action.....yet - and this is the problem; without knowing what is going on, you cannot assume that the remaining 2 independents will not take this further, and lock you out when you DO have funds tied up.

This is perfectly NORMAL behaviour for Rival, which is WHY they ended up as "not recommended". Despite protests and interventions, Rival HAVE NOT CHANGED, and whatever KK achieves in your case does NOTHING to address the underlying problem, and soon another player will suffer, and another, and another, and so on.....

 

[lots0]

TI'm sorry but how can I let this go. I say again, I have done nothing remotely improper.

You don't have to do anything improper.

They can close your account and refuse to do business with you FOR ANY REASON and they don't have to tell you why... That's the deal you agreed to when you deposited... Read the Terms of Service.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you did anything wrong. I am just saying the casino didn't do anything wrong either.

You may not agree with or like their decision to close your account... But they are completely within the terms you agreed too... And the fact is you are not entitled to an explanation... and you agreed to that before you deposited in this casino.

They also tell you in the agreement that they will 'share' your information with their partners... again you agreed to let them share your info, before you deposit and play... Now you complain about it.

I am not saying that RIVAL are good guys... but they didn't break the agreement you made with them, at least from what has been said here.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You don't have to do anything improper.

They can close your account and refuse to do business with you FOR ANY REASON and they don't have to tell you why... That's the deal you agreed to when you deposited... Read the Terms of Service.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you did anything wrong. I am just saying the casino didn't do anything wrong either.

You may not agree with or like their decision to close your account... But they are completely within the terms you agreed too... And the fact is you are not entitled to an explanation... and you agreed to that before you deposited in this casino.

They also tell you in the agreement that they will 'share' your information with their partners... again you agreed to let them share your info, before you deposit and play... Now you complain about it.

I am not saying that RIVAL are good guys... but they didn't break the agreement you made with them, at least from what has been said here.

They may not have broken the agreement, but may have broken the LAW. Certain "agreements" in contracts are simply illegal, and CANNOT be legally enforced. There are also many "reasons" that CANNOT be used to deny service to a customer, and these relate to such things as race, religion, gender, etc. In law, it is up to the BUSINESS to prove that the reason to refuse service is NOT down to one of these things, and the only way to do this is to give the reason as part of their defence. There are many cases where people are refused service, and have grounds to believe the discrimination was illegal, and where this turns out to be the case, the terms do NOT matter one bit, the business is found guilty, and has to pay damages.

Also illegal are "one sided" contracts, where the business gives itself the right to do pretty much anything it wants, and the consumer has little or no say. Many casino terms and conditions fall into this category, and the ONLY reason they have been able to get away with it is because the internet makes recourse to law difficult, and hence rarely used.

If this industry DOES become more mainstream, it will find that recourse to law becomes more common, and they may find their terms being thrown out by the courts, leaving them exposed to claims they thought their terms protected them from.

At the moment, this policy by Rival has cost them MANY customers who WOULD be playing had there NOT been a constant stream of such tales of woe. If we don't know WHY this happens to other players, how can we know it won't happen to US when we play there.

 

[lots0]

They may not have broken the agreement, but may have broken the LAW. Certain "agreements" in contracts are simply illegal, and CANNOT be legally enforced. There are also many "reasons" that CANNOT be used to deny service to a customer, and these relate to such things as race, religion, gender, etc. In law, it is up to the BUSINESS to prove that the reason to refuse service is NOT down to one of these things, and the only way to do this is to give the reason as part of their defence. There are many cases where people are refused service, and have grounds to believe the discrimination was illegal, and where this turns out to be the case, the terms do NOT matter one bit, the business is found guilty, and has to pay damages.

Also illegal are "one sided" contracts, where the business gives itself the right to do pretty much anything it wants, and the consumer has little or no say. Many casino terms and conditions fall into this category, and the ONLY reason they have been able to get away with it is because the internet makes recourse to law difficult, and hence rarely used.

If this industry DOES become more mainstream, it will find that recourse to law becomes more common, and they may find their terms being thrown out by the courts, leaving them exposed to claims they thought their terms protected them from.

At the moment, this policy by Rival has cost them MANY customers who WOULD be playing had there NOT been a constant stream of such tales of woe. If we don't know WHY this happens to other players, how can we know it won't happen to US when we play there.

VW those things maybe true in the UK, but in the US, these type of one sided contacts are standard.
There is nothing in the standard RIVAL contract (TOS) that is not in most contracts signed in America today... Don't believe me take a close look at a standard American cell phone contract or cable contract, Amazon, Buy.com or ISP contract, just to name a few.

So you are saying that as a small business, you want to force me and all small business owners to do business with people we don't want to do business with...
Sorry, I can't agree with that.

I agree that RIVAL has lost customers because of their policies. As I said, I am not defending RIVAL, nor am I saying they are "Good Guys".

What I am saying is that according to American contract law, RIVAL have done NOTHING wrong and nothing illegal, going by what is written here.

RIVAL is completely within their legal rights to close any account they want, at time, for ANY reason and not have to tell that 'reason' to anyone.

If you don't like that term in the agreement, don't open an account at any online casino... because they ALL have that same term in the agreement.

Are RIVAL policies good for customers and good for the reputation of online gambling... probly not.
But in this case, they are within their legal rights to do what they did, like it or not.

(Disclaimer.. not a lawyer... but I have bunch in the family)

 

[De Beuker]

Mc.Lee never said that Rival operators are acting against their own T&C's.
He just said they were a bunch of stupid, brainless morons by pissing off their loyal customers like that.
Rivals do have a habit of pissing off their loyal customers.

The fact that its stated in their T&C's that they have the right to act like stupid, brainless morons doesn't make them less stupid, brainless morons, sorry.

I know I would have been furious too if it happened to me.

 

[KasinoKing]

Thank you KK, I have sent you a PM with the details.

I sent the rep an e-mail asking him to investigate early this-morning, and I got a reply later in the afternoon that they have now contacted you and set everything straight.
Please can you confirm if this is the case?
Thanks,
KK

 

[mclee321]

Thanks for your time KK. I've not heard anything from them as yet. (Quick Edit - Accounts still locked).

@lots0 - De Beuker made a valid point in that originally I was ranting against the utterly moronic policies, and wasn't too concernred with a resolution. I just wanted other players to know what they may come up against.

The reason I became concerned were the half assed suggestions of fraud (along with a retracted claim of chargebacks). You think I want my finance details online being labeled as fraudulent?

You don't think that might possibly have implications for me in the future?

I couldn't give a flying fuck what I signed up for or what the agreement was.

It certainly didn't say in the sign up agreement -
"we may falsely and without any proof accuse you of fraud and ban your account without gathing any details from you. We may also tarnish your good name and this will almost cause blacklisting problems with not only your IP address, but your finance details also"

Yup, didn't remember reading that.

 

[vinylweatherman]

VW those things maybe true in the UK, but in the US, these type of one sided contacts are standard.
There is nothing in the standard RIVAL contract (TOS) that is not in most contracts signed in America today... Don't believe me take a close look at a standard American cell phone contract or cable contract, Amazon, Buy.com or ISP contract, just to name a few.

So you are saying that as a small business, you want to force me and all small business owners to do business with people we don't want to do business with...
Sorry, I can't agree with that.
I agree that RIVAL has lost customers because of their policies. As I said, I am not defending RIVAL, nor am I saying they are "Good Guys".

What I am saying is that according to American contract law, RIVAL have done NOTHING wrong and nothing illegal, going by what is written here.

RIVAL is completely within their legal rights to close any account they want, at time, for ANY reason and not have to tell that 'reason' to anyone.

If you don't like that term in the agreement, don't open an account at any online casino... because they ALL have that same term in the agreement.

Are RIVAL policies good for customers and good for the reputation of online gambling... probly not.
But in this case, they are within their legal rights to do what they did, like it or not.

(Disclaimer.. not a lawyer... but I have bunch in the family)

It's different here. An example of where this is NOT allowed would be the old 1960's habit of having a notice on a guest house "no coloureds". This was common back then, but now would be highly illegal. A small business might have an owner that was against mixing the races, and feel he doesn't want to do business with races other than his own. Under UK law, this would NOT be a valid reason for refusing to serve a customer, in fact, this could get a business into a whole heap of trouble. Now we have all sorts of reasons that you CANNOT use, for example, you cannot say you won't serve a customer who is gay. Under EU law, it is up to the business to prove this was NOT the reason for refusing to serve a customer, rather than for the customer to prove he wasn't served because he was gay, or a minority race in the area.

These two are the most obvious, but various new EU laws have added quite a few more "invalid reasons" for a business to reject a customer, probably more so than in the US.

The US seems to have the idea of individual freedom and responsibilty, whereas in the EU we have more of the "nanny state".

Strangely, when it comes to online gambling, it is the USA that turns out to be the "nanny state", whereas in the UK the online gambling businesses are treated just like any other "adult" entertainment business, with the greatest concern being the prevention of under age participation, and proper management of problem gamblers.

Where Rival get it wrong is that they don't JUST decide they don't want to do business with a particular player, they TELL EVERYBODY that uses their software that this player is "evil" in some way, and they too should consider banning them. The white labels just fall into line, whereas the independents will use some common sense, and decide for themselves how to interpret and use the information.

Whilst any business can refuse to serve someone, once they start circulating the customer's details on some kind of "blacklist", they HAVE to have a valid reason, and make it available for scrutiny, as well as ensure that what they are circulating is ACCURATE information.

Rival don't just "bonus ban" someone, they seem to have to do so "with malice", and libel the player among all the other Rival operators. In this case, the libel related to suggestions of fraud and chargebacks.

 

[Rhyzz]

VWM - Did you see the story in the news a couple of months ago about the religious family running a guest house? They didn't agree that couples out of wedlock should share the same room/bed and so refused a gay couple access to their house. They were sued on the grounds of homophobia. Absolutely absurd case, we don't even have the right to choose who we can and cannot allow into our homes these days.

/derail

 

[vinylweatherman]

VWM - Did you see the story in the news a couple of months ago about the religious family running a guest house? They didn't agree that couples out of wedlock should share the same room/bed and so refused a gay couple access to their house. They were sued on the grounds of homophobia. Absolutely absurd case, we don't even have the right to choose who we can and cannot allow into our homes these days.

/derail

That's my point, these laws apply to ALL businesses. The key is that they were running a guest house, so in this case, right to refuse custom without explanation did NOT apply. This is a more recent rule, but works in the same way the race rule did to stop guest houses operating a "no coloureds" policy.
There was also a case where a registrar refused to officiate a "civil partnership" because it was against her religious beliefs - she faced disciplinary action, and was suspended. As an employee, you cannot even stick to your religious principles where you PERSONALLY don't want to be involved in a function of your job that goes against your beliefs.
Many people DO think this has gone too far, and has left behind the original aim of such laws, which was to protect minorities from GENERAL discrimination where it mattered in terms of their ability to take a full role in society.
There have been many backlashes at this "political correctness", especially now that some organisations are so scared of falling foul of these rules that they take extreme measures, such as the "banning of Christmas" in the workplace, and in some schools - the argument being "just in case" it offends somebody who does NOT celebrate Christmas.
Another part of this is giving the right to take alternative religious or cultural holidays as "bank holidays" instead of, or even in addition to, the standard days taken from the Christian calendar and British culture. This has not gone down well with businesses, especially smaller ones.

The law can also be ABUSED, because if you ARE gay, minority, etc, and get shown the door by a business, you just make a complaint that they excluded you for being gay, brown, hindu, etc, and it is up to the business to prove there was a different, and LEGAL, reason to refuse your custom.

This is the EU law the casinos dice with every time they have a specific exclusion for a region, which cannot be shown to be down to a legal ban on that region from taking part. Fortunately for Club World, this law does NOT extend specifically to "students", at least not yet (don't goad them though, or they WILL start looking into this, even if only to justify their continuing and well paid existence).

This month, a NEW law was passed. Insurance premiums and payouts must no longer take gender into account when actuaries work out the figures. Young female drivers will end up paying more, and young men maybe a little less, as ALL young drivers will have to share the pain of "boy racers", even though most are, "boys". Whilst YOUNG men stand to gain, OLD men stand to LOSE, because they can no longer get a bigger pension payout from annuities because men tend to die sooner than women. Old women will get MORE from their annuities.
The best thing men can do now is start smoking or skydiving a couple of years before they cash in their pension pot for an annuity


For the OP?

Well, convert to an obscure and generally oppressed "religion", and SUE Rival for discriminating against you on these grounds, and that it deeply offends your beliefs to be excluded from any website, for which you claim punitive damages for insult and hurt feelings. Who knows, one of the gods of this religion may REQUIRE worship in the form of playing Scary Rich with your left hand whilst wearing a pink hat, and you fear the wrath of this deity for failing to carry out your religious obligations

You may laugh, but something similar has BEEN DONE as a way of getting out of paying council tax, through having your main residence recognised as a "church" of your religion, and thus exempt from such taxes (along with part of your EARNINGS too). The government DID tighten this up a bit, because it was a "known dodge", and getting exploited. Another dodge is not having a bed counts as "empty property"

 

[rainmaker]

VWM - Did you see the story in the news a couple of months ago about the religious family running a guest house? They didn't agree that couples out of wedlock should share the same room/bed and so refused a gay couple access to their house. They were sued on the grounds of homophobia. Absolutely absurd case, we don't even have the right to choose who we can and cannot allow into our homes these days.

/derail

Very strange that you think this case is "absolutely absurd".

They are running a quest house. This case is of course not about their personal home (even if it is in the same house).

If they don`t like different kinds of people, don`t open a public guest house.

 

[Rhyzz]

You're missing the point, it's their business and they should be able to choose how it is run. They refused to allow any couple to share a room who weren't married, this is their religious belief, it wasn't simply something they conjured up to prevent a gay couple from sharing a bed.

If this had been in a jewish or muslim house and a white, gay couple started tucking into some bacon sandwiches, do you think they would have been asked to leave? I suspect they wouldn't have been allowed through the door in the first place but the same principle applies.

Political correctness gone mad

 

[Mousey]

Thanks for your time KK. I've not heard anything from them as yet. (Quick Edit - Accounts still locked).

@lots0 - De Beuker made a valid point in that originally I was ranting against the utterly moronic policies, and wasn't too concernred with a resolution. I just wanted other players to know what they may come up against.

The reason I became concerned were the half assed suggestions of fraud (along with a retracted claim of chargebacks). You think I want my finance details online being labeled as fraudulent?

You don't think that might possibly have implications for me in the future?

I couldn't give a flying fuck what I signed up for or what the agreement was.

It certainly didn't say in the sign up agreement -
"we may falsely and without any proof accuse you of fraud and ban your account without gathing any details from you. We may also tarnish your good name and this will almost cause blacklisting problems with not only your IP address, but your finance details also"

Yup, didn't remember reading that.

That is my point, also. If they want to lock you out because you're a winner and they don't want your 'action' -- like a real casino might do -- fine. But IF this is related to them thinking your ID is hinky or fraud or chargebacks.... and you are innocent -- you need some sort of opportunity to correct as it may damage your reputation at other casinos. (It has become obvious over the years that Rival shares info willy nilly -- at least among other Rivals.)

 

[rainmaker]

You're missing the point, it's their business and they should be able to choose how it is run. They refused to allow any couple to share a room who weren't married, this is their religious belief, it wasn't simply something they conjured up to prevent a gay couple from sharing a bed.

If this had been in a jewish or muslim house and a white, gay couple started tucking into some bacon sandwiches, do you think they would have been asked to leave? I suspect they wouldn't have been allowed through the door in the first place but the same principle applies.

Political correctness gone mad

I don`t think I missed the point. Religious racism hidden behind a faith is no different than "normal" racism.

But this thread is about something else, so we agree to disagree

 

[lots0]

Thanks for your time KK. I've not heard anything from them as yet. (Quick Edit - Accounts still locked).

@lots0 - De Beuker made a valid point in that originally I was ranting against the utterly moronic policies, and wasn't too concernred with a resolution. I just wanted other players to know what they may come up against.

The reason I became concerned were the half assed suggestions of fraud (along with a retracted claim of chargebacks). You think I want my finance details online being labeled as fraudulent?

You don't think that might possibly have implications for me in the future?

I couldn't give a flying fuck what I signed up for or what the agreement was.

It certainly didn't say in the sign up agreement -
"we may falsely and without any proof accuse you of fraud and ban your account without gathing any details from you. We may also tarnish your good name and this will almost cause blacklisting problems with not only your IP address, but your finance details also"

Yup, didn't remember reading that.

You are going on and on about the mis-statement from a service rep that was immedietly with-drawn and the rep apologized for their mistake...

******: I'm sorry my mistake the reason the accounts were closed was a decision made by management.

Also, you chose to make this public.. knowing full well the casino would not respond in public and this would be a one sided slam fest for you.

I also find it odd that you are expecting this casino to live up to some unspecified ethics of yours, when you state you don't care about honoring the agreement you made with them...

 

[mclee321]

Oh, i'm going on and on am I?

You have made 4 or more posts making the same tedious points.

Your attempts to steamroll everyone elses advise is unhelpful and irratating.

If you have nothing else to add, please refrain from picking apart my messages so you can claim little victories over my logic.

If you want to carry on, explain to me what you would do if this happened to you. One more time -

1. I am a genuine player, with a genuine ID, and genuine finance facilities.
2. Aside from the live chat conversation, when I attempt to log into a certain white label rival a meassgae tells me 'I have been linked to a fraudelent account' contact support.
3. Nobody in the casinos will give me the time of day.

I breathlessly await your advise.

 

[Gret]

For Christ's sake..isn't this boring matter over?

Who the heck plays at their sites? A bunch of wannabe intellectuals discussing something that is irrelevant, is kinda boring,...and it is upsetting my life.

In advance of any critics...I'm sorry.

 

[P.V.]

Oh, i'm going on and on am I?

You have made 4 or more posts making the same tedious points.

Your attempts to steamroll everyone elses advise is unhelpful and irratating.

If you have nothing else to add, please refrain from picking apart my messages so you can claim little victories over my logic.

If you want to carry on, explain to me what you would do if this happened to you. One more time -

1. I am a genuine player, with a genuine ID, and genuine finance facilities.
2. Aside from the live chat conversation, when I attempt to log into a certain white label rival a meassgae tells me 'I have been linked to a fraudelent account' contact support.
3. Nobody in the casinos will give me the time of day.

I breathlessly await your advise.

I agree mclee321. If you've been locked out due to a charge back they should provide the details of the charge back and why they no longer want your business.

You should then have a chance to state your case.

My concern is, card information including name and address is personal information. Customers have legitimate reasons to advise their card companies to deny payment, whether it's online casinos or every day stuff.

So, they say you have a charge back, from where and how do they know this?

How is this information gathered, they won't tell you , correct? Card companies don't provide lists of charge back's so the only logical way must be shared information between the software provider and their skins. Does it move further down the chain? Legally it shouldn't.

I'm not sure if you still have money sitting in your accounts but if so they should refund the remainder at the very least.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I agree mclee321. If you've been locked out due to a charge back they should provide the details of the charge back and why they no longer want your business.

You should then have a chance to state your case.

My concern is, card information including name and address is personal information. Customers have legitimate reasons to advise their card companies to deny payment, whether it's online casinos or every day stuff.

So, they say you have a charge back, from where and how do they know this?

How is this information gathered, they won't tell you , correct? Card companies don't provide lists of charge back's so the only logical way must be shared information between the software provider and their skins. Does it move further down the chain? Legally it shouldn't.

I'm not sure if you still have money sitting in your accounts but if so they should refund the remainder at the very least.

I bet this is why casinos don't like to reveal how they can know this kind of action. The penalties can be quite severe, but can only be enforced if you can find out WHO broke the law, and make the appropriate complaint. It is not usually the operator, but the processor, and the ONLY way they can LEGALLY know about a chargeback is where it happened on another transaction that they processed for the player. Unlike casinos, these processors ARE within reach of the regulators, many are based here in the UK, and are regulated by the FSA.

 

[lots0]

...Nobody in the casinos will give me the time of day.

I think the casino has the right idea.

They don't want your business (as is their right)... get over it and move on.


(added)

If you've been locked out due to a charge back

His account was NOT closed because of a chargeback. The Rep mis-spoke and corrected themselves in the same breath (according to the chat transcript that has been posted).
The account in question was closed because of a "Management Decision". According to the OP that is only reason given.

 

[Mousey]

.....

One of the Rival Casinos when logging in claims "your account has been linked to fraudulent action in our database"

.....I'm sorry but how can I let this go. I say again, I have done nothing remotely improper.

...... The account in question was closed because of a Management Decision". According to the OP that is only reason given.

See bolded portion of OP quote above....

 

[Nifty29]

Banning from all promotions = annoying, but OK.

Banning all accounts with no reason given = complete horseshit

Absolute jokers the lot of them.

 

[petro]

Rival; ...the account was not locked by chargebacks...

That leaves only one logical answer; they don't like people who accept their promotions.

Rival; ...the casino reserves the right to deny promotions...


The most likely reason that they do not come forward with this is that they feel that admitting it (to mclee321) will do more harm than good to their reputation.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Rival; ...the account was not locked by chargebacks...

That leaves only one logical answer; they don't like people who accept their promotions.

Rival; ...the casino reserves the right to deny promotions...


The most likely reason that they do not come forward with this is that they feel that admitting it (to mclee321) will do more harm than good to their reputation.

How can you kill something that is already dead

 

[mclee321]

I think the casino has the right idea.

They don't want your business (as is their right)... get over it and move on.


(added)


His account was NOT closed because of a chargeback. The Rep mis-spoke and corrected themselves in the same breath (according to the chat transcript that has been posted).
The account in question was closed because of a "Management Decision". According to the OP that is only reason given.

You are begining to look foolish and refuse to even attempt to answer my question. I've stated several times when I log in a message claims I've been linked to a fradulend action.

Take a look a the screenshot, no doubt you'll ignore it with another belligerent responce.

If there is even a question of fradulent action I feel I should be given a reason why so I can correct it.

Why were you droning on about American law anyway? I live in Ireland (not part of the US the last time I checked). The Casino is licensed in the Curacao eGaming Licensing Authority, also nothing to do with the US.

Why you are constantly backing the actions of the Casino is beyond me. You already know you are wrong, and don't have the courage to admit this. It's time for you to move on I think.

 

[nisosbar]

The most likely reason that they do not come forward with this is that they feel that admitting it (to mclee321) will do more harm than good to their reputation.

Like VWM says, how is that even possible?

When I think about the fact that Rival used to be my preferred casino, and that after all that's happened just within the last year, I can't recall the last time I made a deposit on a Rival casino, these types of threads don't make it more likely that things will change.

 

[Nifty29]

Mclee - I think most of us agree that the casino should tell you what the problem is in more detail e.g chargeback, multiple accounts etc. You may need to PAB (providing Max accepts it)

Don't let the thread get ugly. Channel your anger at the casino where it belongs.

 

[mclee321]

Point taken Nifty.

Lots0 - Posts directed at you were made in moments of fustration, If you have a problem with me or my issue then thats fair enough. It's an open forum after all.

I considered a PAB, but after I've vomited 4 pages of bile out on this thread I wouldn't blame Max'd if he told me to shove it.

I was hanging on to see if anything came of KK's query. Thanks everyone again for the replies.

 

[KasinoKing]

I was hanging on to see if anything came of KK's query. Thanks everyone again for the replies.

I chased up the rep again at the weekend, and got an answer back early this morning indicating they (Superior) are still looking into this and they will let you (or me) know when they have the full answer.
Sorry, they didn't give any clue on timescales.

I just ask that everyone remain patient and let the investigation run it's course. Speculation and criticism is pointless and not doing anyone any favours.
Thanks.

KK

 

[The Dude]

...
Don't let the thread get ugly. Channel your anger at the casino where it belongs.

I was just about to say the same thing. Keep it mellow, people.

 

[lots0]

Lots0 - Posts directed at you were made in moments of fustration, If you have a problem with me or my issue then thats fair enough. It's an open forum after all.

Nothing personal.

The screen shot you gave is a standard text message that ALL management closed accounts will receive. In other words, the text message is not specific to YOU.

The only thing you have posted here is that it was a "Management Decision".

Lets be honest here, the only time management closes an account, without there being chargebacks, is when the casino suspects fraud of some kind.

No... the casino is not going to tell you or make public what they suspect, for security reasons... They never ever do.

IMO you really only have two options.

You can try to convince the casino to look at your account again and do another review. But once the casino decides to cut off communication (as in your case) the decision has been made and usually won't get changed. However, maybe KK's contact can help, in this case.

Or

Drop it and move on.

Sorry, like I said, nothing personal... it's just the way I see it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Nothing personal.

The screen shot you gave is a standard text message that ALL management closed accounts will receive. In other words, the text message is not specific to YOU.

The only thing you have posted here is that it was a "Management Decision".

Lets be honest here, the only time management closes an account, without there being chargebacks, is when the casino suspects fraud of some kind.

No... the casino is not going to tell you or make public what they suspect, for security reasons... They never ever do.

IMO you really only have two options.

You can try to convince the casino to look at your account again and do another review. But once the casino decides to cut off communication (as in your case) the decision has been made and usually won't get changed. However, maybe KK's contact can help, in this case.

Or

Drop it and move on.

Sorry, like I said, nothing personal... it's just the way I see it.

Having an account closed because management feel they can't make enough money from you is one thing, but this is a CLEAR indication that on the Rival central database, Matthew is recorded as a FRAUDSTER. This is not JUST an issue about a management decision, information about fraudsters is shared INDUSTRY WIDE, so Matthew CANNOT just "walk away" from this, as it may cause problems in the future, and with casinos other than Rival.

What is needed is NOT the account reopened, but to be closed for the CORRECT reason, and for this to be PROPERLY RECORDED on their database.

At the moment, whilst they have VERBALLY admitted this was not about chargebacks, which were a mistake, this has NOT been recorded on the database, where this mistake still exists.


It would be interesting to know WHERE this database resides, as this could be a breach of the Data Protection Act if it is NOT held in Curacao along with the servers.

 

[lots0]

Having an account closed because management feel they can't make enough money from you is one thing, but this is a CLEAR indication that on the Rival central database, Matthew is recorded as a FRAUDSTER. This is not JUST an issue about a management decision, information about fraudsters is shared INDUSTRY WIDE, so Matthew CANNOT just "walk away" from this, as it may cause problems in the future, and with casinos other than Rival.

What is needed is NOT the account reopened, but to be closed for the CORRECT reason, and for this to be PROPERLY RECORDED on their database.

At the moment, whilst they have VERBALLY admitted this was not about chargebacks, which were a mistake, this has NOT been recorded on the database, where this mistake still exists.


It would be interesting to know WHERE this database resides, as this could be a breach of the Data Protection Act if it is NOT held in Curacao along with the servers.

To be honest I didn't think about their data base. However, I don't think RIVAL cares much about the DPA, but I could be wrong.

But again, getting 'real', this is RIVAL we are talking about.. The idea that they are going to adjust or change anything is reaching, imo.

I also think any reputable casino manager would be 'cautious' of any kind of a list from RIVAL and not just take RIVALS word... for anything.

 

[vinylweatherman]

To be honest I didn't think about their data base. However, I don't think RIVAL cares much about the DPA, but I could be wrong.

But again, getting 'real', this is RIVAL we are talking about.. The idea that they are going to adjust or change anything is reaching, imo.

I also think any reputable casino manager would be 'cautious' of any kind of a list from RIVAL and not just take RIVALS word... for anything.

Given some of the "barmy" decisions made by "reputable casino managers" in the past, it seems they would listen to their ASTROLOGERS, let alone Rival, when it comes to kicking out a player.

There have been some truly astonishing misconceptions used as arguments for excluding a player, voiding winnings, or bonus banning. The worrying thing is that some members of igher management seem to BELIEVE this BS, and take some convincing that it is "total bollocks".

I am sure that if Rival contributed a list of "known fraudsters" from it's database to an industry wide database, any casino checking their players against this would believe that if their player turned up as listed, they ARE a fraud, and would be dealt with as such, which usually entails NO RIGHT OF APPEAL against the determination.

Even in THIS case, despite management finding out and admitting this was a mistake, they STILL want rid of this player, and have simply dug up "right to refuse admission", because they STILL don't trust their OWN security team when they admit to it being a mistake.

It is rather like being wrongly accused of being a "kiddie fiddler", you can have charges dropped, get found not-guilty, yet you will NEVER clear your name in the eyes of some, whatever happens. It seems almost the same when casino players are "flagged for fraud", the mud sticks, and can NEVER be completely washed away. This is therefore a VERY SERIOUS accusation to make against a player, more so when this accusation is circulated to OTHER operators, as has been done in this case.

If this case was REALLY resolved, not only would they have admitted the mistake, but they would be welcoming the player back on the SAME terms as existed BEFORE the mistake happened, and all references to this mistaken accusation would have been purged from the system.

It looks to me like they think this player is REALLY a fraud, but now that their evidence has been reviewed, can no longer PROVE it, not even internally. Despite this, they WILL not change their "gut feeling", and they have merely reclassified this player as a "clever fraudster that was too good for us to catch him at it, but we 'just know' he did it, so he remains flagged & banned".

 

[petro]

I still think that they locked him out because of bonuses.

Although, I must admit most other casinos just tell the customer that they can still play but not recieve bonuses. So I could be wrong about it being related to bonuses.

This is a curious topic. I hope KK comes through with his connections at Rival so this case can be closed.

 

[KasinoKing]

This is a curious topic. I hope KK comes through with his connections at Rival so this case can be closed.

I got another e-mail from the Superior rep last night saying it had all been cleared up by Rival HQ.
But he said that before, so I'm not holding my breath.
I'll wait until mclee321 confirms if this is so.

No explanation was given (I didn't really expect one) and all he said was that the player's account at Superior was re-opened; no mention was made about accounts at other Rivals.

KK

 

[mclee321]

Hi,

I recieved a responce from Superior, re-opening my account and expaining they could find no faults on my account.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Matthew,

Thank you for your patience with this matter.

Your account has been reviewed by Superior's management. It appears that Rival's intra-network security closed your account without notifying us. Here at Superior Casino we try make all our decisions ourselves and this is a rare case in which we were not consulted before an action took place with an account.

With that said, your account will continue to be active at Superior Casino. From our perspective there is no ground for Rival to close your account.

We apologize for the inconvenience and hope you will enjoy our casino once again.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxx xxxxx
Superior Casino Host
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, thank you KK for contacting Superior, I would have had no way to get this done otherwise. Spending your own time helping with this was a genuinely nice thing to do. Thanks to Superior for being reasonable and at least checking.

I guess I still have a black mark somewhere though, as Superior will have only changed their records as opposed to the global Rival database (as VWM predicted).

I asked Superior if their findings could be passed back to Rival, but I'm not overly hopefull. In all the time we have seen Rival online, I don't think I've ever even seen a Rival rep, never mind respond to concerns.

This has got to change if they want to continue to grow, and not piss off everyone on the planet.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi,

I recieved a responce from Superior, re-opening my account and expaining they could find no faults on my account.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Matthew,

Thank you for your patience with this matter.

Your account has been reviewed by Superior's management. It appears that Rival's intra-network security closed your account without notifying us. Here at Superior Casino we try make all our decisions ourselves and this is a rare case in which we were not consulted before an action took place with an account.

With that said, your account will continue to be active at Superior Casino. From our perspective there is no ground for Rival to close your account.

We apologize for the inconvenience and hope you will enjoy our casino once again.

Sincerely,

xxxxxxx xxxxx
Superior Casino Host
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, thank you KK for contacting Superior, I would have had no way to get this done otherwise. Spending your own time helping with this was a genuinely nice thing to do. Thanks to Superior for being reasonable and at least checking.

I guess I still have a black mark somewhere though, as Superior will have only changed their records as opposed to the global Rival database (as VWM predicted).

I asked Superior if their findings could be passed back to Rival, but I'm not overly hopefull. In all the time we have seen Rival online, I don't think I've ever even seen a Rival rep, never mind respond to concerns.

This has got to change if they want to continue to grow, and not piss off everyone on the planet.

This just shows that Rival DESERVE their place in the "not recommended" section of the rogue pit. It seems Rival HQ will make up any excuse to get rid of a player they don't like when there is actually nothing at fault other than Rival wanting rid of them. It seems they don't even care if they have to resort to libel, and keeping false data, as they feel the ends justify the means.

They don't like it when PLAYERS use the same philosophy though, and use whatever means they can get away with to achieve their ends, which for a player is usually winning money from the house.

It also shows that previous promises to "review" the decision were nothing more than a pack of lies, and it was only when KK contacted them that an actual review took place.

BTW, Superior casino are LYING.

Evidence.

Well, right from the start, the story was this:-

I contacted live chat -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All operators are currently assisting others. Thanks for your patience. You are currently placed in queue number 1. The average wait is 31seconds. An operator will be with you shortly.

You are now chatting with '******'
******: Welcome to casino Live Chat. How may I help you?

mclee321: Hi, my username is xxxxxxx and my e-mail address is xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx My superior account (and a few other rival accounts) has been locked out. I was just checking why

******: Your patience is appreciated. I will be with you shortly.

mclee321: Thanks ******

******: We are currently extremely busy. Please be patient I will be with you shortly. I apologize for this delay.

mclee321: Its no problem

******: I will be right with you.

******: The accounts have been closed due to charge backs.

mclee321: ******, that can' be right, i only deposit via moneybookers. I've only ever made 1 credit card deposit.

mclee321: And i've certainly never charged back.

******: I'm sorry my mistake the reason the accounts were closed was a decision made by management.

Clearly, Superior KNEW the account was locked, and WHY it was locked.

After several weeks of debate, they come up with this:-

Your account has been reviewed by Superior's management. It appears that Rival's intra-network security closed your account without notifying us. Here at Superior Casino we try make all our decisions ourselves and this is a rare case in which we were not consulted before an action took place with an account.
With that said, your account will continue to be active at Superior Casino. From our perspective there is no ground for Rival to close your account.

We apologize for the inconvenience and hope you will enjoy our casino once again.

What a load of bollocks, just as one would expect from Rival white label casinos.

Not only did they KNOW right from the start, but when Matthew contacted chat, management CONFIRMED the decision made by the Rival system, even though they explained it not as a chargeback, but as a "management decision".

Whilst they may have been persuaded to reverse this decision, there is no way they can claim IGNORANCE what happened in the first place, which they are trying to PRETEND by implying that they "were not notified", and only found out about this "rare case" when KK intervened with one of his contacts.

This is simply "passing the buck", and trying to heap ALL the blame on Rival, whereas the management of Superior clearly WERE "notified" almost as soon as this lockout happened, even if this was only by the initial support incident, and it's reply.

Superior ONLY "did the right thing" because of the continuing pressure and poor PR, and I bet Rival themselves intend doing NOTHING about this incorrect accusation filed on their database unless something FORCES them to.

 

[Repro]

Well, at least i know i'll never play Rival...

 

[Przecinek]

Same here ...I haven't played at any rival apart from superior ages ago and I don't think I will.

Anyway, good to know OPs name has been cleared but I wouldn't go back there if I were mclee321

It's a bit like with an apology in court. Victim will always be happy to hear it, but it doesn't make them friends as the damage has already been done.