Huh? First, Europe is not one country with one set of laws. Casinos are taxed on their profits like any other business and there are also special taxes on gambling, but I challenge you to find a tax on player balances.
In the EU there is a directive against unfair contractual terms, and such terms are not enforceable on consumers.
This is the main point. Players are CONSUMERS, and in law are NOT expected to have a team of lawyers at their disposal to go through contractual terms and explain them. Because of this, we have the "unfair CONSUMER contract laws". Businesses have LESS protection because they are EXPECTED to be dealing on equal terms with one another. CONSUMERS on the other hand, are always at a disadvantage because the business DOES have that team of lawyers, who will be able to tell them how to "slip one by" and get away with it. Reading all the terms of an insurance contract has NOT helped consumers anyway, since often claims are denied on technicalities that were DELIBERATELY designed to "slip one by" all but the very brightest 1% or so of consumers. The 5 year "get all your money back" deals on expensive insurance, double glazing, big electrical items, etc offers were a prime example. The claims procedure was DELIBERATELY designed to trip up consumers because the process was made as complicated as possible, and the brief was to only get a certain percentage of consumers making a successful claim. Companies that cocked up and had nearly ALL their consumers making a successful claim nearly went bust (Hoover flights fiasco). The big fuss over the Intercasino flights promotion was ALSO down to the fact that it was expected that MOST players would NOT take up the highly restrictive and "loop infested" free flights once they saw the rules they had to comply with. Intercasino was dragged into disrepute because of nothing more than the players ACTUALLY WANTING THEIR FLIGHTS FOR THE HELL OF IT, even though they didn't particularly like the destinations and dates available. The company running the offer for Intercasino simply could not afford this, so they tried to wriggle their way out of the deal, and fed Intercasino to the lions in the process.
In this case, withdrawing before meeting WR is a breach of contract, and under the law ONLY the costs of remedying the breach may be claimed by the company, which would NOT support the confiscation of an arbitrary sum of money that the player happened to win. The banks are in a great deal of trouble for trying to "slip one by" the regulators, and even though they eventually won in the high court, it has prompted the regulator to change the rules to ensure the victory will be short. The banks were confiscating arbitrary "fines", rather than true costs of remedy, from customers' accounts. The banks argument was simply "it's in the terms" (sound familiar?
).
This casino's case is "others are doing it, so it is right". Let's flip the argument. Every now & then, an "advantage method" crops up that is FULLY WITHIN the terms and conditions of the casino, usually something they didn't think of, or a bug in the software (such as the MGS "Chief's Fortune" bug of 2006). This gets shared on the Internet, and soon "everybody's doing it". Well, by the casino's own argument this is perfectly OK, after all, EVERYBODY ELSE is doing it, and there is NOTHING in the terms that say it's not allowed.
What do the casinos concerned do? Well, they DON'T normally accept it as fair, they CRY FOUL, stall payments, try to find ways of not paying such as the notorious "F U Clause". THEY don't see such situations as fair, so WHY should they expect PLAYERS to think it fair for a CASINO to exploit what is in effect the same thing, MISTAKES, for profit.
From the poll, it seems that the OVERWHELMING view from players is that this is NOT acceptable, although from a legal point of view, there is an argument for charging the player fees for deliberately trying to "slip one by", such as repeatedly withdrawing in the hope that eventually finance will mess up and release it even though WR have not been met.
A term that might suit this would be one that charged players for REPEATING the mistake on that withdrawal, and this would be a charge for having to audit it again, and return it to the account, send a warning email, etc.. This would deter deliberate misuse, but would NOT penalise a mere mistake.
Nothing more to say.
the term
PURPLE LOUNGE
... about customers, they can protect their players to avoid mistakes. I think, there is few, and same time they protect their reputation, what is good to their business.
We've had a fantastic turnout for the poll - nearly 500 respondents at the moment - and it's pretty clear: a term like this is not acceptable for an Accredited Casino at Casinomeister.
