I like the law-and-order approach outlined here.
If everyone took the time to read and understand the T&C's and then avoided the establishments with dodgy, predatory, or vague terms those establishments would soon disappear.
By playing at any of these places with your own money you are only encouraging them to continue.
Unfortunately, they don't disappear, they evolve. Where players read and abide by the terms, they just find something else to use, and here we have "spirit of the bonus" that covers situations where all the terms have been adhered to, but the casino still doesn't want to pay.
In this case, the term is not the real issue, the issue is that the software mislead the player into withdrawing by erroneously displaying information indicating that WR had been completed. Reading the terms does not help in this kind of situation. It is also not obvious what the intent of such a term is until it is too late, so also too late to avoid the establishment.
The best that can be done is to ensure that such actions receive maximum publicity so that players who have not fallen into the same trap can know what to expect.
What players can know from this is that the software gives the wrong information about the state of WR, and cannot be trusted. We also know that in general terms front line CS also cannot be trusted to give the correct information, so any answer has to be in writing, not purely over the phone or live chat. Even then, not all operators will stand by incorrect information given by front line CS, and players pay the price for front line CS getting it wrong.
Determining which operators to avoid is tricky, and the best approach may be a blanket personal blacklisting. This is a problem for operators who find they get lumped in to the dodgy bracket based on the behaviours of the majority that use the same software.
A graphic example of this is the fallout after Bryan decided to toss ALL Rival casinos into the "not recommended" section, which had many operators squealing about how unfair it was to judge them purely based on them using the same software as others that had behaved badly. It seems to have lead to a breakdown in the relationship between Bryan and Rival at many levels.
Such globally predatory terms are everywhere, but reputable casinos rarely, if ever, use them. Instead, they are present as an ass covering exercise, with no intent to actually use them against a regular player. Casino Plex has used this term as it's FIRST option, so clearly they intend to use it wherever possible, rather than very rarely as an ass covering strategy.
If casinos were judged solely on the content of the full set of terms, they should all be avoided, even the accredited ones. They ALL have overly one sided sets of terms favouring themselves, and leaving the player with virtually no rights in the relationship.
Casino Plex customers requesting a withdrawal or a transfer out of their Casino Plex account, prior to the necessary wagering requirement being met, will forfeit all bonuses and winnings attributed to their account.
