Casinos Switching to Kahnawake and Alderney Licenses: Are They a Rubber Stamp?

[Takemoney201]

Hey everyone,

I've noticed a trend recently where many online casinos are switching their licenses to ones under the Kahnawake Gaming Commission and the Alderney Gambling Control Commission. While these might seem like reputable jurisdictions on the surface, there's growing concern in the community about the effectiveness of these licenses in holding casinos accountable.

Has anyone had any experience dealing with these commissions? It's puzzling because despite being located in nominally reputable countries, there's a perception that these commissions might not be as stringent as they claim to be. Instead, there's worry that they might just rubber-stamp complaints and let casinos off the hook far too easily.

What's particularly alarming is the apparent ease with which casinos are moving from Malta to these commissions, often while being set up in Cyprus. It begs the question: Are these commissions lowering their requirements for casinos to be added to their roster?

For those of us concerned about the integrity of online gambling and the accountability of these operators, it's crucial to understand how we can take legal action against them if needed. But with casinos operating under these new licenses, it's becoming increasingly complex. Which legal territory would be the most effective for filing a lawsuit against these casinos? And how can we ensure that they're held responsible for any wrongdoing?

 

[jasonuk]

It's worth mentioning that Kahnawake and Alderney both have a lengthy history (decades at this point) of offering licenses, and at least historically had a solid reputation.

In the case of Kahnawake, they do ADR in-house and

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

. Of the 721 complaints received for 2023, 292 were not accepted (e.g. missing information, out of scope), 325 were closed or dismissed, 102 were upheld in whole or part and 2 were in progress.

Alderney also do ADR in-house, although I couldn't find any statistics. I would say they have one of the strongest policies when it comes to ADR because they will provide mediation in the first instance, then a formal investigation, and as a final step can offer a public hearing.

Contrast with the UKGC where ADR is paid for by the casinos (and so there is an unhealthy relationship), and the next stage would be legal action as the regulator takes no direct interest in player complaints. Given their recurring "asleep at the wheel" conduct in recent years, I imagine there would be a fair shout for the UKGC to be downgraded to a second tier jurisdiction.



I would also clarify that a "rubber stamp" jurisdiction is much worse than you suggest - they are one that takes little to no interest in their licensees at all beyond taking the money. No player complaints, no game auditing, no standards, no nothing...

With the fallout from Curacao, we're starting to see a resurgent wave of these - such as Anjouan, Costa Rica and Panama. These are often framed as business licenses, you pay your licensee fee, you pay your taxes, and they'll leave you alone. Bent games? Don't care... Defrauded a player? Don't care

"Rubber stamp" jurisdictions are a haven for crooks, and should be avoided like the plague...

 

[Casinomeister]

Kahnawake is one of the tightest run ship when it comes to licencing. We have been in direct contact and have advised them for over two decades. They were there before Malta, before the UKGC got involved with the industry, and they were a poster child of how to properly license and relegate. They are truly player focused unlike all of the rest of the licensing jurisdictions. The UKGC assumes anyone who spends more that £100 per month is a problem gambler and won't deal with player issues - mainly because of their ineptitude from the very beginning. Malta was great at first, but after a couple of years turned into a disaster when it came to dealing with player complaints.

The bottom line is that Kahnawake is one of the best licensing jurisdictions. They are hands on with their operators - always has been.

Kahnawake Gaming Commission

 

[Takemoney201]

It's interesting to hear your positive perspective on Kahnawake's licensing practices. It seems they prioritize player protection and are actively involved with their operators, which is certainly commendable.

However, your mention of the importance of knowing where the head offices of these casinos are located raises an intriguing point. While Kahnawake may have strict licensing standards, it's crucial to consider the practical aspects of enforcement and accountability. If a casino is licensed in Kahnawake but operates from a different jurisdiction where assets are held, pursuing legal action could be challenging.

So, to ensure effective recourse for players, wouldn't it be prudent to not only focus on the reputation of the licensing jurisdiction but also on the physical location and financial structure of the casino operators? After all, the ability to enforce regulations and obtain compensation may ultimately depend on these factors.

 

[jasonuk]

That's a very different question to your opening statement though - given it applies to any remote jurisidiction.

I would generally split it into four phases:

• The fairness of the operator - will they be pro-active in dealing with mistakes, do they have reasonable terms and conditions, do they have good lines of communication;
• The in-house complaints procedure - if one exists, will it be escalated to a manager or specialist team, is there any external oversight or review;
• The external complaints procedure - who handles it, is there a cost for doing so, how reputable is the "ADR" (there's not much point having one if they ignore the evidence and always side with the casino);
• The legal procedure - where is the contract enforced, how easy it is to file a case, what costs are involved (with a particular concern if they can be uncapped).

I agree that knowing the pieces of the puzzle are important for any dispute resolution - for example there was a site recently that was being actively promoted by affiliates as MGA-licensed, they actually held a MGA license, but they weren't using it and all play was routed to Curacao.

So players thought they were signing up for an MGA-licensed casino, didn't read the terms properly, and when things went wrong got the bad news that they were playing on a Curacao site - and instead of having potentially three paths open to them (in-house, ADR, legal) they had one (in-house) who ignored them.

 

[Takemoney201]

Kahnawake is one of the tightest run ship when it comes to licencing. We have been in direct contact and have advised them for over two decades. They were there before Malta, before the UKGC got involved with the industry, and they were a poster child of how to properly license and relegate. They are truly player focused unlike all of the rest of the licensing jurisdictions. The UKGC assumes anyone who spends more that £100 per month is a problem gambler and won't deal with player issues - mainly because of their ineptitude from the very beginning. Malta was great at first, but after a couple of years turned into a disaster when it came to dealing with player complaints.

The bottom line is that Kahnawake is one of the best licensing jurisdictions. They are hands on with their operators - always has been.

Kahnawake Gaming Commission

I appreciate the thoughtful discussion surrounding the complexities of online casino licensing, especially the recent scrutiny directed at Kahnawake's regulatory framework. While acknowledging Kahnawake's longstanding presence and its purported player-centric approach, it's imperative to address valid concerns regarding specific policies and their enforcement.

Skepticism regarding the oversight of certain operators under Kahnawake's jurisdiction is understandable. Allegations against entities like the OLD Gammix group and the Tech Solutions group raise questions about the stringency of licensing standards and the effectiveness of regulatory oversight.

The notion that "suspecting a player is doing something is no real proof" strikes at the heart of fairness and due process.

I am quoting another forum ( not sure if that is allowed) The quoted term "If a customer or group of customers is SUSPECTED of abusing a promotion, Casino reserves the right to void the bonus and any winnings" This was a outcome of a complaint with the commission.

Given these concerns, it's crucial for Kahnawake and other regulatory bodies to uphold the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and player protection.