Do you have a link to that?
I can't find it quickly at the moment but I did keep a transcript, will have a look around the IBAS website to see if they make their judgments public record later:
Edit - Apparently IBAS do not publicly publish their cases/rulings
Full Verdict
Several Gala Casino customers complain that the company have refused to pay them winnings they had accpaed through playing Castle Builder and in addition have retained the deposits which generated those winnings. The company have told them they were entitled to do this because they believed they had been guilty of bonus abuse.
The customers disagree with that accusation and make the point that they had won the disputed funds by using 'real' money, not the deposit used to activate a bonus they had previously accepted or the bonus itself. The bonus was for 400% of a first deposit up to €400.
The Panel see many cases involving bonuses and the term 'bonus abuse' usually applies to situations where a customer tries to obtain more than one bonus by opening multiple accounts by using different identities or fails to comply with the terms and conditions attached to the bonus.
Gala argue that this case should also be considered bonus abuse as though the customers did not open multiple accounts and had complied with the bonus terms and conditions they had nonetheless used the bonus to exploit the methodology of the game to their advantage. Gala have not argued that the game malfunctioned.
Gala have explained that the object of the game was to build a castle and as the player progresses with the building process so do the potential winnings. The game also had a memory so the customer's progress was stored across multiple sessions.
Gala therefore argue that a player using bonus funds to build the castle was exploiting a flaw in the game in that it enabled them to reach a higher levels of the game using bonus funds rather than their own money before returning to take advantage of those higher levels with real money.
Gala have also said that they believed the customer was one of a group who had joined their site simply to exploit the flaw in the game and thus they were not genuine players.
Gala have also acknowledged that Castle Builder should have been excluded from the games for which bonus funds could be used and say once they realised how customers could benefit from the game's design they took that action.
Gala have also stated that if there had been an isolated case of a customer profiting from playing Castle Builder by using bonus funds to advance through the game stages they would have paid out winnings and deposits but allege 'this is an organised attempt to defraud the company. '
10 Gala have quoted their terms and conditions which deal with collusion, cheating and obtaining an unfair advantage.
Paragraph 7 oftheir promotional terms and conditions states: 'Participants whether individually or acting in a group, will be found to be in breach of these and promotional specific terms if the promoter at its sole discretion has reason to believe that a promotion has been abused, manipulated or that irregular, fraudulent, collusive or illegal activity has occurred "
Paragraph 7.1 of their general terms and conditions states: "The following acts ("Prohibited Acts") are expressly prohibited in relation to Your use of the Service and will constitute a material breach of the Terms: Involvement in collusion, match rigging, or cheating ofany kind (including obtaining any unfair advantage);
The Panel are aware that one of the complainants in these cases operates a betting advice website and it would be naive not to assume that many, if not all, of the Castle Builder players were directed to the Gala website by that website.
The Panel do not believe, however, that in itself that would mean there was collusion. The accepted legal definition of collusion is collaboration between two or more people to defraud or gain an unfair advantage over a third party. Simply acting in concert with, or in the same manner as, another person is not of itself collusion.
The Panel also do not believe that Gala have established that the complainants have committed bonus abuse. That would only have occurred if they had not met the bonus terms and conditions or had submitted false identities in order to open multiple accounts.
The Panel therefore believe that this matter can only be decided on whether the use of bonus funds to advance the Castle Builder game to higher levels was obtaining an unfair advantage,
The Panel note that Gala do not dispute that they knowingly included Castle Builder in the list of games for which bonus ftnds could be used. They have not argued that their intention had been to exclude the game but through human error the game was included.
The Panel also note that Gala have acknowledged that even reaching the higher levels did not in itself guarantee customers a win but meant that if they did win their winnings would be higher than if they had not used bonus funds to advance through the game levels.
The question therefore would seem to be why using bonus funds to play Castle Builder would be unfair. The Panel have considered that question carefully and do not see why it would be.
The decision to issue a bonus and to specify the terms and conditions associated with it rests with the operator. It is common practice for operators to exclude games where they do not wish the bonus to be used. Gala did not exclude Castle Builder.
If a game is not excluded then the Panel can see no reason why the use of the bonus would be unfair. Effectively if there is no exclusion then bonus funds have the same standing as 'real' money. If real money was acceptable for play on Castle Builder then in the Panel's opinion so were bonus funds. Gala effectively acknowledge that to be the case when saying that they would have paid if there had been an isolated case of a customer employing the strategy.
The Panel appreciate that, with hindsight, Gala now feel they should have realised how customers could use bonus funds to their advantage when playing Castle Builder but the simple fact is that they didn't. In the Panel's opinion that someone else was clever enough to spot that design flaw does not entitle Gala to void winnings retrospectively.
In the end the Panel can only conclude that Gala knowingly took a business decision to offer a 400% bonus and to allow customers to use that bonus playing Castle Builder. The Panel do not see why customers responding to that offer should be deemed to be accused of cheating or defrauding the company, The Panel would also point out that some who responded to the offer lost money playing the game. The Panel do not understand why Gala would think they were entitled to void winnings but retain the stakes from both winning and losing customers.
The Panel also believe that, as in all commercial activities, the onus was on Gala to have tested the game and to have ensured its operation was acceptable. It was not for the customers to decline to utilise a playing strategy which could be to their benefit because they were uncertain as to whether Gala had tested the game fully or had not realised how the use of bonus funds could benefit customers.
The Panel therefore adjudicate in favour of the customers.
would of been cheaper to put that kettle on, I would of been first to score goals but I not play theses computer games, last time I had a good game was tetris thats how much I play computer games
