[CLOSED] Misleading Bellerock terms, DO NOT play there.

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
You don't have to agree to their T&C to download, install or register at their casino.

Really? Read it more carefully.

These Terms and Conditions apply to, and are binding upon you if you participate at the Casino.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I take "Participate at the casino" to mean if you download and register for an account at the casino. Also, it's not like they're trying to hide this - it's the first line in their T&C.

IMO, this clause forgoes any checkbox asking a player if they agree to the T&C. They're agreeing to the T&C by registering an account at the casino.

As it goes with any online casino, if you don't read the T&C before signing up, it's the player's fault, not the casino's. If a casino has horrible T&C's, then play elsewhere.

*Disclaimer: The above statements apply to any casino, not just the one being discussed in this thread.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I take "Participate at the casino" to mean if you download and register for an account at the casino. Also, it's not like they're trying to hide this - it's the first line in their T&C.

IMO, this clause forgoes any checkbox asking a player if they agree to the T&C. They're agreeing to the T&C by registering an account at the casino.
It would be interesting to test it in a court of law whether a consumer can be bound by T&C whose existence he is not made aware of.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
It would be interesting to test it in a court of law whether a consumer can be bound by T&C whose existence he is not made aware of.

It has already been investigated by the OFT, and it has been ruled that terms MUST be made clear to the consumer. It is not enough to have them hidden away, or use tricks to prevent them from reading them.

There have been cases with store cards, where the applicant has been told they have to sign up straight away, and have not been allowed to take a copy of the agreement home to read and understand first. Such agreements can be voided in the courts.
There is also the matter of distance selling regulations. If the customer is INVITED by Email, snail mail, or a phone call, and takes the offer and is then screwed over, they are entitled to redress. Unfortunately, as this regulation was about sale of goods, it only entitles the customer to their money back, BUT this would also apply to those who LOST at the casino if they subsequently found out that, had they won, they would not have been paid.
The rules would also cover signing up via an advertisement, the important thing being that the transactions take place remotely, and not at a physical shop. 14 days is allowed for the customer to demand their money back.

The current case about bank charges is not down to customers not seeing, understanding, and agreeing to the terms, but that the terms themselves are thought to be ILLEGAL in a consumer contract.

This is what particularly affects online casinos, where they are in a juristiction that is considered reputable. It does not matter whether the customer understood everything or not, it is down to whether the terms constitute an unreasonable balance in favour of the business. ALL casino terms actually fall into this category, but reputable casinos do not use their "FU Clauses" unless they KNOW they have a fraudster on their hands.

As well as the problem of 15% tax, this is another reason that can be putting casinos off from being regulated here in the UK. If they were regulated here, these terms and conditions could be challenged in the small claims courts very easily for UK players, and even EU based players would find it relatively easy to lodge an action.
Gibraltar based casinos are also much easier to target, however, this has to be under Gibraltean law, rather then UK or full EU law, as Gibraltar is only a member of the EEA, and not a full member of the EU itself.

It is more likely that debate on casino related forums is going to do more damage to a badly behaved casino than actions with regulators and the courts. This is because forums are becoming increasingly popular, often because a player gets burned, and THEN does the research - only to discover they should have done it the other way round. Said player is, at least, now aware of forums, and likely to add themselves to the 40% or so that already lurk, or participate in, one or more internet fora.

Anyone who has been following these BelleRock threads should now know TWO things:-

1) You are only allowed ONE bonus in the group.
2) Their CS is generally inept.

A little further digging will reveal that they have a "hidden" fifth casino in the group, not mentioned in ANY T & C, but could easily get a player screwed over on bonuses. (King Neptune).
 

TDTAT

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Location
Gambleville
IF Bellerock is reading this thread:

We have always had a decent relationship, but I have removed
your front page banners from my site. If you want happy players and affiliates, fix this problem.
Several perfect solutions have been posted in this thread by experienced gamers and affiliates.

Why in the world would you have these terms buried in
the USER aggreement if you did not want
someone to make a mistake and claim 2 bonuses? Maybe I am not
smart enough to figure that out. Why not make this important information clear?
 

bellerock

Casino Representative
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Location
South Africa
Hi All,

I apologize, a recent upgrade of the Jackpot City brand and software resulted in our neglecting to include the terms and conditions check box on the new registration page. This is currently being corrected. As with all our sites this should have been on the registration page, hence my earlier post.

That said, we are required to make the terms and conditions available to all players. We have done this by placing a link on the home page and all other pages of the site, meaning that all players have every opportunity of reading the terms and conditions before starting to play. The very first line states that by registering and playing you are bound by the terms and conditions. Point 5.6 states that you cannot claim sign up bonuses at multiple brands in the group, or at a single brand because of multiple languages or currencies. We know that many people don't read the terms and conditions and as a result we have always included the check box and link on the registration page as a last effort to ensure they are read. We are however not required to make sure that people read the terms and conditions, we are required to make sure they are available to be read, which we do.

The player had every opportunity to read the terms and conditions but chose to ignore them (they are even mentioned in the promotion terms and conditions and I quote "The Casino Terms and Conditions apply to this Promotion. In the event of a conflict between these Promotion-specific Terms and Conditions and the Casino Terms and Conditions, the Promotion-specific Terms and Conditions shall prevail but only to the extent that the Terms and Conditions conflict with one another." surely making you think I had better go and read those!) and continue playing in breach of term 5.6 (which means the player would have to have registered an account at one or more other casinos in the group, giving them further opportunities to read the terms and conditions including on the registration pages) and as such we stand by the action we have taken.

We have taken your comments regarding the terms and conditions into consideration and we are reviewing all terms and conditions and thank you for your input.

Again I apologize for my incorrect post earlier, just as we advise everybody to read the terms and conditions before playing, I guess I should have checked the registration page before posting.

Best regards,

Belle Rock
 

SlotsWizard

Dormant account
Joined
May 11, 2006
Location
North of Antarctica
I hope that one of the things you will be doing is training the staff who grants bonuses to check first whether or not the player is eligible for it, the same way that the staff who processes withdrawals does.

Anything short of that is entrapment.
 

GaryWatson

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Location
Europe
Thanks for your input Bellrock rep. Also, could you put forward a suggestion to cross check whether or not someone is registered at other sites they may have overlooked? A standard Drivers licence/NI no./Passport no. (if available) should suffice & will go a long way to avoiding innocent error.
 

BBKPoker

halfway to busto
PABrogue3
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Location
Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
Thanks for your input Bellrock rep. Also, could you put forward a suggestion to cross check whether or not someone is registered at other sites they may have overlooked? A standard Drivers licence/NI no./Passport no. (if available) should suffice & will go a long way to avoiding innocent error.

You still have not addressed that the term is pretty much buried, that you have no link to your general terms from the promotional page, and that you shouldn't be assigning bonuses in the first place to players at a new Bellerock casino if you don't intend on honoring their winnings.

The practice of issuing a bonus then removing a players winnings if they manage to win some money is a 100% bait and switch practice, and given the fact that you cross-market your brands and your term is not at all clearly posted on the relevant promotional pages, as well as the fact that you did not require the player to agree to the terms prior to signing up means that this player should be paid. It is dishonest to do otherwise, imo.
 

scrabble73

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Location
Bubbenhall
I've escalated this issue to the assistant gambling supervisor in Gibraltar thanks to a very helpful message from a member here. Also eCogra responded to my last email and told me they would investigate the issue further since I emailed them that the terms were not present to sign up.
 

GaryWatson

Dormant account
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Location
Europe
You still have not addressed that the term is pretty much buried, that you have no link to your general terms from the promotional page, and that you shouldn't be assigning bonuses in the first place to players at a new Bellerock casino if you don't intend on honoring their winnings.

The practice of issuing a bonus then removing a players winnings if they manage to win some money is a 100% bait and switch practice, and given the fact that you cross-market your brands and your term is not at all clearly posted on the relevant promotional pages, as well as the fact that you did not require the player to agree to the terms prior to signing up means that this player should be paid. It is dishonest to do otherwise, imo.

I am not disputing that point but I also feel they could & should flag certain issues before they arise
 

SlotsWizard

Dormant account
Joined
May 11, 2006
Location
North of Antarctica
I've escalated this issue to the assistant gambling supervisor in Gibraltar thanks to a very helpful message from a member here. Also eCogra responded to my last email and told me they would investigate the issue further since I emailed them that the terms were not present to sign up.

Make sure to point them to this thread if need be, because the Belle Rock representative admitted that it wasn't necessary to explicitly agree to the terms (although they could argue that you implicitly agreed to them due to that catch-all term buried deep in the legal mumbo-jumbo).
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
What STILL needs to be addressed is the "economy of truth" in their advertising, in particular the BelleRock home page that cross markets ALL FOUR sign-up offers, yet makes NO MENTION in the main advertising that the player may only choose ANY ONE of the four offers, and NOT ALL FOUR.

There IS a link to the general terms, but this is hidden "below the fold" of the internet page, meaning that the player has to scroll right down to see it, and it is in small, unbolded, text - of the same prominence as the links to such things as affiliate sign-ups, about us, and other inconsequential matters.

The term exists, but it is buried with a load of legalese that would NOT normally catch out those players who do not read terms and conditions. Reading only the PROMOTIONAL terms gives no real clue that a PROMOTIONAL rule (5.6) is hidden among all the GENERAL rules that normally relate to excluded countries, and agreeing to privacy policies, and agreeing not to rip off the Client Viper software for commercial gain (disassemble, reverse engineer etc...).
The mere fact that this term is "5.6" and not 1.(something or other) shows that it is pretty much "buried" past a raft of "legalese", which is probably enough to make most people give up before they even get as far as 5.1!

This is what the UK Credit card companies were up to, NOW - they are REQUIRED to include ALL THE IMPORTANT POINTS in what is known as a "Summary box". This has to include ALL the terms that are likely to directly affect the general consumer, AND they have to be in PLAIN ENGLISH, not "lawyer speak". This "Summary box" is supposed to give sufficient information such that a consumer who cannot (or does not bother to try to) read or understand the "small print" is not going to suffer any "hidden" penalties while using the product for the purposes, and the benefits within, the main advertising copy that lead them to make the agreement in the first place.

There is a very simple solution, simply add to the BelleRock home page, and the download pages and promotions pages of ALL the casinos a nice highlighted sentence to tell the player that they can only have the one bonus through the whole group.

While we all seen to wonder why such simple measures are beyond the wit of business, I think I will find the answer by having a look at my niece's coursework. She is studying BUSINESS STUDIES, and PSYCHOLOGY.
These advertising mishaps are NO ACCIDENT - there are university level psychologists behind the design of everything from the order of display of supermarket products, to the lay out of positive news (in big bold print), and negative news (buried in tiny print and hidden away) in major product and service launches. THESE are the people who are "blocking" any attempts to introduce clarity and transparency in product advertising and the presentation of benefits and consumer contracts. It is all designed to "mess with our heads" so that we perceive a "sow's ear" offered up to us as the proverbial "silk purse".

Occasionally, a TV documentary seeks to blow the whistle on such practices, but they ALWAYS have a fight on their hands because the companies behind the deceptions keep trying to get "gagging" orders from the courts to disrupt the broadcasts. It is when such "gagging" orders fail, or are quashed, that we get to see exactly what the companies were trying to hide, and can judge for ourselves the possible motives for wanting the program to be off the air. In this modern "information age", such deceptive practices are increasingly failing, and it only makes companies, and even entire industries, look bad when the truth finally comes out.

(Just ask Absolute Poker..:D)
 

BBKPoker

halfway to busto
PABrogue3
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Location
Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
What STILL needs to be addressed is the "economy of truth" in their advertising, in particular the BelleRock home page that cross markets ALL FOUR sign-up offers, yet makes NO MENTION in the main advertising that the player may only choose ANY ONE of the four offers, and NOT ALL FOUR.

There IS a link to the general terms, but this is hidden "below the fold" of the internet page, meaning that the player has to scroll right down to see it, and it is in small, unbolded, text - of the same prominence as the links to such things as affiliate sign-ups, about us, and other inconsequential matters.

The term exists, but it is buried with a load of legalese that would NOT normally catch out those players who do not read terms and conditions. Reading only the PROMOTIONAL terms gives no real clue that a PROMOTIONAL rule (5.6) is hidden among all the GENERAL rules that normally relate to excluded countries, and agreeing to privacy policies, and agreeing not to rip off the Client Viper software for commercial gain (disassemble, reverse engineer etc...).
The mere fact that this term is "5.6" and not 1.(something or other) shows that it is pretty much "buried" past a raft of "legalese", which is probably enough to make most people give up before they even get as far as 5.1!

This is what the UK Credit card companies were up to, NOW - they are REQUIRED to include ALL THE IMPORTANT POINTS in what is known as a "Summary box". This has to include ALL the terms that are likely to directly affect the general consumer, AND they have to be in PLAIN ENGLISH, not "lawyer speak". This "Summary box" is supposed to give sufficient information such that a consumer who cannot (or does not bother to try to) read or understand the "small print" is not going to suffer any "hidden" penalties while using the product for the purposes, and the benefits within, the main advertising copy that lead them to make the agreement in the first place.

There is a very simple solution, simply add to the BelleRock home page, and the download pages and promotions pages of ALL the casinos a nice highlighted sentence to tell the player that they can only have the one bonus through the whole group.

While we all seen to wonder why such simple measures are beyond the wit of business, I think I will find the answer by having a look at my niece's coursework. She is studying BUSINESS STUDIES, and PSYCHOLOGY.
These advertising mishaps are NO ACCIDENT - there are university level psychologists behind the design of everything from the order of display of supermarket products, to the lay out of positive news (in big bold print), and negative news (buried in tiny print and hidden away) in major product and service launches. THESE are the people who are "blocking" any attempts to introduce clarity and transparency in product advertising and the presentation of benefits and consumer contracts. It is all designed to "mess with our heads" so that we perceive a "sow's ear" offered up to us as the proverbial "silk purse".

Occasionally, a TV documentary seeks to blow the whistle on such practices, but they ALWAYS have a fight on their hands because the companies behind the deceptions keep trying to get "gagging" orders from the courts to disrupt the broadcasts. It is when such "gagging" orders fail, or are quashed, that we get to see exactly what the companies were trying to hide, and can judge for ourselves the possible motives for wanting the program to be off the air. In this modern "information age", such deceptive practices are increasingly failing, and it only makes companies, and even entire industries, look bad when the truth finally comes out.

(Just ask Absolute Poker..:D)

Couldn't have said it better myself.
 

scrabble73

Dormant account
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Location
Bubbenhall
eCogra finally responded to me today and told me that my dispute was invalid because I should reasonably have been expected to find their terms on their homepage and the omission of the checkbox that requires a player to accept their terms was only a technical error, so the casino isn't culpable.

I don't even know what to do, I'm so frustrated I could cry. I did a pitch a bitch awhile ago but I haven't heard anything about it. Gibraltar has sent me an email or two, but I'm not sure how much progress I'm going to have there either.

Is there any response on my pitch a bitch?
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Is there any response on my pitch a bitch?

No. It's been forwarded to the rep. We'll let you know when there's something to report.

LATER: Not quite true, see here.
 
Last edited:

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
eCogra finally responded to me today and told me that my dispute was invalid because I should reasonably have been expected to find their terms on their homepage and the omission of the checkbox that requires a player to accept their terms was only a technical error, so the casino isn't culpable.

I don't even know what to do, I'm so frustrated I could cry. I did a pitch a bitch awhile ago but I haven't heard anything about it. Gibraltar has sent me an email or two, but I'm not sure how much progress I'm going to have there either.

Is there any response on my pitch a bitch?

This is why eCogra have lost a good deal of respect among the player community. In effect, they are saying that the casino are allowed to make mistakes, but the PLAYER has to be 100% PERFECT.

eCogra have even ruled in favour of FU Clauses in some cases, based on the fact that the term is there. So long as a casino have a term allowing them to do something, eCogra will rule it OK. Even predatory behaviour is sanctioned, where the design of software and websites is intended to obsfucate the truth and lure the player into false expectations.

It would be interesting whether Gibraltar agree with eCogra, and it might be worth getting a legal opinion on the design and wording, as well as positioning of the terms under CONSUMER CONTRACT LAW. This might help if it shows that eCogra are denying players the additional protection given to CONSUMERS, but rather holding players to the far higher expectations of BUSINESS TO BUSINESS contract law, where BOTH sides are expected to have had their LEGAL TEAM go over any contracts before they are put into place.
CONSUMERS receive these additional rights because of this unfairness of balance, businesses can make the rules, they can employ expensive lawyers, marketing agents, copywriters, psychologists etc to construct their side of the transaction, whereas the consumer only has their own wit to pit against this when reading, understanding, and agreeing to the provision of services for payment.

It might actually be possible to challenge eCogra directly through the courts, and sue THEM for damages for negligence in consumer protection.

eCogra need to take a hard look at the things they are allowing casinos to get away with, as it could damage their "play it safe" seal, and it will become more like the seals of the so called "fake" watchdog sites that some casinos use. They should allow the PLAYER the same leeway for "human error" as they seem to be allowing the casinos. They should also go one step further, and require that their seal holders have all such promotions pre-vetted before launch, and any kind of marketing trickery that could lead to players making errors should be BANNED.
eCogra already have a credibility fight on their hands due to the way they are funded by the software suppliers for those they seek to regulate - this has already lead to accusations that their decisions are unduly influenced by the industry, the same accusations that have been made about the way the Kahnawake operate.
 

BBKPoker

halfway to busto
PABrogue3
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Location
Edinburgh, Seattle, Vancouver BC, Auckland
This is why eCogra have lost a good deal of respect among the player community. In effect, they are saying that the casino are allowed to make mistakes, but the PLAYER has to be 100% PERFECT.

eCogra have even ruled in favour of FU Clauses in some cases, based on the fact that the term is there. So long as a casino have a term allowing them to do something, eCogra will rule it OK. Even predatory behaviour is sanctioned, where the design of software and websites is intended to obsfucate the truth and lure the player into false expectations.

It would be interesting whether Gibraltar agree with eCogra, and it might be worth getting a legal opinion on the design and wording, as well as positioning of the terms under CONSUMER CONTRACT LAW. This might help if it shows that eCogra are denying players the additional protection given to CONSUMERS, but rather holding players to the far higher expectations of BUSINESS TO BUSINESS contract law, where BOTH sides are expected to have had their LEGAL TEAM go over any contracts before they are put into place.
CONSUMERS receive these additional rights because of this unfairness of balance, businesses can make the rules, they can employ expensive lawyers, marketing agents, copywriters, psychologists etc to construct their side of the transaction, whereas the consumer only has their own wit to pit against this when reading, understanding, and agreeing to the provision of services for payment.

It might actually be possible to challenge eCogra directly through the courts, and sue THEM for damages for negligence in consumer protection.

eCogra need to take a hard look at the things they are allowing casinos to get away with, as it could damage their "play it safe" seal, and it will become more like the seals of the so called "fake" watchdog sites that some casinos use. They should allow the PLAYER the same leeway for "human error" as they seem to be allowing the casinos. They should also go one step further, and require that their seal holders have all such promotions pre-vetted before launch, and any kind of marketing trickery that could lead to players making errors should be BANNED.
eCogra already have a credibility fight on their hands due to the way they are funded by the software suppliers for those they seek to regulate - this has already lead to accusations that their decisions are unduly influenced by the industry, the same accusations that have been made about the way the Kahnawake operate.


Realistically, given the legal costs and time costs of going through the legalese to pitch some sort of legal battle, no typical player is going to find it worth it. It would take some monumental win of probably $50,000 or more for it to even be worth pursuing, and casinos take advantage of their players with this knowledge in mind.

Bellerock looks extremely bad here to me, and eCogra seems like they have been more or less rubber-stamping everything that is put in front of them in regard to "bonus abuse" or winnings confiscation these days. I don't know if its because casinos threatened to leave Microgaming software for a more handsoff platform or what, but the number of Microgaming complaints in these forums regarding bonus abuse, advantage play, etc, etc is seriously troubling. In cases where it is obvious that players are not made aware of the terms of a site, or where the casino has made a mistake or engaged in misleading marketing campaigns that will result in confiscation, the player should be given the doubt. Currently, the burden of proof and effort is against the player, and that is reprehensible. They have their withdrawls stalled and have to go through tedious waits and complaint processes for a glimmer of hope of getting paid. Players are the customers, and they should be respected and treated well. If any other business engaged in the shenanigans that Bellerock is willing to, they'd be out of business and at the end of a number of law suits.

AND STILL

BELLEROCK HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE FOLLOWING POINTS:

1.) Cross-marketing of their casinos and promotions with nothing on their splash pages explaining only one bonus may be claimed.

2.) The premise that even though as I documented earlier, no terms and conditions were needed to signup, that they should be able to enforce them, even after voluntarily allowing the player to register an account at another casino in their group and voluntarily providing them with a bonus.

3.) That they have a policy of issuing bonuses then stealing winnings which is a carrot and stick act of trying to get players to lose their deposits, but having to payout if they win rather than simply excluding these players from getting a bonus or registering an account in the FIRST place as many other sites do (including more than one Microgaming group).

4.) Not prominently displaying the terms and conditions on the promotion page clearly stating that bonuses are one per group and may not be claimed if they have already been claimed previously (with the whole caveat regarding the 100x wagering stuff)
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
No. It's been forwarded to the rep. We'll let you know when there's something to report.

Oops, my bad. The rep had replied to me soon after I sent them the text of the PAB, and have confirmed their position.

Simply stated it is this:
We raised this issue with our lawyers and have confirmed that we are not required to make sure that a player reads the terms and conditions, we simply have to make sure that they are easily (reasonably) available for the players to read. As mentioned in my post we have met this obligation by putting a link to the Terms and Conditions on every single page of the site. As many of the posters have pointed out we did not mention this term in the promotion specific terms and conditions (it is not unique to this promo), but we do mention that there are a set of Casino terms and conditions that apply over and above the promo specific terms, giving the player every opportunity to go and read these terms and conditions.

eCOGRA raised the issue and have agreed that we have been reasonable in our approach and cannot be held responsible if a player does not read the terms and conditions. eCOGRA have been particularly thorough in this regard wanting legal opinion before conceding that we had more than met our obligation. ...

Based on the above we will be sticking with our original decision of returning her purchase and closing her account.

Apparently you opened no less than 5 accounts within their casino group over the space of two months, and did have to check off on their T&Cs at the non-English sites.

Presuming that you are fluent in German and French (the aforementioned non-English sites) the question becomes whether your awareness of the Terms in other languages could reasonably translate into an awareness of same in English. I'd have to say that yes, in all fairness it should.

It appears as if you found what you thought was a loophole in the English T&Cs and are trying to exploit it. While I'll agree that the casino could have made things a little more fool-proof in that specific sign-up process there appears to be neither moral nor legal grounds on which to pursue your claim.
 

RobWin

closed account
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Location
A Vault!
Oops, my bad. The rep had replied to me soon after I sent them the text of the PAB, and have confirmed their position.

Simply stated it is this:


Apparently you opened no less than 5 accounts within their casino group over the space of two months, and did have to check off on their T&Cs at the non-English sites.

Presuming that you are fluent in German and French (the aforementioned non-English sites) the question becomes whether your awareness of the Terms in other languages could reasonably translate into an awareness of same in English. I'd have to say that yes, in all fairness it should.

It appears as if you found what you thought was a loophole in the English T&Cs and are trying to exploit it. While I'll agree that the casino could have made things a little more fool-proof in that specific sign-up process there appears to be neither moral nor legal grounds on which to pursue your claim.

So basically scrabble73 is being accused of player fraud ? :what:
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
So basically scrabble73 is being accused of player fraud ?

What would you call it if I read your terms in French and German and then claimed not to understand that they applied in English as well? If it isn't fraud it is some shuffling about with the truth.

If this situation were different, if the player wasn't intimately familiar with the group's sign-up process in several languages, then I'd say it's probably an honest mistake. Personally I'd ask that the casino pay them their money and then send them on their way if they felt that to be necessary, and patch up their sign-up process to avoid such confusion in the future.

But that's apparently not the case here. Here the player is claiming ignorance in one language while they presumably knew it was not the case in the other languages. If that's what's happening then it's manipulation and IMO it's unsupportable.
 
Top