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

[BBKPoker]

I've asked the Bellerock representative to clarify when the 100x rollover requirements were added.

He told me that they've been existence since 2004. I am certain that this is not the case, and it was easy enough to verify by doing a simple check of the archived web pages of jackpotcity.com's terms and conditions.

So, when specifically did this group start requiring players to roll their signup bonuses 100 times over before claiming a bonus at another group? No one who has posted in this thread has expressed anything but surprise at these terms, so it would seem to me that this was a recent addition.

 

[maxd]

Since it looks like the OP has taken a walk on this one and the issue is pretty much done anyway I'm going to mark it "Closed".

 

[BBKPoker]

Since it looks like the OP has taken a walk on this one and the issue is pretty much done anyway I'm going to mark it "Closed".

There's still a lot that hasn't been resolved regarding when the terms were updated, and I'd like to hear a response from the rep as to when they added the 100 times rollover, since the answer I got from bellerock does not match their archived terms pages.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This 100x Rollover was NOT ADDED IN 2004!!!!

I played long before EZBonus, and when BelleRock had more casinos. The terms and conditions were related to each individual casino, and the current group structure was far more tenuous than now. It was hard to find out that all these different casinos came under the brand "BelleRock", as they handled everything through the individual websites. Later, they brought out the "Belle Rock Buddy", and made players aware of a formal linkage between all the sites. The Buddy allowed the linking of all accounts together for promotional purposes, and it is likely that this lead to the eventual introduction of the one SUB for the group rule, although I don't recall this term ever being used till this thread surfaced.
I certainly did not notice this term, as it is not included in the ever changing PROMOTIONAL terms, but as an item under GENERAL terms, where changes are far less frequent, and do not normally affect existing players.

Casinos should be careful about making such statements, as looking at archived webpages can reveal whether such terms existed at particular points in the past. In this case, showing that this term does not exist on archived pages from 2005 or 2006 would show that this statement is false, and this then throws doubts on the credibility of other statements from the casino.

 

[peteyweestro]

they are freaking lying,full stop

 

[paul02085]

This case is "CLOSED" and the message is clear. Anybody who plays at a Bellerock casino and intends to take the signup bonus needs to hire a lawyer to examine their website before playing there!!! After all they used their lawyers to get out of paying a player, right?

 

[BBKPoker]

I messaged the Bellerock representative a second time asking specifically when the 100x wagering was added to their terms and conditions and still have not gotten a response from him.

The term that specifically requires 100x wagering definitely did not exist in 2004 as he initially has claimed.

 

[BBKPoker]

Here is Bellerock's completely unhelpful response:

"Hi BBKPoker,

As an affiliate with Referback I suggest you take this up with your affiliate manager.

Best regards,

John"

Why is it so hard to figure out when this term was added? They should have clear records of each and every modification, especially one that is as impactful as a term that is shortly thereafter cited to confiscate money.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Here is Bellerock's completely unhelpful response:

"Hi BBKPoker,

As an affiliate with Referback I suggest you take this up with your affiliate manager.

Best regards,

John"

Why is it so hard to figure out when this term was added? They should have clear records of each and every modification, especially one that is as impactful as a term that is shortly thereafter cited to confiscate money.

Really

Since when did AFFILIATE MANAGERS become responsible for the management of the casino, and design of their terms and conditions

This looks like a case of the rep wanting to say "I don't know", but in a way that makes us think everything is above board and under control.

This one advantage player has certainly stirred things up alot!

BelleRock should consider how much worse this could have been, say, if this had turned out to have been an innocent "Dolphin", completely caught up in the cross marketing, and not having any real idea of the concepts of "bonus abuse" and "advantage play".

 

[scrabble73]

Sorry on the delay in my responses. I have not been posting much here because I have been disputing this with Gibraltar directly and making some headway and didn't want to update until I had a more clear picture of what violations of their terms are. I am certain Gibraltar is responsible for finally getting me some clear information about questioning the date the terms were added as many forum members have suggested doing here and via private messaging/emailing me.

Today I received this email:

Hi there XXXXX,

Thank you for emailing Belle Rock Entertainment.

XXXXX, we can confirm that the official change was made in the terms and conditions on the 19th of December 2007, however kindly note the following clause in our terms and conditions at the Casino:

8.1.1. The Casino may, without notice to you, amend, alter, delete, interlineate or add to ("Changes") these Terms and Conditions, the promotion or competition-specific Terms and Conditions or Rules of Play at any time whatsoever.

8.1.2. These Changes shall become effective, and you shall be bound by these Changes, immediately upon their posting on the Casino Website.

8.1.3. You agree to regularly review these Terms and Conditions, promotion or competition-specific Terms and Conditions and the Rules of Play regularly in order to assess whether any Changes have been made.

You are welcome to access the full terms and conditions from the following link:

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

Therefore as the above information, we will not be paying out your winnings as per clause 5.6 in our terms and conditions at the Casino.

5.6. The Casino is a member of the Belle Rock Entertainment (BRE) group of online casinos (the Group). You may not claim a sign- up bonus at the Casino if (1) prior to opening an Account at the Casino, you have opened an Account at any other online casino within the Group and claimed a sign- up bonus from such other casino and (2) having claimed such sign- up bonus from the other online casino within the Group, wagered such previously claimed sign- up bonus and initial deposit less than 100 times at the online casino granting you such sign- up bonus. Under no circumstances shall you be eligible for more than one sign- up bonus at the Casino even if you are able to open multiple Accounts thereat (in, for example, different currencies or languages). If your Account at the Casino has been credited with a sign- up bonus for which you (in our sole and unfettered discretion) are ineligible, the Casino shall retrospectively void such sign- up bonus and any winnings received by you after the sign- up bonus has been credited to your relevant Accounts.

Your Casino Accounts will also remain locked as per our terms as well and we trust that this information is sufficient.

Should you require any further assistance, please feel free to contact us. We are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week for your convenience.

Kind regards,

Stacey

Senior Customer Service Representative

To respond to the criticisms that because I played in other sites in this group, I should have been aware that the terms existed, please be aware of the following:

In reviewing my Neteller transactions I deposited completed the entire wagering requirements and completed a withdrawal on December 14th and 15th. Two to three days before this term was even added! I was certain this term didn't exist at the time, because although I always play with bonuses as I find them both fun and profitable, I am very careful to review the terms and conditions of a site before playing. I couldn't have been aware of this term because it DIDN'T EXISTat the time I played as I have suspected.

The withdrawal is a lot of money to me, and considering the term not only isn't explicitly stated on their promotions page but didn't even exist at the time of my play, I would expect the casino to do the right thing and pay the remaining balance to me either by cheque or to my Neteller account.

 

[RobWin]

So can someone please enlighten me as to why this thread was closed as it seems to still be an ongoing issue ?

 

[maxd]

So can someone please enlighten me as to why this thread was closed as it seems to still be an ongoing issue ?

I don't see that the sarcastic tone is going to help this, do you?

As to your question I should think the reasons are fairly obvious from what's in the thread: player reads and agrees to terms several times in various languages then claims ignorance of terms in English. Based on this the claim would seem disingenuous at best and therefore not something we'd continue to pursue.

Something comes along later that may change the situation? Great, we review the situation and see what we see. That doesn't change the validity of the decision to Close in the first place.

I couldn't have been aware of this term because it DIDN'T EXISTat the time I played ....

Which specific term(s) are your referring to? If there are dated copies of the terms in most or all the languages you registered in that indicate you could not have known about the clause(s) in question then I would think we'd re-open this case. Compile that information, with URLs to the relevant pre-clause archived pages, and you might be back in business here.

 

[RobWin]

I don't see that the sarcastic tone is going to help this, do you?

Max, buddy you've got to lighten up a bit man...that question I asked was never intended to be a sarcastic remark but just a simple question and for the life of me I don't understand why you took it that way...what's up man ? Go look at that pic I just posted in the Winner Screenshots thread and I guarantee you that will put a smile on your face...

 

[maxd]

Ok, I thought there were teeth in your question and I didn't see the need for it, mea culpa, my bad.

But seriously, this issue is pretty simple as I see it:

If the player did her thing __before__ the terms excluding her from doing so were published __in any__ of the several languages she signed up in then she couldn't have known, she does indeed have a case, and we'll do what we can to help her.

BUT, if it's a situation of the terms being available on the day in some of the languages but not English then I read it as her saying "what I knew in French/German/whatever I didn't know in English" which is hogwash ... and the case stays Closed.

If we're going to go to bat for the players when they've been wronged then we also have to be willing it do the same for the casinos and that's what I think this is about: "who's the injured party here?" and we proceed accordingly.

 

[vinylweatherman]

None of this gets over the fact that BelleRock snuck this rule in on an arbitrary mid-month date prior to Christmas, and did nothing to alert players to the change on their main pages that CONTINUE to advertise and cross market all four sign-up bonuses.

It reminds me of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, where the Vogons told the Earthlings who protested at the imminent demolition with "Well, the plans have been on display at Alpha Centauri for 50 years, if you can't be bothered to keep up to date with local affairs............"

While the OP is clearly an "advantage player", there will be many regular (innocent) players who will get caught out by this sneaky amendment to the terms and conditions.

Even the REP had absolutely NO IDEA when this rule was added, so how the hell can they claim that PLAYERS should be expecte to know when this rule came into effect.

Even now, there is nothing on BelleRock's own sites about this, and only this thread provides a clear warning that this term is currently active, and being enforced.

 

[TDTAT]

None of this gets over the fact that BelleRock snuck this rule in on an arbitrary mid-month date prior to Christmas, and did nothing to alert players to the change on their main pages that CONTINUE to advertise and cross market all four sign-up bonuses.


Even now, there is nothing on BelleRock's own sites about this, and only this thread provides a clear warning that this term is currently active, and being enforced.

It is slightly ridiculous for affiliates to have 2 or 3 of the
groups sign up bonuses advertised together. I have had
the warning up for MONTHS (maybe a year?) that only one FDB is allowed
for the group. Some affiliate friends of mine have advertised
these casinos together.. I know they meant no harm
and removed additional banners after they were enlightened.

My point is: The least bellerock could do is make sure affiliates
are aware of the rule. Players are rightly confused when
2 bellerock banners promoting 2 sign up bonuses are side by side.

A simple reminder affiliate email should do the trick and save
everyone a few future headaches.

I still think the terms and the list of casinos that
allow the one bonus should be placed in a more prominent place.
There is no good reason not to make this information CLEAR and easy to find.
If not, SIMPLY Block a player from downloading or claiming a bonus

 

[vinylweatherman]

It is slightly ridiculous for affiliates to have 2 or 3 of the
groups sign up bonuses advertised together. I have had
the warning up for MONTHS (maybe a year?) that only one FDB is allowed
for the group. Some affiliate friends of mine have advertised
these casinos together.. I know they meant no harm
and removed additional banners after they were enlightened.

My point is: The least bellerock could do is make sure affiliates
are aware of the rule. Players are rightly confused when
2 bellerock banners promoting 2 sign up bonuses are side by side.

A simple reminder affiliate email should do the trick and save
everyone a few future headaches.

I still think the terms and the list of casinos that
allow the one bonus should be placed in a more prominent place.
There is no good reason not to make this information CLEAR and easy to find.
If not, SIMPLY Block a player from downloading or claiming a bonus

As well as players, this affects the affiliates, as players screwed by this term could blame the affiliate for misleading them by not warning of the term, and advertising more than one of the SUB offers. This would affect the quality affiliate sites more, as players would perceive these to be "advisory", rather than a banner farm site.

 

[scrabble73]

I don't see that the sarcastic tone is going to help this, do you?

Which specific term(s) are your referring to? If there are dated copies of the terms in most or all the languages you registered in that indicate you could not have known about the clause(s) in question then I would think we'd re-open this case. Compile that information, with URLs to the relevant pre-clause archived pages, and you might be back in business here.

Unfortunately, most of these archived pages are not readily available which is why I had to involve both eCogra and Gibraltar to pressure them into telling me when the specific term was added, but I would be happy to forward you the email from jackpotcity.com's customer service that confirms that my account was created December 15th (I wasn't quite sure whether it was the 14th or 15th) and that the rule was put into place December 17th. I am confident I claimed the bonus prior to the 17th which was two days before the terms were added to their webpage (that is the date their email specifically references). I've asked their support team for a copy of their terms in their entirety prior to the 17th, but I get only periodic responses from them.

I feel that I've put together a sufficient enough case that they invented a term that did not exist at the time I signed up or claimed the bonus and are trying to retroactively apply it to me to steal my winnings and that I am owed my winnings.

 

[bellerock]

Hi All,

I am embarrassed to have to make this post, and I owe apologies to a number of people. This whole situation seems to be riddled with communication errors. In dealing with a number of issues with our lawyers who drafted and maintain our terms and conditions, I confused the dates given to me and in haste quoted that this term had been added in 2004. It turns out that it was actually added in December 2007, although not on the date quoted by Scrabble73. I am not sure why she was given that date because the term was actually published on the 5th of December and as such we were within our rights to take the action we had taken.

Because of the communication errors and the confusion caused we have decided to honor Scrabble73s withdrawal as a gesture of goodwill, but confirm that she was still in violation of term 5.6.

Best regards,

Belle Rock

 

[BBKPoker]

Hi All,

I am embarrassed to have to make this post, and I owe apologies to a number of people. This whole situation seems to be riddled with communication errors. In dealing with a number of issues with our lawyers who drafted and maintain our terms and conditions, I confused the dates given to me and in haste quoted that this term had been added in 2004. It turns out that it was actually added in December 2007, although not on the date quoted by Scrabble73. I am not sure why she was given that date because the term was actually published on the 5th of December and as such we were within our rights to take the action we had taken.

Because of the communication errors and the confusion caused we have decided to honor Scrabble73s withdrawal as a gesture of goodwill, but confirm that she was still in violation of term 5.6.

Best regards,

Belle Rock

I'm happy that you did the right thing, but you still haven't addressed the issue at large.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hi All,

I am embarrassed to have to make this post, and I owe apologies to a number of people. This whole situation seems to be riddled with communication errors. In dealing with a number of issues with our lawyers who drafted and maintain our terms and conditions, I confused the dates given to me and in haste quoted that this term had been added in 2004. It turns out that it was actually added in December 2007, although not on the date quoted by Scrabble73. I am not sure why she was given that date because the term was actually published on the 5th of December and as such we were within our rights to take the action we had taken.

Because of the communication errors and the confusion caused we have decided to honor Scrabble73s withdrawal as a gesture of goodwill, but confirm that she was still in violation of term 5.6.

Best regards,

Belle Rock

How many PLAYERS benefit from a team of corporate lawyers though when it comes to UNDERSTANDING all the legalese, marketing hype and misdirection, as well as the psychological "mind games" that are involved in making consumers believe one product is better than another that is, in fact, in all respects identical (e.g Microgaming casinos).

Would you like to hold a hot cup of coffee for 5 minutes, and THEN decide whether I deserve a 200 free chip in my account (BBC2 Horizon, two weeks ago 12th Feb )

 

[Roar]

Hi All,

I am embarrassed to have to make this post, and I owe apologies to a number of people. This whole situation seems to be riddled with communication errors. In dealing with a number of issues with our lawyers who drafted and maintain our terms and conditions, I confused the dates given to me and in haste quoted that this term had been added in 2004. It turns out that it was actually added in December 2007, although not on the date quoted by Scrabble73. I am not sure why she was given that date because the term was actually published on the 5th of December and as such we were within our rights to take the action we had taken.

Because of the communication errors and the confusion caused we have decided to honor Scrabble73s withdrawal as a gesture of goodwill, but confirm that she was still in violation of term 5.6.

Best regards,

Belle Rock

Someone has previously mentioned that such copious and legalistic T+Cs are hardly meant for recreational players. Belle Rock ought not to complain too loudly when they get a touch up from such non-recreational players given their precious T+Cs have already scared the pants off ordinary ploppy joes.

Here's some brand new web site posted T+Cs from Belle Rock courtesy I suspect from the lawyers:

"1.1.8.You may not open and maintain more than one account at any point in time.
1.1.9.Funds and/or Casino credits may only be transferred between Casino accounts belonging to the same Player i.e. transfers to third parties are not permitted.

1.2.2.If you breach the warranty contained in clause 1.2.1.2 above, all transactions placed by you shall be null and void and you shall forfeit any winnings accrued to you as a result of such transactions and/or participation"

Bonus, or no bonus, 1.1.8. says you can not have, or maintain, two or more accounts. YOU MUST CLOSE ALL ACCOUNTS else any winnings are liable to forfeiture even if you have not played the other accounts for years. This will include Trident Lounge linked casinos without a doubt.

But at least this accredited casino group has cleared up any remaining confusion.

 

[BBKPoker]

But at least this accredited casino group has cleared up any remaining confusion.

Aside from why they are even issuing bonuses in the first place and then confiscating funds rather than excluding players from the bonus like other Microgaming groups do with ease.

That, in my opinion, is obviously rogueish behavior.

 

[BBKPoker]

Aside from why they are even issuing bonuses in the first place and then confiscating funds rather than excluding players from the bonus like other Microgaming groups do with ease.

That, in my opinion, is obviously rogueish behavior.

Looks like they finally did the right thing, the Bellerock group clause is now on the promotions page. I'd still rather they exclude players from even claiming the bonus, but its a significant enough step in the right direction.

 

[maxd]

Would you like to hold a hot cup of coffee for 5 minutes, and THEN decide whether I deserve a 200 free chip in my account (BBC2 Horizon, two weeks ago 12th Feb )

Ha! I finally get the reference:

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

. Good episode!