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

[SlotsWizard]

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]

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..)

 

[BBKPoker]

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..)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[scrabble73]

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]

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.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

 

[maxd]

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.

 

[The Dude]

I'm just getting caught up on this issue, and what an unfortunate one. Yes, it can be confusing especially when some casino groups have no restrictions on players receiving sign-up bonuses on all their brands, or just one. This is something that everyone should be aware of.

Not to mention the fact that many web portals, affiliates, webmasters etc, advertise these sites together. I'd imagine Bellerock themselves have some sort of promotional link that includes more than one Bellerock site and could easily lead to multiple signups...

I'll ensure that on the "Accredited Casino" section this is noted (as with the Grand Virtual Casinos)

...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...

So the player had five opportunities to catch this term?

@scrabble - correct me if I'm wrong, you did read the terms and conditions at the other brands - didn't it say basically the same thing?

Unfortunately, I don't know what is going through your head when signing up at these casinos - did you really think that it was okay, or did you notice a loophole like Max surmised and hoped to exploit it?

The bottom line is the terms and conditions exist. Whether or not it's hidden or misleading is strictly subjective: it's there and players confirm that they read these by the mere fact that they sign up.

I would expect after this incident that this casino group makes this term more prominent.

 

[BBKPoker]

I'm just getting caught up on this issue, and what an unfortunate one. Yes, it can be confusing especially when some casino groups have no restrictions on players receiving sign-up bonuses on all their brands, or just one. This is something that everyone should be aware of.


I'll ensure that on the "Accredited Casino" section this is noted (as with the Grand Virtual Casinos)

That's a good idea, and this situation maybe isn't panning out to be as clear cut as we thought, but what about the process of awarding bonuses then confiscating them? Why should affiliates be required to post terms for a casino? I doubt that most players would find those terms, what if a perfectly legitimate player sees one of their many splash pages that are company owned (VWMs shot is a good one) and doesn't advertise the bonus is one per group and has a win confiscated?

Why is it that Vegas Partner and other groups are perfectly capable of this and Bellerock is not? Even if this player deserves their winnings confiscated, that's a lot of dolphins getting caught in tuna nets, especially given the fiasco regarding the terms on their site. There is really no reason I can think of to award a bonus and then lock accounts, confiscate winnings, etc when the player wasn't qualified to receive the bonus in the first place. Not to mention the mess it makes on here.

 

[TDTAT]

I would expect after this incident that this casino group makes this term more prominent.

Thanks CasinoMeister! I removed my bellerock banners just to be safe.
I can find no good reason not to make the terms regarding
bonus within the group more prominent. I would be happy and replace banners if this is cleard up

 

[The Dude]

...There is really no reason I can think of to award a bonus and then lock accounts, confiscate winnings, etc when the player wasn't qualified to receive the bonus in the first place. Not to mention the mess it makes on here.

It boils down to the demands of the player - instant gratification. The player expects that bonus immediately. Operating a casino is extremely competitive, and if you don't have a leading edge on satisfying a player, they will click away to somewhere else.

To ensure that a player has fulfilled his/her obligation or to make sure they have not signed up at a sister casino may be time consuming. Cross checking player accounts may be difficult if the player is using different email addresses, etc. Cross checking usually takes place when the player is cashing out.

The bottom line is that the casino expects that the player has read the terms and conditions. The player agrees to these terms during the sign up process.

So far, this is the only player complaining about this, and yes - she has no less than five accounts at this group of casinos. I'm not convinced that she didn't know what she was doing.

 

[RobWin]

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.

Max, I have to respectively and totally disagree with your synopsis of the situation here for the simple fact that Bellerock issued this player a bonus and the player played and won using her money and the bonus money regardless of how many other accounts she has within this group.

I myself have an account at every casino in this group and the Neptune group too and have had them for years now and I am also intimately familiar with the group's sign-up process but each time I take a bonus with them I am not going to go and read thru pages of terms and conditions because I trust them to be fair with me and to do the right thing but in light of this situation I guess I will not be playing anymore at any of their sites based on how they elected to handle this situation.

If eCOGRA allows these casinos to get away with using these types of terms and conditions and hidden T & C's to get out of paying a player legitimate winnings then this industry is going down a spiraling blackhole. If they did not want her play and now they refuse to pay her winnings then they should not have taken her deposit in the first place.

That would be like me walking into Harrah's and cashing in my $100.00 bonus coupon they sent me and I sit down to play a slot machine and win a jackpot and then they tell me that they are not going to pay me my winnings because I cashed in another coupon across the street at the Rio and hour earlier. That's insane....

 

[maxd]

That would be like me walking into Harrah's and cashing in my $100.00 bonus coupon they sent me and I sit down to play a slot machine and win a jackpot and then they tell me that they are not going to pay me my winnings because I cashed in another coupon across the street at the Rio and hour earlier. That's insane....

No, walking into Harrah's and asking for a $300 match-deposit bonus (or whatever) would be insane, at least that's what they'd think if you tried it. On-line and B&M aren't nearly the same thing, and the rules of the road are different depending on where you drive.

I respect your disagreement but my job it sometimes to draw the line between what the player should reasonably expect and what the casino should reasonably offer. In this case the casino offer was good enough for the player to snap it up five times over. To then claim that on the 5th time around they want the rules to be different because of what amounts to a technicality strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

You're assuming the casino was trying to pull a fast one. I don't see it that way, if anything it appears to be quite the reverse.

No argument that the casinos ought to try to tighten these things up a bit but in this case the player almost certainly knew what they were doing and so their claim is highly suspect.

 

[RobWin]

No, walking into Harrah's and asking for a $300 match-deposit bonus (or whatever) would be insane, at least that's what they'd think if you tried it. On-line and B&M aren't nearly the same thing, and the rules of the road are different depending on where you drive.

I respect your disagreement but my job it sometimes to draw the line between what the player should reasonably expect and what the casino should reasonably offer. In this case the casino offer was good enough for the player to snap it up five times over. To then claim that on the 5th time around they want the rules to be different because of what amounts to a technicality strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

You're assuming the casino was trying to pull a fast one. I don't see it that way, if anything it appears to be quite the reverse.

No argument that the casinos ought to try to tighten these things up a bit but in this case the player almost certainly knew what they were doing and so their claim is highly suspect.

I've actually got a coupon right here in front of me now from the Rio in Las Vegas for $400.00 Cash that is good thru the end of June 08 that I can just walk in there and cash it and walk back out if I choose to without gambling a dime of it...No T's & C's involved whatsoever...and if there were, they would be printed right there on the back of the coupon.

That was exactly my point in my previous post where I stated I had an account at everyone of those casinos in both groups and if I remember correctly I took a sign up bonus at everyone of them, they may have changed their terms since I did that though...it's getting to the point where no body will be able to keep up with their T & C's though as often as they change them !

 

[vinylweatherman]

What absolutely STINKS is that BelleRock sought legal advice on whether they could get away with NOT ensuring the player was steered into reading the Terms & Conditions, and when they were told this would be OK, decided to do the minimum necessary, have the terms AVAILABLE, but to make the player actively go and look for them by scrolling the page down (the link being at the bottom, not the top), clicking the GENERAL terms, to find a PROMOTIONAL term that covers multiple sign-up bonuses.
They can't even make it a CLEAR term, but have all these caveats about 100x wagering etc. This would lead to a player believing the award of multiple SUBs was discretionary, and not an absolute "NO". Since bonuses are awarded MANUALLY, it would be reasonable to believe that they had been given "at the discresion of management" when they are credited into the account.

As for this:-

It boils down to the demands of the player - instant gratification. The player expects that bonus immediately. Operating a casino is extremely competitive, and if you don't have a leading edge on satisfying a player, they will click away to somewhere else.

Not in the case of BelleRock. It can take 72 HOURS to receive a bonus after filling in the claim form, so that's plenty of time to run a few simple checks to see if the player has taken the SUB at another group, or are we to believe that they just take this long for the hell of it, just to make the player wait.

...and this:-

So the player had five opportunities to catch this term?

@scrabble - correct me if I'm wrong, you did read the terms and conditions at the other brands - didn't it say basically the same thing?

At least it seems this was a "Tuna", and not a "Dolphin" this time, but a REPUTABLE casino should be seen to do what is necessary to minimise the risk to "Dolphins", and seeking legal advice as to what they can get away with NOT doing, rather than seeing what they CAN be doing to protect the "Dolphins", does their brand no end of harm.

 

[RobWin]

What absolutely STINKS is that BelleRock sought legal advice on whether they could get away with NOT ensuring the player was steered into reading the Terms & Conditions, and when they were told this would be OK, decided to do the minimum necessary, have the terms AVAILABLE, but to make the player actively go and look for them by scrolling the page down (the link being at the bottom, not the top), clicking the GENERAL terms, to find a PROMOTIONAL term that covers multiple sign-up bonuses.
They can't even make it a CLEAR term, but have all these caveats about 100x wagering etc. This would lead to a player believing the award of multiple SUBs was discretionary, and not an absolute "NO". Since bonuses are awarded MANUALLY, it would be reasonable to believe that they had been given "at the discresion of management" when they are credited into the account.

As for this:-



Not in the case of BelleRock. It can take 72 HOURS to receive a bonus after filling in the claim form, so that's plenty of time to run a few simple checks to see if the player has taken the SUB at another group, or are we to believe that they just take this long for the hell of it, just to make the player wait.

...and this:-



At least it seems this was a "Tuna", and not a "Dolphin" this time, but a REPUTABLE casino should be seen to do what is necessary to minimise the risk to "Dolphins", and seeking legal advice as to what they can get away with NOT doing, rather than seeing what they CAN be doing to protect the "Dolphins", does their brand no end of harm.

Excellent post Vinyl, you've absolutely nailed it down there man...it only seems shady now that they did actually seek counsel on the issue to try to avoid paying the player...

 

[maxd]

I've actually got a coupon right here in front of me now from the Rio in Las Vegas for $400.00 Cash ....

Ok, so my analogy sucks. The point remains the same though, and is actually underscored by your coupon situation, that they're different ballgames, at least for the foreseeable future. What flies at a B&M is DOA online, and vice versa. We all know this, there's nothing to debate there.

As to the ever-changing T&Cs ya, sure, I agree with you, it's a pain. And it is who's responsibility to punish the casinos for this and get them to behave in some different manner? We're starting to get into windmill territory here if you ask me.

 

[RobWin]

Ok, so my analogy sucks. The point remains the same though, and is actually underscored by your coupon situation, that they're different ballgames, at least for the foreseeable future. What flies at a B&M is DOA online, and vice versa. We all know this, there's nothing to debate there.

As to the ever-changing T&Cs ya, sure, I agree with you, it's a pain. And it is who's responsibility to punish the casinos for this and get them to behave in some different manner? We're starting to get into windmill territory here if you ask me.

Well I would hope that eCOGRA would but it appears that they are more contractor friendly in layman's terms than they are an impartial body...

 

[maxd]

Well I would hope that eCOGRA would but it appears that they are more contractor friendly in layman's terms than they are an impartial body...

For one, I don't think hunting down and punishing casinos for having imperfect sign-up procedures is eCOGRA's mandate.

And two, I think you're selling them far short of what they actually do and the positive impact they have. Are they perfect? No, I reckon not. Are they any better than the other so-called industry overseers and do they have a net positive impact on the industry? Oh yes! Ok then, give them some slack and let them do their thing.

 

[RobWin]

For one, I don't think hunting down and punishing casinos for having imperfect sign-up procedures is eCOGRA's mandate.

And two, I think you're selling them far short of what they actually do and the positive impact they have. Are they perfect? No, I reckon not. Are they any better than the other so-called industry overseers and do they have a net positive impact on the industry? Oh yes! Ok then, give them some slack and let them do their thing.

Max, I was not trying at all to sell eCOGRA short, if that's the way you read into my statement, then maybe I was not clear in writing it because I think eCOGRA is great for this industry and right now there is no one else out there that even compares to their services but in my previous statement regarding eCOGRA, here is the particular "Generally accepted Practices" as stated in the eCOGRA GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICES (eGAP) CASINOS that were Approved 26, September 2007 and the statement I made was in regards to the two rule statements published below, as I see it Bellerock has clearly violated both of these rules....

113 Responsible Advertising and Promotions



113.R.4 Terms and conditions applicable to promotional activities shall be clearly displayed and shall not be unreasonably altered subsequent to the wagering activity.


and


113.R.5 Standard terms and conditions shall include the last date published, and promotional terms and conditions shall include the last date and time published.​

 

[BBKPoker]

It boils down to the demands of the player - instant gratification. The player expects that bonus immediately. Operating a casino is extremely competitive, and if you don't have a leading edge on satisfying a player, they will click away to somewhere else.

The reason I disagree (respectfully as always) with this, is that Bellerock promotional bonuses (at least SUBS) don't get credited for at least 1 hour after you signup anyway. There's no reason that an hour isn't enough time for a casino representative to do a simple email/name check and determine that a player is not eligible, and I imagine that unless a player is specifically using tactics like using a different email address or phone number to register an account, then there is no reason not to exclude them manually (and in reality, I think this can probably be automated as well).

Even if they did something like register with a different email address or phone number, Bellerock still requires a deposit prior to claiming a bonus, and they should be able to exclude based on multiple accounts using the same payment method.

Finally, if the player manages to falsify enough information to register an account and claim a bonus, that is a lot more telling of fraudulent behavior than a player who simply registers an account at five different sites in a single group.

 

[GaryWatson]

Since Ive not been cut off yet, i'll butt in. Sure, the likes of Ecogra cant deal with individual cases as it would be far too time consuming, so congrats to the Casinomeister staff for bridging the gap, but these are standard terms which are being manipulated. Its more than just to favor the sites, its bordering on dishonest. It wouldnt be tolerated offline & as online regulators I feel it is Ecogra's duty to clarify standard rules. To ensure fair play. Certain sites are neglecting their security checks until its time to pay out. This is not acceptable practice. Consumer Law would be a good place to start & its so off the mark at the moment. I think most of the sneaky terms started getting enforced after UIGEA. It has become a stream of income for certain sites & shows up the dark side of the industry

 

[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!