Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[ksech]

@silc: I totally agree with you. All of these quotations are found in/around the MIDDLE of the general T&Cs. But I just wanted to illustrate that CWC isn't the only one who makes the statement about periodically reviewing the T&Cs. (BTW, if you go to the "casino terms and conditions" thread, the complete T&Cs for each of the casinos is listed there if you don't want to go to the website for each.) It doesn't appear that many changes are made (some date back a few years), but who isn't to say with the changing atmosphere of online gaming, that casinos won't start adding in more ambiguous terms to try to "entrap" (this may not be a good word to use?) the unsuspecting player.

 

[skiny]

If the player was not enrolled in studies at the time of wagering he was not a student. It IS that simple. If I graduate in June, placed my wagers in July and started post graduate studies in August I broke no rules.

Nobody HAS to read the terms and conditions. It IS a good idea to read them and if you don't you're taking a gamble. If the terms and conditions didn't cover everything from whether or not you shave your armpits to how often you clean your gutters it might not be necessary to read them but they're clearly written to give casinos the chance to renege on a withdrawal at the drop of a hat. So it IS up to you to read them and play standing on your head if you have to just to make sure you don't accidental break one of them.

That being said, whether or not the terms were read here before wagering makes no difference because the player broke no rule. Unless I'm misreading this entire story, Dan was finished his studies and had not started post graduate studies at the time of wagering. If that is true then he is owed the balance of his withdrawal.

I can clearly see what Dan is owed is irrelevant and this discussion is a complete waste of time because two things are happening right now. The casino is simply refusing to pay a debt they owe to a player for no real good reason and everyone is getting a straight forward and stubborn "I'm right and you're wrong no matter what anyone says" from the casino.

This is fine. If that's the type of reputation the casino wants to earn that is entirely up to them. Betfair has tossed it's reputation in the toilet, CW is following suit.

Sorry about your luck Dan but you can argue about this until the cows come home and it won't make an ounce of difference because it's obviously not a case of what's right or wrong. It's a case of the casino is going to do what the casino wants to do. It's a shame that it cost Dan thousands of dollars in winnings for us to learn how CW has decided to start using their terms and conditions but now we know.

Bryan, I respect your opinion and I respect your resolve but we are simply going to have to remain in disagreement. I don't believe that CW really cares about a few thousand dollars worth of withdrawals. I believe that they are just being hard nosed and stubborn and that seems to come as a surprise to a lot of us. If you agree with their decision and truly believe that a person not currently studying is still a student that's entirely up to you but you and Tom are apparently the only two people in this 30 page thread who do.

So that's two well known and well respected casinos down the toilet in the last month. Who's next? Batter up.........

 

[just play]

you and Tom are apparently the only two people in this 30 page thread who do.

This is probably what bothers me the most. There is ALWAYS fellow members who agree and disagree with certain posts and threads. BUT in this thread, there are only 2 people who disagree with the rest of the forum members. I don't think I have ever seen it.

 

[CoolCat]

This is probably what bothers me the most. There is ALWAYS fellow members who agree and disagree with certain posts and threads. BUT in this thread, there are only 2 people who disagree with the rest of the forum members. I don't think I have ever seen it.

That should tell you something. Robwin and a few others got the picture. Reminds me of a small town Judge and DA. Both of them goes out to lunch and play golf together.

 

[justymich]

I am also an adult student, i'm 32, enrolled back in June, started in August. I went back because i was laid off and on unemployment so i figured i might as well take advantage of the idle time on my hands. Ironically, while on unemployment, i could gamble with no problems. Now anyone knows that those on unemployment don't get nearly the amount of money they would if they had a full time job, yet CW doesn't seem to care if you have enough to afford it then? Also, since i enrolled in June, but didn't start til August, does that mean in June i was not allowed to gamble with CW anymore?

Going back to the Dan convo, i agree with the rest of the members. If Danl provided proof that he had in fact graduated earlier this year, and could provide info showing that he had in fact applied to post graduate studies. Also that it was in fact different from his previous enrollment in graduate studies, and he was in fact in the interim between the two. Then he was not a student at the time, period.

I am extremely displeased with this whole outcome and i will be closing my accounts as well. I don't know how CW can let those on unemployment with little extra money gamble, but not students, who a majority probably had more extra spending money lying around than i did It sounds to me that there is a much deeper reason of them having this clause other than protection for students.

 

[Nate]

He wasnt a student at the time so regardless of whether he read it or not its null.....CW is gonna get away with this...and I think it sucks...I closed all of my accounts there...and cited this as why maybe if more people do they will wake up and smell the bull$hit.

Accounts closed at Lucky Red, Clubworld and Highnoon.

Nate

 

[Casinomeister]

That should tell you something. Robwin and a few others got the picture. Reminds me of a small town Judge and DA. Both of them goes out to lunch and play golf together.

Nice jab - do it one more time and see what happens.

For the record, I have only expressed my opinion on whether or not the player is a student. I believe he is and was. I haven't mentioned anything at all on how this should have been handled. There are a number of people who agree with me - this forum is not the only place this has been discussed.

 

[Casinomeister]

Nice jab - do it one more time and see what happens...

Never mind. Ten minutes of searching the back end connects him to Atlanta, Mishun, etc.

/admin note

 

[Pinababy69]

He wasnt a student at the time so regardless of whether he read it or not its null.....CW is gonna get away with this...and I think it sucks...I closed all of my accounts there...and cited this as why maybe if more people do they will wake up and smell the bull$hit.

Accounts closed at Lucky Red, Clubworld and Highnoon.

Nate

Sending Tom a PM right now to close my accounts at CW, High Noon, Lucky Red, and Manhattan Slots. Don't think it's gonna hit them in the pocketbook or anything, as I hadn't deposited in quite some time there. But it's a definite I won't EVER be again. (EDIT: PM sent, accounts closed when he returns I'd guess).

Nice jab - do it one more time and see what happens.

For the record, I have only expressed my opinion on whether or not the player is a student. I believe he is and was. I haven't mentioned anything at all on how this should have been handled. There are a number of people who agree with me - this forum is not the only place this has been discussed.

Point taken Bryan re: the opinion thing. And there are two issues at play here, as stated yesterday. One, was DanL a student at the time of play? Two, is the student clause unambiguous, and can it be applied fairly? Even if your answer to the first part is yes, you can still believe that the term isn't clear enough in the first place, and shouldn't be applied. That's my argument. Whether or not he is/was/will ever be a student, is "almost" becoming irrelevant for me. It's more about the term itself, and the fact that it can be debated for 30 pages. Major problems, which indicates that it shouldn't be applied in the first place (in its present form).

Never mind. Ten minutes of searching the back end connects him to Atlanta, Mishun, etc.

/admin note

Why in God's name they keep coming back dozens of times when you are so corrupt and lacking in integrity is beyond me.

 

[ksech]

I agree with Pinababy, for me at least, it's more about the term and how many others could/would be affected by it. Since it is so broad, the casino then can enforce it when/if they see fit, and who knows who the next "victim" may be.

Tom made mention in his first (?) post on this thread, that this term has been there since day one. Does that mean for Aladdins Gold casino only and then was added into the T&Cs for the rest of the group or is it for all of the casinos in the CWC?

And I ask again, now knowing that the casinos can and will enforce these ambiguous terms, how many will go back and reread the T&Cs for casinos they signed up with & play at regularly? I think we have all learned a valuable lesson at the expense of Danl. Assume nothing and ask lots and lots of questions, after all, it's YOUR money you are putting at risk.

 

[Casinomeister]

...Why in God's name they keep coming back dozens of times when you are so corrupt and lacking in integrity is beyond me.

To remind me how corrupt and dishonest I am?

 

[Pinababy69]

To remind me how corrupt and dishonest I am?

Ah, that must be it. Shazam!! Well, maybe you should just make a sticky note to yourself or something.....you know, so you don't forget and the poor souls don't have to go to the trouble of opening multiple accounts to remind you. :smilewink:

[/end of derail/lame attempt at humour]

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am overseas at the moment but I have managed to catch up on this thread.

First of all DanL is a student and he is currently studying full time. He lied about this to me, to Steve Russo and to Max and Bryan in his PAB.

If he had played blackjack with a slots coupon there would be no debate. The terms say you can’t play that game with that bonus and failing to read the terms is no excuse.

He is a student and students are not permitted to play in our casino. The terms say that students are not permitted to play so why should this be any different.

The rules are there for all to see on our website and if you deposit without reading them you may well encounter problems.

One thing that this thread has highlighted is that this particular term needs clarifying – it does not adequately cover some of the edge cases that have been pointed out and I when I get back to the office I will work with our legal team to reword this.

Kind Regards
Tom

P.S. Samuel T was paid in full as he was not a student when he played.

Whilst DanL was a student, he was NOT at the time "enrolled full time at a university or college", he was "in limbo" between the end of one course of study, and the start of another. Like Samuel T, he was not "studying full time" when he played, he had graduated. he didn't again start full time study until he started a new course at a new institution.

Whilst he didn't read the terms, even if he HAD he would have seen that they didn't apply to him between courses because of the requirement to be in full time studies.

Further, it seems you have mislead the forum, since this term has NOT "always been there", but has been added and evolved since 2007. In fact, the earlier version was CLEARER than the current one, and PRECISELY covered the vulnerable "traditional" students between ages 18 and 21 who go straight from college to university, dependent on parents, grants, and student loans. This left little room for "edge cases", but "simplifying" the term has broadened it to such an extent that many "edge cases" have been created.

The determination of "student enrolled full time" is not up to the BUSINESS either, it is a LEGAL CONTRACT, and meanings are a matter of the law, and if necessary, the interpretation and "clarification" of a judge. The more vague a term, the more likely it is to fail in court. The current term ONLY works when a player is actually ATTENDING their course full time at the same time they are playing. You are clearly NOT able to attend your course full time BEFORE IT STARTS.

This is the case you faced with the OP, who had been UNABLE to begin his studies, so was deemed OK to play because although he was clearly a "student", he was NOT "studying full time", but waiting for his course to start the following year when he hoped to have enough money to take it.

Enforcement compared to the text of the term is riddled with inconsistencies, as though a different definition of the term has been used in each case.

As for reading the terms, first they need to be WRITTEN accurately, otherwise reading them is pointless.

If I was French, and read the terms, I can play at Club World, yet NOT at Alladin's Gold - it's quite CLEARLY written in the terms.

If I lived in Toronto, I would have to wonder whether I lived in Markham. As a player, I would decide this based on how the local government of Toronto defined Markham, such as from my postal address, or district authority. If nothing featured Markham, I would conclude I was NOT "in the area of Markham", and conclude it OK to play.


The fact that evidence shows that the definition "under 21" has been REMOVED from this student term at the last review shows that this term was NEVER aimed at "protecting students who are still dependent on their parents". The term was altered so as to INCLUDE students over 21 who were no longer deopendents, and who had returned to studies from an independent adult existence.

This came from the SAME rep who claims the term "has always been there", when evidence shows it was added around 2007, and CWC has been around since 2005, 2 years at least WITHOUT this term.

Clarification of this term now is a bit like "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted".

There also seem to be large numbers of players who never thought this was THEIR problem, but now think this is very much "their problem" since they new see themselves as "edge cases" because they engage in some kind of formal study. If they have any sense, they will STOP DEPOSITING until they have absolute clarification as to their position.

There is also another angle for LOSING "students". Since they only get "busted" when they withdraw, well - engineer a cash-out, and see what happens when you are verified. If the verification fails because you are a student, this opens a pathway to get ALL your deposits back, since you could NEVER have won. It has the advantage that the casino has already made this determination BEFORE a claim has been lodged for the return of past deposits. IF a claim for past deposits was lodged because a player suddenly presents "proof" that they were students, I am sure CWC would be far more "flexible" in saying "No, you're OK because.............."

In short, I don't believe Tom is telling us the TRUE reason for the addition of this term in 2007, but is giving us the "company spin" treatment about it being part of their "responsible gambling" strategy to protect vulnerable groups from being able to lose money they can't afford.

There are groups FAR more vulnerable to "irresponsible gambling" than students, but as for protecting them, it seems a case of "can't be arsed". This too could come back to "bite them in the ass" if such groups come to grief through a lack of "responsible gambling" policy enforcement, which would contrast with the extensive measures that are being taken to "protect students".

 

[silcnlayc]

He is a student and students are not permitted to play in our casino. The terms say that students are not permitted to play so why should this be any different.

We all have been a student at one time or another...even later in life...with careers changes etc and this affects those too as this rule stands...what in the world was the casino thinking?? This should NEVER have been put in an T&C's...if they are of age, they deserve to be allowed to play regardless of whether or not they are "in school" or "enrolled" ...if they are "of age" what difference does it make...really!

As I said, the rulemakers are being bit in the butt by their own making...and deservedly so...too many ridiculous, unfathomable rules that they cannot agree on even with themselves, so they keep "tweaking" the rules to fit the occasion..



Amazing..
.

 

[Pulver]

I can probably answer that for him. The player is/was a graduate student.


You don't know that. You don't have any legal expertise that I know of, so please don't make your opinions sound like facts


.

You are right, I don't have any legal expertise, but a friend of mine is a lawyer and I talked to him about this case and asked for his opinion.

His opinion was basicly what a poster wrote earlier in the thread. If a term is unclear or could be debated in any way (which this case clearly is) the court should rule in favor of the customer (player).

He also said that the customer\player couldn't in any legal definition be defined as a student as he was not currently studying anywhere.

That is how it would work out in any normal european country atleast, as we all know the rules on the internett are different\non existent and the casinos are in most cases both judge and jury themselves.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Point taken Bryan re: the opinion thing. And there are two issues at play here, as stated yesterday. One, was DanL a student at the time of play? Two, is the student clause unambiguous, and can it be applied fairly?

Actually, there is a third issue Pina. It is perhaps the most important issue which imo would be the critical and/or specific legal issue based on the known facts as currently posted in this thread in the (hypothetical) event of a legal case in the U.S.!

This issue is known as the previously mentioned "Contractual Aspects of Gambling" (simply and concisely defined as: a legal bet wagered whereby a result in favor of the wager must be paid in full, I repeat, in full by the subject party that accepted the subject wager). U.S. Case Law can be clearly cited and referenced.

The online gaming industry ((including this forum)) often and imo conveniently but incorrectly continues to generally ignore the "Contractual Aspects of Gambling" in favor of the often included and clearly evident unregulated (per se), paradoxical, predatory, unfair, fraudulent, and other illegal et al, etc., rules per se best known as an online gambling site's specific "Terms and Conditions".

Over the years, these above referenced and superceding "Terms and Conditions" have been defended fanantically by both the industry as well as others via a treasure of multiple defenses, yet all the while generally ignoring the credence of the "Contractual Aspects of Gambling". IMOO, most of the so-called defenses as well as some of the subject defenders are or may be often misguided, some innocently of such and some clearly with self-serving motives.

 

[rockycatt]

TO CWC

in the name of fair play is it possible to give a half measure $$ to danl seeing that the terms need to be rewritten

looking for good will at Christmas's
R C

 

[NASHVEGAS]

TO CWC

in the name of fair play is it possible to give a half measure $$ to danl seeing that the terms need to be rewritten

looking for good will at Christmas's
R C

I know your intentions above mean well Rocky..

That said, the four year college graduate is clearly due ~ an additional $7K, not $3.5K. Christmas is not relevant and goodwill for Club World is an oxymoron pursuant to this particular situation.

All the above said, if Danl sees no other option than an unjust settlement offer then that should be his call on what may or may not be acceptable to him. Even if Club World decided now to pay Danl in full, it would not be gesture of goodwill. A gesture, yes....goodwill, nada!

 

[vinylweatherman]

You are right, I don't have any legal expertise, but a friend of mine is a lawyer and I talked to him about this case and asked for his opinion.

His opinion was basicly what a poster wrote earlier in the thread. If a term is unclear or could be debated in any way (which this case clearly is) the court should rule in favor of the customer (player).

He also said that the customer\player couldn't in any legal definition be defined as a student as he was not currently studying anywhere.

That is how it would work out in any normal european country atleast, as we all know the rules on the internett are different\non existent and the casinos are in most cases both judge and jury themselves.

This is why you so often find that a business in this kind of situation will NOT usually allow a case like this to go before a court. They will hold firm, as if in a "game of chicken" with the customer, to see who flinches first. Usually, the customer gives up, and the business wins by default.
Sometimes though, the bluff is called, and the customer actually books a hearing, pays the court fee, and the business gets a summons to defend the case. This will usually persuade the business to settle "out of court" rather than risk a humiliating defeat that could set the groundwork for similar cases.

The recent run of claims against the banks over "unfair charges" has been a recent example. The banks all held firm, but CAVED IN each and every time their bluff was called by a customer actually taking them to court. Eventually, the banks decided to allow the regulators and them to fight it out in a "supercomplaint" case before the courts. This might have been because customers were more and more willing to "call" the bank's hand, rather than "fold", and the court cases began to mount up.

Cases of player Vs online casino are very rare, BUT there HAS been a case of B & M casino Vs player. The case involved the casino trying to reclaim winnings from a player because in "the casino's sole determination", they had cheated by using laser and computer technology to give them an edge at the Roulette table, netting them a 7 figure sum in profit.

The casino LOST the case!!! The ruling was based on the fact that NO actual "cheating" occurred, the game was not interfered with in any way, and the laser and computer was merely PASSIVE observation of the game's starting point, from which was calculated the most likely segment for the ball to end up in. There was also no SPECIFIC rule that related to the use of such equipment, probably because it was the first time it happened. The ONLY thing the casino was allowed to do was bar the player for life, which they did.

There is NO room for "spirit of" and "intent behind" arguments in court. It the term AS WRITTEN, and if it is written with a level of ambiguity, the interpretation will be in favour of the more vulnerable party, which in business Vs consumer cases usually means in favour of the consumer.

Casinos don't expect this kind of issue to be taken to the courts, but with the lack of proper regulation this is bound to start happening eventually. The recent Betfair fiasco might be the issue that propels this kind of thing into the domain of toe courts, and victories by players in what seemed "hopeless" cases will mean casinos will NEVER get this particular "genie back in the bottle". It will be a GOOD thing, because it will force casinos to consider consumer protection laws PROPERLY when putting together terms and conditions that more or less currently give the casinos unfettered discretion to rule ANY player to be "violating the rules", with the player having only the likes of Malta's LGA to fight their corner.

 

[GrandMaster]

Fact: I'm just telling you like it is. The guy failed to inform us that he was already enrolling in his graduate studies. He never planned on or is doing anything else but participating in full time education. He's a student.

Try to consider this: if the casino had a clause that stated "Students Only" and refused to pay this guy based on your "facts" that he is not a student, there would be an uproar from everyone including me because it is pretty clear he falls into the category of participating in full time education = a student.

There is no bait and switch here - I have no idea why you feel that comment is adding anything to the discussion.

I disagree. Once a student starts his degree, he remains a student until the end of the semester in which he satisfies the requirements for graduation or until he ceases to be a student, for example, because he withdraws or he fails his exams. If after graduation, he decided to continue studying, he won't be considered a student until he starts the new programme, even if he continues at the same institution. Basically, if someone gets his undergraduate degree in July and then starts a graduate programme in September, he is not a student in August. The university certainly won't consider him a student.

Another example: let's say your homeowner's insurance expired in November and you took out another policy which will only start in January, but in the meanwhile your house got burgled in December. Would the insurance company pay up just because you were insured last month and you will be insured next month?

 

[skiny]

I don't even think the issue is if Danl is, was or will ever be a student and I don't think the issue is whether or not the term is fair or vague. The issue is that Danl will be a student when it suits people and won't be when it doesn't.

People see things the way they want to see them and sometimes through intellectual debate, heated argument or a knock on the head they might be swayed to see things in another light but that just isn't going to happen here.

Some people (or casinos) seem to think they will lose face to side against an issue and then be convinced their decision was unfair or unethical. Some don't understand that it's already happened in the eyes of many and the only way to regain respect and reputation is to admit to being wrong. This should have been done about 25 pages ago but like I said, people will see things the way they want to see them and now the damage has been done. The reputation lost, the accounts have been and will be closed.

Is it really so important that a casino remain stubborn in the face of such a large group of players and potential players that it will watch them close accounts and potential players refuse to ever play there just to maintain that their decision was right? Apparently it is. And apparently the high road of paying the player AND THEN changing the term to guarantee the same thing doesn't happen in the future is simply out of the question.

Surely any reputable casino would agree that the very fact that the term needs to be changed means it cannot be used to deny a payment. Apparently this casino doesn't agree. And apparently this is no longer a reputable casino because of it.

An honest casino would look at the term as it is written from the player's point of view and apply it accordingly and then change it if need be to suit the casino. A fair casino would not ask that players read the terms and then expect them to be viewed from the casino's perspective. But maybe we ask too much. Maybe we're victims of our own desire. We want to believe that the casinos we believe to be fair, honest and reputable will look out for our interests in times like these. Times when basic misunderstandings happen between what the casino means and the player thinks.

Read an understand the terms, we are told. When in reality we are expected to read them and then somehow know how they might be applied even if the application makes no sense to us.

And here we are again. Questioning why an online casino requires a 10 to 20 point list of terms and conditions just to let us make a deposit and spin a slot machine. Questioning why a casino is withholding a withdrawal for violation of one of these terms that the player is clearly entitled to. Questioning if any of this is really worth the time and effort just to spin those slots.

Sometimes I wonder if these casinos even want us to play there.

 

[ksech]

CWC needs to step up to the plate and do the right thing here, "pay the graduate please" as NASHVEGAS before stated. Also, how many players have been members with CWC PRIOR to 2007, when the term was added in? Will CWC be willing to reimburse those players deposits, who can produce PROOF they have been a student any time from 2007 to present day? Since CWC isn't willing to back down on this situation, it only seems right that others, although unbeknownst to them due to the addition of this term, receive the same option of having their deposits returned.

If the casino is so determined to "protect" the student, then the casino needs to protect ALL the students and return ALL deposits. Otherwise the
term is biased and only "protecting" the casino.

Even though there has been past statements of "fast payouts", "fast and courteous CSR", these are NOT the type of statements new and old players will be looking at in the future. For those still willing to play with this group, are YOU willing to take the chance of some ambiguous term suddenly appearing hidden deep in the mumbo jumbo of the general T&Cs? Having to constantly reread the terms to make sure you aren't in some type of "violation"?

I don't think I have ever done more than play a free chip at maybe High Noon and Lucky Red, but I too will be closing out those accounts if they aren't already from being "dormant" accounts.

This is blindsiding the loyal players they have established, something to be expected from one of Virtuals' group...

 

[greasemonkey]

If the casino is so determined to "protect" the student, then the casino needs to protect ALL the students and return ALL deposits. Otherwise the
term is biased and only "protecting" the casino.

I am so incredibly sick of this LIE. If these casinos ever wanted to protect BOTH the player and the casino they would do a complete and thorough check of all documents and anything else they demanded BEFORE they accepted deposits. It is such a bold faced lie that it makes me sick to hear they still try and pass that off.

 

[Webzcas]

I am so incredibly sick of this LIE. If these casinos ever wanted to protect BOTH the player and the casino they would do a complete and thorough check of all documents and anything else they demanded BEFORE they accepted deposits. It is such a bold faced lie that it makes me sick to hear they still try and pass that off.

Actually the resources required to do this are considerable. You also aren't vetted walking into a land based casino before you play.

That said if I was Dani I would be extremely unhappy.

 

[anniemac]

I don't know what it would take for an online casino to verify a player before depositing but I have to think that the problem lies with the fact that the player would not be depositing while the verification process is being done.

The casino, not just CWC, needs to weigh the outcome. Seems to me that a few disgruntled potential depositors having to wait would bet alot of PO'd players and bad press when a casino refuses to pay.

As far as B&M casinos vetting players, the ones I have been to check ID's if you don't look 21. My daughter is 35 and still gets carded each time she goes in one. Would be a compliment to me.