Club World USA -- Proof of Full Time Employment?

[vinylweatherman]

Okay, what's to stop ANY casino from requiring "extended account verification" when they don't wish to grant a withdrawal? All they would have to say to the player is.. "Due to iffy verification, we now require PROOF of full-time employment." Again I ask, what is considered full-time employment?

How many players would/can lose out if they are required to provide proof of full-time employment? OR what if you were employed full-time when you signed up, but you work a seasonal job and are unemployed for X months of the year? And you happen to be on unemployment when you get your "windfall". What happens then?

So, has it come down to... a player needs to copy/paste/save a copy of the general AND bonus T&Cs when they sign up? So, IF they happen to win and the casino decides they don't want to pay, the player can go back and say... "Well, here are the T&Cs from when I signed up. There isn't any FU clause written here..." It all becomes a lot of BS just to have some "fun" time.

It happens anyway. Many players are asked for extended verification. The thing is, there is NO CONSISTENCY between different casinos, which clearly indicates that some are getting it wrong. It's black & white really, your documents are fake or genuine - there really is no middle ground when it comes to FACT. The lack of consistency is down to individual casinos NOT being in tune with each other when it comes to verifying documents. This leads to the conclusion that OPINION, rather than FACT, drives the decision whether to pay a player or not. The problem for players is that most regulatory jurisdictions are not there to protect players, they are there to rake in licensing fees by attracting casinos to their shores by competing to offer the LOWEST levels of "interfering regulation" to prospective clients. Those jurisdictions that take player protection seriously end up with few clients. Look how many casinos flocked to Malta, rather than any of the other white list jurisdictions. Was this because Malta was the most robust protector of player interests?

Just like the US government is babysitting our wallets....GEESH next thing ya know lawmakers will be knocking on doors with baby wipes to make sure we took care of wiping our asses well enough and didnt leave anything drag race.....I dont think the casinos need to babysit us too.

I am also a fulltime student (getting another masters in business admin)and have played there and lost a lot too...does that mean i get a refund?

It's a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". The industry are up in arms at the "babysitting" attitude of the US authorities that has lead to them being squeezed out of offering ADULTS their services. Now some CASINOS have taken it upon themselves to start "babysitting" ADULTS who are old enough to gamble, but who the casino decides cannot afford to, not even through limiting their overall deposit volumes.

Then, the approach is inconsistent, they DON'T protect some groups, but DO protect others. Some of the groups they DON'T protect are even LESS able to afford to gamble than the groups they DO protect.

If the casino stands by their T&C of no full-time students, then yes you should be getting a refund. Although, since they have interpreted the term to benefit them, you may not benefit from it as they may say you are over the 18-21 age group, which the term is NOT explicit on.

Try it, it will clarify this term once and for all.

If they refuse, they will prove that they confiscate winnings from students, but do not so easily refund losses.


The main issue for CW is that they are trying to police one term by demanding proof of compliance with a DIFFERENT criteria altogether. The term states "no full time students", yet is policed by demanding "proof of full time employment".
Like myself, I am NEITHER a student, NOR in full time employment. There may be MANY players like this, for example "homemakers", partners where their "other half" is the breadwinner for the family, and they stay at home for the kids, and to run the house. Certainly not students, BUT although technically "working full time", the post of "homemaker" doesn't come with a contract of employment, salary, tax deduction form, etc. This could even be the MAJORITY of their players, and THEY are probably playing with "pocket money" supplied by their working partner, or even by the state.

Full time students can STILL spend that $50 though, just not at CW group casinos. MOST casinos are only concerned with age and ID, very few ask about occupation & income. This could change though, and maybe we will see more casinos using credit checks and assessment of circumstances for their players. It is important that this assessment is done BEFORE the players lose a fortune in the casino, after all, it is about PROTECTING such players FROM being able to lose money they cannot afford.

The registration process SHOULD ask ALL relevant questions that might indicate whether a player is allowed to play. If students are not allowed, then that question must be asked upon registration, and the truthful player WILL get the protection they need as they will not be able to open an account. The casino is NOT going to lose any customers it actually WANTS either, only those customers it doesn't want will be rejected.

 

[skiny]

Of course this is all under the assumption or belief that the casinos have these terms and conditions to protect the players. Personally I don't think any casino is out to protect anyone but themselves.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that very few casinos will even blink twice as long as you're losing. You could spend 8 years in medical school and gamble every weekend with no questions asked as long as you never attempt to make a withdrawal. The very fact that problems almost never arise unless someone does try to make a withdrawal is a pretty good indication that the casino is really only looking out for itself.

This is all fine and dandy as long as the operate in a fair and honest manner. The problem comes when the line is crossed from protecting yourself from fraud to protecting yourself from paying withdrawals.

Economic status MIGHT be a valid reason not to let people gamble at your casino but it certainly isn't a reason not to pay when they win. If you were truly concerned about a player's ability to afford to lose you would be trying to keep that player from losing in the first place not reneging on payment when the player finally manages to win. A student might be putting his entertainment allowance into an online casino on a weekly basis for months before winning something. The money the student finally wins could be used to buy something expensive like books, a much needed computer upgrade or even pay next year's tuition yet it seems to be the casino's opinion that reneging on that larger payment and handing back the smaller deposits would better benefit the player? Seems to me that this seemingly new found excuse not to honor a withdrawal really only benefits the casino.

If any casino is going to ban players on economic grounds whether it be students, part time employees or people in between jobs it should be at the top of the terms and conditions in bold "This casino does not honor withdrawals submitted by poor people."

I wonder if this casino is aware of the fact that many full time students have more spending money than some people who are working 3 jobs.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Of course this is all under the assumption or belief that the casinos have these terms and conditions to protect the players. Personally I don't think any casino is out to protect anyone but themselves.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that very few casinos will even blink twice as long as you're losing. You could spend 8 years in medical school and gamble every weekend with no questions asked as long as you never attempt to make a withdrawal. The very fact that problems almost never arise unless someone does try to make a withdrawal is a pretty good indication that the casino is really only looking out for itself.

This is all fine and dandy as long as the operate in a fair and honest manner. The problem comes when the line is crossed from protecting yourself from fraud to protecting yourself from paying withdrawals.

Economic status MIGHT be a valid reason not to let people gamble at your casino but it certainly isn't a reason not to pay when they win. If you were truly concerned about a player's ability to afford to lose you would be trying to keep that player from losing in the first place not reneging on payment when the player finally manages to win. A student might be putting his entertainment allowance into an online casino on a weekly basis for months before winning something. The money the student finally wins could be used to buy something expensive like books, a much needed computer upgrade or even pay next year's tuition yet it seems to be the casino's opinion that reneging on that larger payment and handing back the smaller deposits would better benefit the player? Seems to me that this seemingly new found excuse not to honor a withdrawal really only benefits the casino.

If any casino is going to ban players on economic grounds whether it be students, part time employees or people in between jobs it should be at the top of the terms and conditions in bold "This casino does not honor withdrawals submitted by poor people."

I wonder if this casino is aware of the fact that many full time students have more spending money than some people who are working 3 jobs.

It IS right at the top with CW. If you read the terms, it's pretty hard to miss. The problem is that many people don't read the terms for anything, they just "expect them to be fair". In many cases, terms that turn out to be unfair can be struck out by a court, or a regulator. It happens frequently here in the UK. The fact that a customer ticks "I agree" without really understanding what they have agreed to simply does not wash when regulators rule that the terms were unfair to start with. Many ordinary people believe they are protected automatically from unfair terms, forgetting that in the world of the internet this is often NOT the case due to the companies not being based in the country, but in another with different rules.

Any enforcement of terms has to be even handed. IF winnings are confiscated because someone should never have been allowed to play in the first place, then ALL bets should be cancelled, thus losers refunded and banned, since this is effectively what happens when a winner has their winnings confiscated and just their deposits returned.

Enforcement must also be ACCURATE. If the terms are NOT breached, payment must be made. The casinos are also required to make reasonable efforts to prevent breaches, NOT just sit back and check only when a player has won.

 

[zanzibar]

I wonder if this casino is aware of the fact that many full time students have more spending money than some people who are working 3 jobs.

Of course, which is why it has nothing to do with player protection but casino protection.

Think about it, students at university are generally above average intelligence. A couple of them find out about bonus whoring and +EV bonuses and how to use them to their advantage. They make a tidy profit, then tell their mates who tell their mates. The original ones set up an affiliate website or two, word gets round and suddenly the casinos are inundated with advantage players all from the same area - possibly even same IP address if using computers behind the same university server or proxy.

They get caned when the players win, and pay commissions to the affiliates when they lose. So they blanket ban students, just like they blanket ban entire countries all the time. It even allows a nice cover story of being concerned for the poor students' welfare.

It is their casino and they can accept or refuse who they like, but it would be nice if they were honest about why even if they used the tired old "bonus abuse" chestnut.

 

[The Dude]

Well, we're finally getting through this one, unfortunately it wasn't as clear cut as initially thought. This is one of the reasons it's taken a while to find closure.

As we know, the player was an active student before he played, but he is an active student now. He had finished his undergraduate studies, but he was enrolled and awaiting to begin his graduate courses. It's the same school, and I believe he's in the same dorm. When he played at Aladdins, it was during his summer break.

By his own admission, he did not mention that he was scheduled to begin graduate studies in September because he was afraid the casino would take a hardlined approach to this. It seems to me that he may have overlooked the "no students" clause when signing up. He knew full well in July that he was pursuing a graduate degree in the fall, so I find some of his statements a little misleading.

Now we can debate whether or not those eight weeks qualify as someone being a student since he was in-between programs. But if he's attending the same school, not working, and living (I presume) in the same dorm, then what is he? I would say a student.

The player feels that those eight weeks negate his student status. The casino maintains that the player is still in full time education - that the "no student" clause clearly applies to Danl. At this point, I really can't see how it does not.

 

[jelsmith]

If he took out student loans they would say "no he is not" during the 8weeks...in fact any student that is on summer break is not a student according to the good ole federal loan program. I can attest to this myself.

 

[The Dude]

...I am the player affected by the issue which has been so effectively summarised by Steve. I cannot really add anything further to his post...

Umm, it would have been nice of you to have told us then that you were still a full time student.

Supposition: Keeping Dan L's $7000 in winnings not only did nothing to protect either him or actual students, but it allowed Aladdin's Gold to laugh all the way to the bank.

I don't think anyone is laughing to the bank. You're making it seem as though Aladdin's made off with $7K when in fact the winnings were zeroed out and the player was given his deposits back. The only one with money in the proverbial bank is the player.

 

[anniemac]

Just to add to Jelsmith's posst. The VA doesn't classify a vet a student unless they are actually enrolled in and attending classes. They won't pay the housing stipend for the time between semesters at Xmas or during the summer. Unless you are actually attending classes, you aren't classified as a student.

So what would the clarification be if I went back to school full time. I am close to 60, haven't worked in nearly 13 years, have an income, but if I went back to school fulltime, would I be able to play at CW?

 

[jelsmith]

I agree Annie....Im a full time grad student but work fulltime so what am I? Ive played there for a long time.

 

[Pulver]

I have said it before, and I say it again. Is this what this industry has come too? Nit picking and lawyer-reading of T&C?

If clubworld was so interested in protecting students they would prohibit students from signing up in the first place, and if they were so concerned with students economy they would pay th player so that he could pay off his student loans.

All Clubworld is trying to do here, IMO! is to increase (save) their net result with $7k. And you have to be blind and naive, IMO!, to think otherwise.

This industry is about nothing else than money, and to think that Casinos are motivated by something else than profit is absurd.

The casino took the wager, they should pay the player. IMO!

Huset fanger alltid tilslutt - The house always wins.

 

[ksech]

@jelsmith and anniemac...
This has been why, I believe, the casino will win each and every time. The caino has not stepped up to the plate to clarify this loosely written term. It doesn't state how old you need to be if you are a full-time student. It states...
1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.

By THEIR term, both of you would chance having your winnings voided because you are full-time students and have violated the T&Cs of the contract you agreed to when you checked that little "I agree to terms and conditions" box.


add: I have a friend who is currently working on his 3rd doctorate and he will be 63 next year. He has NEVER held a job outside the university. He has earned his money through tutoring and is fortunate enough to have a wife with an above average income to support them. So, would this term exclude him from playing at the casino?

 

[anniemac]

ksech,

My question was hypothetical. I'm not a student but my son is a vet going to college. That's why I know about how they classify students thru the VA.

 

[vinylweatherman]

@jelsmith and anniemac...
This has been why, I believe, the casino will win each and every time. The caino has not stepped up to the plate to clarify this loosely written term. It doesn't state how old you need to be if you are a full-time student. It states...
1. The Player is at least 18 years of age or has reached the legal age of maturity in his/her jurisdiction, whichever is greater. Full-time Students who are enrolled in a College or University are not permitted to play in the Casino.

By THEIR term, both of you would chance having your winnings voided because you are full-time students and have violated the T&Cs of the contract you agreed to when you checked that little "I agree to terms and conditions" box.

This case HAS clarified it. It turns out to be a TOTAL ban on students, undergraduate, graduate, mature, retired, etc.

DanL finished his undergraduate course, what most of us would consider being a student. However, he went on to enroll for a higher degree, perhaps a Masters degree. Strictly speaking, he would no longer be considered a dependent on his parents, as he would likely have been at age 18 - 21.

This is TRULY one hell of a technicality, since DanL chose to study the higher degree at the same establishment after the summer break. He could just as easily have chosen a different university.

However, if you say THIS summer break means you are not a student for 8 weeks, what about the other 2 summer breaks, the Easter breaks, and the Christmas breaks. Although you are away for these periods, you are STILL enrolled in your course.

The case for DanL might be different though, although he enrolled to start graduate courses after the summer, he was NOT actually enrolled DURING that summer, because one course had finished, and the graduate course had not begun. It is similar to the other player who registered, but could not take up his place that Autumn, and had to delay his studies for a further year. This player WAS paid by CW, even though he HAD enrolled in a course starting the FOLLOWING Autumn.

This term will continue to cause problems because of how being a student is defined differently whether you are CW casinos, the college, or the government. The government would say DanL is NOT a student between graduating, and starting a graduate course in the Autumn. This is because there are different arrangements, and legal definitions, between undergraduate studies, and post graduate studies, where sometimes a small "salary" can be paid, or some form of sponsorship obtained.

There is even a THIRD set of studies that can be undertaken, for a Phd. Phd "students" are often "career students", devoting their working lives to further study and research, and often give lectures. They may never get a "proper job", always working at the university.

From this case, I would say this term means ANY full time student, not just those doing the traditional Batchelor degree between age 18 and 21. It would include those returning to do a full time course at ANY age, and you would be considered a student at CW throughout the time of enrollment, even if you are on a break from the studies, such as a summer holiday, or even a "gap year", in fact ANY break where you were due to resume the studies at a future date.

It also seems to confirm this is NOT about "protecting students who are still dependent on their parents", it IS about protecting the CASINO from the students, probably because they can conspire with each other, and are much cleverer than the average player. Playing from the campus also makes it hard for the casino's snooping software to figure out multiple accounts, fraud, etc; because of the way the internet is set up as a shared resource on campus, and the ease of access to multiple, shared, computers.

I'll bet many campuses have an "online gambling society" alongside the many other clubs and societies on offer. When I studied in 1979, there were many of these clubs, and some were pretty odd.

I also bet DanL DIDN'T read the terms, and fought a defensive action when he discovered the term was there, leading to him being "economical with the truth" about plans for the Autumn.

Now, I expect students who LOST to get treated the same, their LOSSES confiscated, and deposits returned, and their accounts closed.

Although the term is fine as it stands, it needs some "plain English" examples of situations where someone might think they are OK, but would STILL be considered a student as far as CW are concerned, such as "gap year", enrolled for a new course following graduation, post graduate studies (Masters, Phd), "mature" students who embark on a full time course later in life.

There is also a need to catch students BEFORE they have managed to deposit and play through several thousand dollars. This could be done by adding some screening questions in the registration process designed to flag those who might be students, who can then be contacted to clarify the situation before they are allowed to deposit.

 

[P.V.]

It's been interesting watching this unfold.

I seem to remember that the player provided proof of his diploma and that he had graduated before playing online. If that's the case his diploma would provide completion. The diploma being proof certifying the completion of study that is.

It would be interesting to know if in fact the player was still living at the same dorm. Normally student housing will not let you stay in a dorm for summer break unless you're registered for coursework. Most cases you must leave.

I don't see how being enrolled for future classes would qualify you as a student because it's before the fact and hasn't happened yet.

I think the biggest mistake was providing a student ID, probably just wasn't thinking when doing so.

MO

 

[Nifty29]

CM is right when he says the OP should have been more upfront from the get-go.....it is always easier to solve issues when all the facts are known.

IMO there should be some common sense employed here. The main issue is that Danl claims he is not a student because he has completed one course of study and is waiting to start another course at the same venue. I am not sure how US authorities view this, but over here you are considered a 'continuing student' and therefor eligible to stay in your dorm - since the OP continues to live in the same dorm, it would seem to suggest that venue still considers him a 'student' of some kind. i.e. I don't see them allowing a non-student to stay.

Now, from a common sense approach, consider this situation:

You are at a party/in a bar/on a date etc, and someone asks you "So, what do you do for a living?". I know if I were in danl's shoes, I would answer "I'm a student". I mean, you wouldn't say "Well I was a student 2 weeks ago, and now I'm nothing at all, but in 4 weeks I will be a student again", would you? Surely you would consider yourself a student given that your studies were continuing?

Now before some of you go jumping in and calling me a 'casino apologist' (or whatever the latest term is for someone who doesn't take every complainants' word as gospel), I don't believe for a second that the whole student banning rule has anything to do with social responsibility. Not for a millisecond. I have worked in Government and Ive seen and heard the spin being whipped up, and (IMO) the CW stance is purely a result of being taken down by some student groups who play smart and share their methods. I don't understand why CW don't just say "No students" and leave it at that - no casino has to explain why they don't want a particular kind of customer, they are free to choose who they allow to gamble at their casino.

If CW truly has a social conscience as they claim, then all players who deposit more than $100 in a week should have to submit proof that all their bills have been paid, their mortgage/rent is up to date, and that their children are well fed and clothed. I am 100% certain that many marriages, houses, and family relationships have gone down the gurgler as a result of problem gambling at online casinos like CW......but for goodness sake, don't allow those adult students to waste any of their cash!! After all, how are they going to pay for their drugs and booze?? It would be a disaster if they were to blow their huge salaries on the slots!!

Sorry, but if they are smart enough to be at college, they are smart enough to decide where and how they spend their money.

I have always been a supporter of CW, and I believe in classifying danl as a student they got it right - however, when it comes to the student ban itself and the reasons provided, they got it wrong.

 

[LHofsdal]

When I was in college over 20 years ago, I went to school full time, and worked full time. I went for retail management and fashion merchandise and design and minored in advertising .Part of my requirements for graduating was to work in the retail field. I had to to that all 4 years of college.

I paid my own bills, my own rent and had moved out on my own at the age of 17. Even though I was a full time student, I still worked and got paid. I had my own checking account, my own credit cards, my own electric bills etc.

Now with that being said, what if a student was doing the same thing as I did, would they still not be able to play because of the fact they are enrolled in school? Now during breaks I worked and went home to see my parents and friends. I still lived in the same apartment all during breaks and summer vacations. My parents didn't send me money, because I wouldn't take it. I made my own living and when I started making my own living I was 17.

Even though I was in school, I also was employed full time. What about all the people that have been laid off and are in their 30's and 40's that went back to school? Can they not play because they are in school and collecting umemployment? A part of me feels like this maybe a catch 22 situation.

What if someone was an apprentice? Isn't that being a student? Your still learning the field and getting educated. What the casino needs to do here is clarify what they mean by using the term "student". And all the situations that use the term "student" needs to be defined.

Maybe Danl should have been more upfront with this casino, but graduating and getting a diploma means that part of his education was done. If he was enrolled in the next semester to start another degree, the school would not consider him a full time student until the semester started. He was living in the dorm, so what, he could have been living with his parents when he went to school, and still living with them during his summer break.

It would be a different story if he was taking summer classes. At this point I don't see any indication that he was. I could be wrong, here. Does anyone know if he was taking summer classes? If that is the case then the whole situation changes.

LH

 

[justymich]

This is exactly what i have asked a couple times on this thread already. Can CW chime in and give us exactly what that term means? LH you said what if a person is in their 30 or 40's and returned to school because they are unemployed. This is exactly my situation, i had a great job, making great money, however i live in Michigan and the economy here is the worst in the nation. I was laid off a year ago, and have been collecting the max unemployment. Last august i returned to school, i figured well, i'm collecting unemployment, their are no jobs here, i might as well do something with my time. So i've been attending school for special education of autism impaired children. I am 32 years old, pay my own bills, don't receive support from anyone other than my unemployment which i rightfully worked several years for. Am i ineligible to play at club world? I joined CW prior to being laid off or joining school, so in my case i'm sure i overlooked that term of NO students since it didn't apply to me at the time. I play their quite often, i'm wondering, if i had been able to cashout, would i have been denied as well?

Secondly, i mean, i've deposited well into the thousands with them over the course of the last year. All that lost money just gets under my skin now, since i realize had i won i probably wouldn't have been paid anyway

Really wish CW would pop into the forums and give us an exact explanation of this term so us "Non-traditional" students would know if our deposits were welcomed there. Until then, i won't be depositing anymore of my money with them.

Justy

 

[maxd]

Really wish CW would pop into the forums and give us an exact explanation of this term so us "Non-traditional" students would know if our deposits were welcomed there.

My understanding is that there is a re-vamp of the "student" clause being discussed. If and when that will actually appear in the Terms I couldn't say.

 

[danl]

Hi,

It seems like this is the end of the road for my case so I feel like I ought to clarify some facts, although I understand you might be skeptical based on my previous omissions.

At least it will allow you to continue the debate with the correct facts, although I'm not sure they are the facts that CM and Aladdin's Gold have based their decision on (so I guess they're almost irrelevant).


Anyway... I'm not at the same school, and I'm not in dorms. I graduated from university in the summer, where I was in student accommodation. I'm now studying for the Graduate Diploma in Law, and I'm not at a regular university for this course.

I'm living in a regular apartment with two friends who I graduated with and who are working. I'm paying council tax which I would be exempt from if I was only living with students. Student loans aren't available for my course.


Thanks to Bryan and Max for their assistance and patience with my case.

 

[vinylweatherman]

My understanding is that there is a re-vamp of the "student" clause being discussed. If and when that will actually appear in the Terms I couldn't say.

I hope this clarifies all the grey areas that have been brought up. Until then, we should take the term as written, which is the widest definition of student. Anyone who is studying, however non-traditional, should get a written ruling on their particular circumstances before depositing.

Any existing player who is told they ARE a student by the CW definition of the term would never have been able to win, so would be due their deposits back in order to "protect them" from gambling away all their money needed to support them through their studies.

 

[danl]

As a side point relating to people saying things about how the casino can always win with vague terms, these terms may not always stand up in law.

For example, if a casino is licensed in Malta then it must adhere to the Consumer Affairs Act 1994:

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

.

Under s42(2)(s), any term "giving the trader the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract" is invalid - so the casino can't just say "our decision is final" in their terms and rely on that in the eyes of the law.

Under s47(2) "where any term is ambivalent or any doubt arises about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail" - so if the term is vague, then it probably won't apply.

I don't want to make this post too long, but Section 45 discusses further about what an unfair term is, and how such terms are assessed.

Following an

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

in 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, all

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

will have similar legislation.

Good luck to others in their disputes.

 

[Steve Russo]

Supposition: Keeping Dan L's $7000 in winnings not only did nothing to protect either him or actual students, but it allowed Aladdin's Gold to laugh all the way to the bank.

I don't think anyone is laughing to the bank. You're making it seem as though Aladdin's made off with $7K when in fact the winnings were zeroed out and the player was given his deposits back. The only one with money in the proverbial bank is the player.

Sorry, but we disagree on this point. What you are saying would be true if the casino -- any casino -- verified a player's status after he lost money and then returned it if he was not eligible to play.

That, of course, does not happen. Casinos verify the status of winners only.

You and I (and anyone else with a drop of sense) knows that the odds are set up for casinos to win. There is nothing wrong with that and it is the only way that they can remain in business. Yes, an individual player may be a winner, but his winnings will be offset by the losses of other players.

By verifying the bona fides of winners only, the casino negates a portion of its losses but none of its winnings. That is why it is fair to say that it was laughing all the way to the bank with the $7000.

Again, let me ask a question which I posed earlier in this thread. Let's assume here that all the facts were the same but that the player had lost, not won, the $7000.

At that point, he tells the casino that he was not eligible to play because he is a full time student. He presents, as proof, a student ID card which had expired before he played. The casino also sees his diploma, again showing that he graduated before he played.

Do you believe that the casino would have announced that his wagering was invalid and returned his $7000? Call me a skeptic, but I do not.

Then, to further his case, he tells the casino that it is true that he was not studying when he played but that he plans to continue his education in two months by going for a law degree.

Do you really think that the casino would have given him his money back at that point or would it have kept to its T&Cs and said that only full time students are ineligible -- not people who were such students in the recent past and will become students again in the future?

 

[ksech]

Well, some of the issues are more clear to me. It would be in the best interest of anyone who is currently playing at Club World and have gone back to school, to make sure they are still eligible to play without voiding the "I agree to the terms and conditions" contract. It would be a shame, especially in today's world where there are so many people unemployed and have gone back to school, to find out they aren't eligible to receive winnings because of the student clause.

Wouldn't it just be easier for the casino to change their age requirement from 18 to 21? It would seem they were experiencing difficulty with this age group, hence the loosely interpreted term. Since this case (thread) has had so many readers and posters, I would think it would be in the best interest for the casino to come on board and make a contribution explaining how they are going to deal with this issue so it doesn't happen again.

If they want to keep their player base, they need to be truthful and upfront. Any player now, should feel threatened based on the way the casino deals with each individual aspect of the general terms and conditions. AND every player should go BACK and reread the general T&Cs to make sure present situations can't/won't be used against them if they should happen to win. And this doesn't apply to JUST this group, it should be ANY/ALL online casinos you currently play at.

IMO, just reading the bonus T&Cs (which most often will send you BACK to the GENERAL T&Cs) is asking for trouble. It doesn't appear too many online casinos review or edit their T&Cs very often themselves. But, it will be that singular term which could affect whether or not you can collect your winnings.

We take for granted, when we click on that little box, that the casino won't be dishonest. There's a lot of reading, and IMO, the casinos are HOPING the average joe will skip over them BECAUSE of all the reading. Who wants to be reading all that stuff when you could be playing, right? Maybe this will be a wake up call for some and will save them a ton of stress/heartache...

 

[hakapuku]

I hope this clarifies all the grey areas that have been brought up. Until then, we should take the term as written, which is the widest definition of student. Anyone who is studying, however non-traditional, should get a written ruling on their particular circumstances before depositing.

Any existing player who is told they ARE a student by the CW definition of the term would never have been able to win, so would be due their deposits back in order to "protect them" from gambling away all their money needed to support them through their studies.

That is my case exactly. I was a student when losing 500 usd one month ago at Club World. How soon will they pay me my deposit back? I need that money for my studies asap.

 

[Pulver]

I suggest you PAB and attach the relevant documentation. This case has shown that if a student is to play at CWC all play is voided and their deposit is to be returned. Good luck.

 

[jelsmith]

WOW....since im getting a second masters I bet they WONT be refunding the thousands I have spent there.........cause Ive never been able cashout so I guess they will just turn a blind eye to that and keep my money....

 

[justymich]

To be honest, this whole situation just has me irked. I think it would be hilarious if all "Students" playing at the CW group went and demanded all their deposits they made be returned to them. I bet this term would be changed on the T&C's so fast! Quick everyone get to faxing them your student IDs, lol just kidding

 

[NASHVEGAS]

And the "Contractual Aspects of Gaming" which can be defined for the layperson as simple legal contractual terms between the casinos and its' subject patrons whereby when "bets are laid, a winning bet in favor of the subject patrons are paid in full", ((and "paid in full" does not equate to periodic monetary installments whereby the patrons are subject to the involuntary capitalizing with the greatest of possible risks, an unregulated online casino or casinos)) are once again ignored and hereby superceded by the "heads I win, tails you lose" as well as the paradoxical, predatory, and illegal and/or unfair Terms and Conditions.

Basic double-entry bookkeeping also does not seem to apply or is somehow ignored at least per Bryan's flawed subject post. What is the basis for Bryan's (and Club World's as well) multiple flaws? AFAIC, Club World , iirc the amount , has a $7000.00 Accounts Payable to danl and danl has $7000 Accounts Receivable from Club World in the past and at present.

 

[rockycatt]

this isn't looking very good from here actually people with out jobs gamble all the time here legally , and full time students buy lottery tickets all day and go to the horse races and casinos

so student thingy dont cut the mustard

 

[skiny]

I think it's pretty straight forward at this point. Anyone who has proof they played at Club World while studying full time gets a full refund.

Maybe one of these students needs to set up a sort of class action and start taking names through social networking, maybe set up a web page.

Is there a clause in the agreement that states this rule is only for winning players? I think an exact interpretation of the agreement is needed.

 

[PenDragyn21]

I think it's pretty straight forward at this point. Anyone who has proof they played at Club World while studying full time gets a full refund.

Maybe one of these students needs to set up a sort of class action and start taking names through social networking, maybe set up a web page.

Is there a clause in the agreement that states this rule is only for winning players? I think an exact interpretation of the agreement is needed.

You forgot to add one thing: If you won while studying full time you need to give all your winnings back as well.

Natasha

 

[jelsmith]

You forgot to add one thing: If you won while studying full time you need to give all your winnings back as well.

Natasha

No there shouldnt be any student winners...they should have all been confiscated just like Dan.

 

[PenDragyn21]

No there shouldnt be any student winners...they should have all been confiscated just like Dan.

So you're saying their system is airtight no student winners ever managed to get paid accidentally? Also according others, CWC normal policies on these matters was, unless their was fraud, they either paid up or refunded deposits but then said don't do it again.

Natasha

 

[jelsmith]

That was sarcasm someone get me a napkin sarcasm just drips outta my mouth

 

[PenDragyn21]

No there shouldnt be any student winners...they should have all been confiscated just like Dan.

That was sarcasm someone get me a napkin sarcasm just drips outta my mouth

My bad. Here's a napkin. I saw the blood and didn't realize it was just Kayro syrup and red food dye.

 

[skiny]

You forgot to add one thing: If you won while studying full time you need to give all your winnings back as well.

Natasha

If you won keep your name off the list.

 

[The Dude]

Anyway... I'm not at the same school, and I'm not in dorms. I graduated from university in the summer, where I was in student accommodation. I'm now studying for the Graduate Diploma in Law, and I'm not at a regular university for this course...

Sorry - my fault. I misread the statement where you named the schools you're attending. But unfortunately, it doesn't change the situation too much.

Now, from a common sense approach, consider this situation:

You are at a party/in a bar/on a date etc, and someone asks you "So, what do you do for a living?". I know if I were in danl's shoes, I would answer "I'm a student". I mean, you wouldn't say "Well I was a student 2 weeks ago, and now I'm nothing at all, but in 4 weeks I will be a student again", would you? Surely you would consider yourself a student given that your studies were continuing?

This is how I'm seeing it. Danl's status or situation had not changed. He was and is a student.

Now it seems there are a number of issues spinning around in this thread, I should have split it some time ago since there are several debates going on. The debate that I'm trying to put to rest here is whether or not Danl was a student when he played. I believe he would be defined as such and in my opinion that debate it pretty much dead in the water since no one has given a viable counter argument.

As for the rest of the activity in this thread, all of these hypothetical situations and speculations that are being tossed around are just distracting everyone from the real issue here. Danl's PAB.

I've already expressed to Club World that their student clause needs to be refined since there are too many unanswered issues that stem from it. If a term can be debated then it needs to change. I'm hoping that this term will be defined better in the near future.

 

[skiny]

I've already expressed to Club World that their student clause needs to be refined since there are too many unanswered issues that stem form it. If a term can be debated then it needs to change. I'm hoping that this term will be defined better in the near future.

I agree 100% but once the term is used one time to forfeit a withdrawal, it has to be applied to everyone in the same situation. If it isn't then it was used out of convenience.

This is why casinos have to be very careful about how they use these terms and conditions. Like it or not, not everyone reads these documents at great length and not everyone can even understand them. This is why casinos need questions regarding whether or not you even qualify to play to be part of the account set up process.

Simple check boxes or radio buttons would flag anyone who might not qualify.

Are you over 18 - No. (Red flag, do not continue)
Do you live in X country - Yes. (Red flag, country not allowed. Do not continue)
Have you been enrolled in any classes in the last 12 months or will you be in the next 12 months. - Yes. (Red flag, continue but investigate before allowing deposits.)

Submitting false information on this application will result in account closure. Deposits will not be returned. Click to agree.

Now the player has agreed to very specific terms and has read them before ever making a deposit. If there are any discrepencies the casino has the chance to investigate them before deposits are made and not after withdrawals are attempted.

The way it works now, only players who have won are ever investigated and if the casino is going to deny a withdrawal and return the deposits of one player based on a condition that was apparently misunderstood, everyone else "misunderstanding" this conditon should be given the same benifit.

IMO this falls on the casino. This is where the casino needs to realize people are seeping though the system that shouldn't be playing in the first place. I think the best way for the casino to keep a good face would be to pay the people who won, keep the deposits of the players that lost. It's hard to argue that a casino won't let you play because you breached the terms that you agreed to. You could even be welcome to come back and resubmit the form when you finish school.

And upon realizing that people are playing that shouldn't be, the casino needs to change the method of screening the people playing at their casino. The casino could even ask current players to complete this 60 second form before continuing. How long does it take to click a dozen boxes and submit?

Unless the casino wants people seeping though and making deposits that they don't have to pay if they win.

 

[P.V.]

Sorry - my fault. I misread the statement where you named the schools you're attending. But unfortunately, it doesn't change the situation too much.



This is how I'm seeing it. Danl's status or situation had not changed. He was and is a student.

Now it seems there are a number of issues spinning around in this thread, I should have split it some time ago since there are several debates going on. The debate that I'm trying to put to rest here is whether or not Danl was a student when he played. I believe he would be defined as such and in my opinion that debate it pretty much dead in the water since no one has given a viable counter argument.

As for the rest of the activity in this thread, all of these hypothetical situations and speculations that are being tossed around are just distracting everyone from the real issue here. Danl's PAB.

I've already expressed to Club World that their student clause needs to be refined since there are too many unanswered issues that stem from it. If a term can be debated then it needs to change. I'm hoping that this term will be defined better in the near future.

It should be reworked because the term is ambiguous.

The more I read about this I've changed my opinion based on facts.

Fact one, they graduated, which shows completion of study. No longer a student at least for the time being.

Fact two, they gambled after the date of their diploma showing completion.

Fact three, they left the school and so no longer considered a student. No student benefits, access or valid student ID. You could probably call the school and ask if X was a student after X date and they would say no. If they say yes, don't pay but if they say no, hmm.

Fact four, even though you have registered for future classes at a future date does not solidify this will take place nor does it make you an active student. I could sign up for a course to be held 3 months from now but doesn't mean something won't come up and I can't attend.

Fact five, no suggestion of when the term student ends and again ambiguous. If this person didn't continue with their education, for unknown financial reasons or something beyond their control, when are you no longer a student?

I understand you've made a decision, CW and I understand CW doesn't want students gambling which makes since. This is why your suggestion of a clarification of the terms is in order but until clarification of the terms takes place the player should receive their winnings.

It's a Red Herring to say they need to change their terms but not break down the facts and the facts lean heavily toward the player unless something isn't being shared within this 187+ post thread I've seen.

Bait and switch.

 

[The Dude]

It should be reworked because the term is ambiguous.

The more I read about this I've changed my opinion based on facts.

Fact one, they graduated, which shows completion of study. No longer a student at least for the time being.

Fact two, they gambled after the date of their diploma showing completion.

Fact three, they left the school and so no longer considered a student. No student benefits, access or valid student ID. You could probably call the school and ask if X was a student after X date and they would say no. If they say yes, don't pay but if they say no, hmm.

Fact four, even though you have registered for future classes at a future date does not solidify this will take place nor does it make you an active student. I could sign up for a course to be held 3 months from now but doesn't mean something won't come up and I can't attend.

Fact five, no suggestion of when the term student ends and again ambiguous. If this person didn't continue with their education, for unknown financial reasons or something beyond their control, when are you no longer a student?

I understand you've made a decision, CW and I understand CW doesn't want students gambling which makes since. This is why your suggestion of a clarification of the terms is in order but until clarification of the terms takes place the player should receive their winnings.

It's a Red Herring to say they need to change their terms but not break down the facts and the facts lean heavily toward the player unless something isn't being shared within this 187+ post thread I've seen.

Bait and switch.

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.

 

[CasinoKidd]

I haven't posted here in many, many moons because of my personal decree to no longer online gamble (I haven't). As a student and young gambler, this really touched me.

First off, there is nothing more annoying in my life than what someone tells me what to do. It's not that what they are telling me is not helpful, it's that I want to make decisions for myself. What is wrong with "The Truman Show"? Jim Carrey's character is not complaining about the life he has - a beautiful home, wife, job, community, etc. But the fact of the matter was, he wasn't making the choices in his life, other people were. Forgive the pop culture reference, but as a studying English/Teaching major, I try to break things down into things I know.

I understand the beneficial aspects of telling a student not to gamble. Students have thousands upon thousands of dollars in college debt, are struggling to make ends meat, and have no business risking their money. Digging themselves into a deeper financial hole is absolutely ridiculous. But where does that line stop? Not only should they not be gambling money, but they shouldn't be going on vacations or buying new televisions or other frivolous items, or even spending a large part of their money on alcohol. Are you going to ask the airlines to turn down vacationers, or ask alcohol suppliers to stop selling to college kids?

You just can't tell people what to do with their money. You can tell them the dangers, remind them this is a bad idea, but cannot - EVER - force them to do anything. It's their right to do whatever they want with their money that is legally allowable in their state.

How can an online casino enforce rules that a regular casino would not even think about? If casinos turned away every college student who did not have a full time job, that would result in millions upon millions of dollars in lost revenue. If you actually proposed this idea to a regular casino you would be laughed right out the door.

And aren't college students supposed to be adults anyways? For most, it is their first time living on their own. Give them the responsibility of deciding whether or not they can afford to gamble, and wish them the best of luck. To block them based on their occupational status is downright offensive, in my book.

Okay, time to get personal. I am 21 years and 1 month old, and have been gambling since I was about 5. I stepped into a casino on my 18th birthday and never looked back. In the process, I have lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000 gambling. It's a number that disgusts me in many ways. But that doesn't mean I blame the casino, or think I shouldn't have been allowed to gamble. I knew I was GAMBLING and therefore a loss was very, very possible (and downright probable).

I make money doing online business with video games. I have made my fair share of money, but do not possess full or part-time employment. I am simply self employed, and have no regrets.

I know that as early as 2007-8, I gambled at CWC. I do not recall how much money I lost, but I believe it was approximately 6 deposits of $50 each. I was up on a couple of occasions but played it all back. Are you now telling me that I never had a chance of winning, but if I did win I would have gotten my deposits back? Or more importantly...

Can I have my money back now?

By saying you aren't going to pay students, but let them gamble anyways is not, in my opinion, close to any other form of discrimination that a casino offers. Underage gamblers? It's breaking a law. Multiple accounts? You're an idiot to do that. But judging someone because they are getting an education? That is, in my opinion, offensive.

On behalf of all college students, I offer this word of advice to CWC: We waited years to gamble, and now that we are going to college to improve our lives and just want to have a little fun, you are going tell us we should have not gone to college, dropped out of high school, and gotten a full time job at McDonalds making $7.50 an hour? Then we could have gambled our minimum wage job earnings with you?

Again, I don't think there was malice in the decision to decline students, but there sure was a lot of ignorance, and in my opinion CWC is therefore partially to blame.

Regards,

CasinoKidd

 

[ksech]

Is CWC willing to return ALL the deposits of ALL students who played there? It seems to me that since they denied 1 student his winnings and returned his deposits because of the student clause, then ALL students should "benefit" from this clause also. You can't deny one without denying all in this situation. CWC wants to "protect" students, well then they need to step up and play fair.

This is going to cause every player to rethink playing with them. If they can twist any clause they want to benefit them, who's to say they won't do it again with a different clause/reason. They've shown nothing but prejudice against this person, IMO. They were willing to take his deposits as long as he was losing. Then he wins and all of a sudden he has violated the terms of the contract because he is/was a student.

As I stated /asked before, why not change the term to say persons between the ages of 18-21 cannot play in the casino. They also added in an outlaying area of Toronto as a banned area, is this BECAUSE it's a college town they had problems with? If so, CHANGE the age limit. And as several others have suggested, if age and "status" are a problem, ask before ANY deposits are accepted.

Has anyone who has been a loyal patron of CWC gone back and reread the T&Cs to make sure nothing has changed since your initial signup? Skiny has made a very simple solution...

Simple check boxes or radio buttons would flag anyone who might not qualify.

Are you over 18 - No. (Red flag, do not continue)
Do you live in X country - Yes. (Red flag, country not allowed. Do not continue)
Have you been enrolled in any classes in the last 12 months or will you be in the next 12 months. - Yes. (Red flag, continue but investigate before allowing deposits.)

Submitting false information on this application will result in account closure. Deposits will not be returned. Click to agree.

How difficult would it be to write in this extra blurb upon registration?

CM writes...

As for the rest of the activity in this thread, all of these hypothetical situations and speculations that are being tossed around are just distracting everyone from the real issue here. Danl's PAB.

I, personally, don't think anyone has forgotten the issue of Danl's PAB. I think everyone is concerned that, whether due to outside circumstances which may have caused a person to reenter the "student" climate or is thinking of going back to school, should be wary/leery of playing due to this term. His case stands out as an EXAMPLE of what can happen.

In my opinion, the casino should have issued his winnings amd THEN closed his account to "protect" him from possible future financial ruin or addiction. If he had continued to deposit and lose, I'm sure the casino would NOT return his deposits and would simply just close/lock his account and sweep it under the carpet.

It would be nice if a rep from CWC would chime in and maybe give a hint to HOW they may be rewriting it. And maybe a clarification of THEIR definition of full-time student. And if this reworking will include adults who have elected to go BACK to school, to either improve/expand upon an existing degree, or are seeking to change lines of employment caused by becoming unemployed or having a "mid-life" change of heart of career.

I'm glad to see Glunn11 was able to claim his winnings, and I wish that Danl had been able to collect his too. If the cases for these 2 players had never been brought to light, who knows how many players would have been (could be) screwed over...

 

[Steve Russo]

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.

He also failed to tell me that (and sent me an e-mail afterwards apologizing) but that does not alter the fact that he was not a student when he played.

Upon graduating from college, my daughter took a job working in a day care center. The following September she began her graduate studies at a different school.

Was she a student when she was working that summer? If so, where? She was no longer registered at her old college nor had registration begun where she would be doing her graduate work.

Let's change her situation a bit and say that instead of working, she had spent the summer traveling. Would that make her a student?

Both you and I have dealt with complaints where casinos stuck to their rules very closely. They went by the letter of the law (or at least the letter of their own T&Cs) and the slightest deviation meant they would not pay out.

Here, the casino's T&Cs prohibit anyone from playing when he is a "full-time student". Suddenly, deviation from the rules becomes acceptable and it doesn't matter if the player was not a full time student -- it is enough that he was one in the past and intends to be one again.

Call me a skeptic, but I can't help but believe that if this casino had offered a bonus available only to "full-time students" it would have declared DanL's winnings void because he was not enrolled in any school when he played.

 

[P.V.]

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.
__________________

Per your own admission, quote " He was already enrolling in his graduate studies".

If so enrolling in no way considers him an active student.
There's a major difference between being a student and being enrolled.

Future enrollment and student is totally different. It might be their direction but not set in stone.

Bait & Switch means: Relating to use of bait and switch (offering one attractive exchange initially, but not honoring the offer) in business, politics, and elsewhere.

This needs to be looked at again but don't just listen to me look at the replies. MO..

 

[clubworld]

It is the player’s responsibility to read the terms before they play – we cannot pre-screen every person who creates an account with us against every item in our terms of use before permitting them to deposit.

This term has been in the number one slot ever since we launched. Even if some of the edge cases can be discussed it is clear that the only reason that Danl encountered these problems is that he created an account and deposited without reading the terms.

This term is intended to exclude children, dependants and people who are still in school from playing. Now that the PAB is resolved I will be looking to word this more clearly.

Thanks
Tom

 

[vinylweatherman]

It is the player’s responsibility to read the terms before they play – we cannot pre-screen every person who creates an account with us against every item in our terms of use before permitting them to deposit.

This term has been in the number one slot ever since we launched. Even if some of the edge cases can be discussed it is clear that the only reason that Danl encountered these problems is that he created an account and deposited without reading the terms.

This term is intended to exclude children, dependants and people who are still in school from playing. Now that the PAB is resolved I will be looking to word this more clearly.

Thanks
Tom

It doesn't seem to be WORKING though. There are others who have now posted that they played at CW when they were still students. These have NOT been discovered yet, and could STILL be playing with no chance of ever getting paid should they be found to be students.

Dan's case is quite interesting, it seems your definition of "student" IS intended to be taken in the WIDEST possible sense, and NOT just for those taking the usual undergraduate courses at age 18 after "A levels".

Although Dan graduated, he moved from "traditional" studies to "non-traditional" studies, and only played during the summer gap between finishing one course, and starting the other.

Many would consider this to be a "break from studies", and that during this gap you would be "unemployed", rather than a "student".

I presume Dan has reached the age of 21, not a child, and not a dependent, yet he is STILL not supposed to play at CW.

There is also the less well defined nature of these graduate courses, making it hard to "pigeonhole" them into specific categories. Many courses will combine both part time employment and studies, and might be viewed as an "apprenticeship".

Law and Medicine are the "worst" of all, one NEVER really stops studying, and the move from study to employment is a gradual one, with no defined transision point. We have the likes of "student nurses" and "junior doctors" who work as Doctors and Nurses in hospitals, yet are STILL considered to be in "full time study". Barristers have to do "pupilage" at some stage before they can formally "graduate", and be "called to the bar" in their own right. There is also a gradual move from being a "student" of the trade to becoming a "practitioner".

Even a rewrite of this term will not cover all these angles. The ONLY way would be to narrow the definition of "student" to those situations that CAN be defined in black & white.

There is also the possiblity that the term in it's current state may not even be LEGAL if a player wanted to make something of it in court.

For example, if a casino is licensed in Malta then it must adhere to the Consumer Affairs Act 1994:

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

.

Under s42(2)(s), any term "giving the trader the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract" is invalid - so the casino can't just say "our decision is final" in their terms and rely on that in the eyes of the law.

Under s47(2) "where any term is ambivalent or any doubt arises about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail" - so if the term is vague, then it probably won't apply.

I don't want to make this post too long, but Section 45 discusses further about what an unfair term is, and how such terms are assessed.

Following an EU directive in 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, all EU Member States will have similar legislation.

Although taken from the laws of Malta, similar laws will apply elsewhere.

Vague terms are the ones that often result in unexpected court decisions, and on top of this we have the issue of whether a court rules a specific term "unfair", striking it out altogether.

CW should realise that now we have a "case in point", they could find themselves with an undefined liabilty where students have NOT won, but LOST. They too will have to be dealt with in the SAME way, which is a voiding of bets and return of deposits.

CW may have started out "laughing all the way to the bank", but they could well end up CRYING all the way back.

In theory, CW COULD sue students who "got away with it" and were paid their winnings, but they are unlikely to (bad PR risk).

I, for one, don't see why there is such FIRM RESISTANCE on the part of the casino against implementing a small number of measures such as :-

Simple check boxes or radio buttons would flag anyone who might not qualify.

Are you over 18 - No. (Red flag, do not continue)
Do you live in X country - Yes. (Red flag, country not allowed. Do not continue)
Have you been enrolled in any classes in the last 12 months or will you be in the next 12 months. - Yes. (Red flag, continue but investigate before allowing deposits.)

Submitting false information on this application will result in account closure. Deposits will not be returned. Click to agree.

How difficult would it be to write in this extra blurb upon registration?

It's not even an hours work for a programmer, yet would be of CONSIDERABLE benefit in protecting vulnerable players from gambling, something CW say they WANT to do.

 

[Jasminebed]

This term has been in the number one slot ever since we launched. Even if some of the edge cases can be discussed it is clear that the only reason that Danl encountered these problems is that he created an account and deposited without reading the terms.

This term is intended to exclude children, dependants and people who are still in school from playing. Now that the PAB is resolved I will be looking to word this more clearly.

Thanks
Tom

Thank you for clarifying that this term has been in effect since day one. I read terms and conditions when I join a casino. Like another poster, I tend to gloss over ones that do not apply to me.

I'd like to encourage any students at CWC group to PAB. I sincerely hope that any student gambling groups (if they exist) alert their members that student gambling at Club World casinos is not permitted, and any students who violated that terms should be looking for a refund of their deposits as there was no possibility of them being paid.

There is at least one CM member who's a mature student I've spoken with who has played, and is not ahead. Again, I strongly encourage you to PAB.

I'd rethink your use of the term "dependant" in your revised terms as well. This could well apply to stay-at-home spouses.

The term excluding those residing in Markham is just bizarre. If I was a Toronto resident who moved to that area of Toronto, I'd be unlikely to recall it. It's not a city, so putting in a change of address would be unlikely to immediately flag it, if at all.

If proof of full-time employment is required in order to prove you are not a student, I, and several other posters, would have great difficulty proving our non-student status. In this day and age, studies do not always require physical presence on campus as the internet has opened up a whole field of long-distance education, at least some of it qualifying as "full-time" for the purposes of student loans where I live.

 

[jelsmith]

Poor Max.....if these start rolling in....I know Im one of those people that was/is a student. I highly doubt that CW is prepared to refund all the monies...this is gonna be interesting.

 

[silcnlayc]

jelsmith Poor Max.....if these start rolling in....I know Im one of those people that was/is a student. I highly doubt that CW is prepared to refund all the monies...this is gonna be interesting.

Sure is...But CasinoKidd says it best:

You just can't tell people what to do with their money. You can tell them the dangers, remind them this is a bad idea, but cannot - EVER - force them to do anything. It's their right to do whatever they want with their money that is legally allowable in their state.

Maybe it is time to stop babysitting those that sign up. If they are found to be underage through all the document checks then do not pay them, return their monies and close account...simple. Enough with the babysitting...Every one knows the rules. Even the UNDERAGE kids that try to sneak one by...if caught then they get the account and IP blocked.... Let them explain to their parents why they, the parents, can no longer play online anymore.

It is time to allow those that want to take a chance to step up and own it..if I was still in school, 22 years of age, I would be HIGHLY pissed if I couldn't gamble when and where I wanted to and I started at 8 years old before all this hullaballo..... Many take Vegas trips for their holidays..I mean...c'mon...

Legal age means just that, legally allowed to vote, play , spend, and die...enough with the 50 pages do's and don'ts...one page will be enough if the casino is a stand up one..Get rid of all the bonuses that have another 50 pages attached..and the casinos might just survive this round...It is called "Keep it simple sonny!" (KISS)

When you do voodoo rules..(that means ever changing rules)then they will ultimately bite the casino themselves in the butt in the long run as is happening almost every day now..

.

 

[ksech]

It is the player’s responsibility to read the terms before they play – we cannot pre-screen every person who creates an account with us against every item in our terms of use before permitting them to deposit.

This term has been in the number one slot ever since we launched. Even if some of the edge cases can be discussed it is clear that the only reason that Danl encountered these problems is that he created an account and deposited without reading the terms.

This term is intended to exclude children, dependants and people who are still in school from playing. Now that the PAB is resolved I will be looking to word this more clearly.

Thanks
Tom

Perhaps Danl DID read the T&Cs and because he was inbetween semesters figured he was excluded. And when you state...

This term is intended to exclude children, dependants and people who are still in school from playing.

I am assuming this TERM means anybody, regardless of age, if they are a stay-at-home-spouse, or still employed but furthering their education.

And you state...

It is the player’s responsibility to read the terms before they play – we cannot pre-screen every person who creates an account with us against every item in our terms of use before permitting them to deposit.

But we the players need to make sure WE read the terms and conditions and understand them fully (although, it seems this doesn't work as the casino can alter THEIR meaning of a certain term when it suits them) BEFORE we make that initial deposit. So, if the casino has written these T&Cs, but can't be BOTHERED to make sure each person who creates an account with them isn't in some type of violation, then why have them? It most definitley is a catch-22. The player has to nitpick and now worry about loosely written T&Cs before depositing, but still take the chance their interpretation will be WRONG if they win.

Is this the precedence which will start appearing with online casinos? This case will surely see other casinos trying to worm their way out of having to pay out winnings. What's to stop them from adding-on this loosely written term? I've read so many T&Cs from different casinos lately, and surprise-surprise, many of them STATE they can change WITHOUT notice the general AND bonus T&Cs.

So, for those of you who can/do still play online, be sure EACH time you decide to deposit, that you read the T&Cs BEFORE depositing to make sure you aren't breaking a NEWLY added T&C.