Bonus Complaint Harrycasino voided my winnings

[Digi]

Beside that Casino bonuses are reserved for HarryCasino games only and cannot be used to play Casino Poker

Weird rule when just above it games like TXS Hold’em Poker, Casino Hold’em, Pai Gow Poker contribute 10%.

Also when I played Trey poker the amount that I needed to wager went down, so it contributed to the wagering requirements.

 

[skiny]

How much did you bet when you were betting in excess of 25% of your balance?

 

[vinylweatherman]

Hey Guys,

To be clear - HarryCasino is operated by Betsson - but its not Betsson brand. Anyway i have asked person from HarryCasino to reply for this issue and here it is:

''Hi Patryk,

This player has violated the T&C of Harry Casino by playing games, for example Trey Poker which is the game he plays, where you are not permitted to place bets of 25% or more of your total balance via a single game round, when completing wagering towards a bonus. Beside that Casino bonuses are reserved for HarryCasino games only and cannot be used to play Casino Poker as per T&C.

Next to this the T&C gives us the possibillity to close his account:

11.1. If You breach any provision of these T&C or HarryCasino has a reasonable ground to suspect that You have breached them, HarryCasino reserves the right not to open, suspend, close Your Member Account, withhold any money in your account (including the deposit) and apply such funds on account of any damages due by You.
11.2. If HarryCasino suspects that You are engaged in illegal or fraudulent activities when using the Website; or in breach of this Agreement; or that You are having problems with creditors or otherwise detrimental to our business, we may freeze or terminate Your account or cancel any stakes at our absolute discretion.
11.3. You acknowledge that HarryCasino shall be the final decision-maker of whether You have violated HarryCasino's rules, terms or conditions in a manner that results in HarryCasino's suspension or permanent barring from participation in our site.

The player of course agreed and ticked this box when he registered.

Kind regards,''

From my side - rules are rules.

Regards
Patryk

There are also terms than contradict one another. There are TWO terms covering the situation where players bet more than 25%. There is one that stipulates the penalty to be a "ban from receiving future bonuses". There is nothing to indicate which version would apply in a particular case, so in terms of consumer law, the most consumer friendly variant would be deemed to apply. As you said, "rules are rules", and the "unfair business practices act" is just as much a rule as anything written in the terms of a contract. It would depend on how the OP's home country has implemented this EU directive that would govern the detail of this case.

It does not matter that the casino is not "branded" as Betsson, it is "operated by Betsson", so the same standards are going to be expected.

If the game was weighted 10%, and WR was ticking down during play, then it was not an excluded game. This leaves us with the 25% rule, for which there is ambiguity in what measures are to be taken.

Terms and conditions are a legal contract, and as such should not be "messy" in appearance as the ones at Harry's casino appear to be.


Since the 25% rule was broken, it is really an argument about which penalty to apply, and argument that would not exist had the terms only had the ONE unambiguous penalty, be that a future bonus ban or voiding of bets.
Confiscation of DEPOSITS also has no place except when there has been fraud. Placing bets greater than 25% of balance is NOT "fraud", it is merely a breach of contract.

I suspect "trey poker" is the same game as "3 card poker", and as such it can be easy to break such a rule during play as you make TWO bets to start each round, and a third "play" bet. The total bet per round is therefore 3x the chip value placed. The OP should know this though, as it appears to be his game of choice, and so he should be familiar with the fact that each betting position can only take one third of the max bet allowed.

 

[Nifty29]

There are also terms than contradict one another. There are TWO terms covering the situation where players bet more than 25%. There is one that stipulates the penalty to be a "ban from receiving future bonuses". There is nothing to indicate which version would apply in a particular case, so in terms of consumer law, the most consumer friendly variant would be deemed to apply. As you said, "rules are rules", and the "unfair business practices act" is just as much a rule as anything written in the terms of a contract. It would depend on how the OP's home country has implemented this EU directive that would govern the detail of this case.

It does not matter that the casino is not "branded" as Betsson, it is "operated by Betsson", so the same standards are going to be expected.

If the game was weighted 10%, and WR was ticking down during play, then it was not an excluded game. This leaves us with the 25% rule, for which there is ambiguity in what measures are to be taken.

Terms and conditions are a legal contract, and as such should not be "messy" in appearance as the ones at Harry's casino appear to be.


Since the 25% rule was broken, it is really an argument about which penalty to apply, and argument that would not exist had the terms only had the ONE unambiguous penalty, be that a future bonus ban or voiding of bets.
Confiscation of DEPOSITS also has no place except when there has been fraud. Placing bets greater than 25% of balance is NOT "fraud", it is merely a breach of contract.

I suspect "trey poker" is the same game as "3 card poker", and as such it can be easy to break such a rule during play as you make TWO bets to start each round, and a third "play" bet. The total bet per round is therefore 3x the chip value placed. The OP should know this though, as it appears to be his game of choice, and so he should be familiar with the fact that each betting position can only take one third of the max bet allowed.

The terms are not contradictory....they are complimentary. One does not negate the other. The first states what will result from that specific breach, and the second covers ANY breach I.e. a cover all. The casino then has leeway to enforce the first and not the other.

Digi.....don't take amateur legal advice. Nobody here is a lawyer (except for one who isn't in this thread). Most of the "legal advice" offered at CM is ill-informed and inaccurate.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The terms are not contradictory....they are complimentary. One does not negate the other. The first states what will result from that specific breach, and the second covers ANY breach I.e. a cover all. The casino then has leeway to enforce the first and not the other.

Digi.....don't take amateur legal advice. Nobody here is a lawyer (except for one who isn't in this thread). Most of the "legal advice" offered at CM is ill-informed and inaccurate.

So, why have TWO terms when ONE will suffice. It seems the lesser penalty is not used, so why take up additional space in an already long document.

The terms should be written with clarity and brevity in mind. We should have less of the "may" and more of the "will". The terms should show the strictest sanctions the casino will follow in the event of a breach. This will kill the debate over which of a number of sanctions will be used for a specific breach. If the casino decides not to apply the full sanction, this should be a goodwill gesture on a case by case basis, and not something in the terms that opens up avenues of appeal.

Now we still have the argument as to why the OP should suffer sanction B rather than sanction A. There is redundancy as sanction A naturally follows as a result of sanction B being applied. Perhaps Harrys Casino are going to tell us that they closed the OPs account, confiscated the winnings, but they ate not going to ban the OP from future bonuses as proscribed in sanction A


Terms are long winded and convoluted enough as it is, we don't need additional "complimentary" terms in different places when ONE encompassing term is both briefer, and clearer.

Even this is assuming that the OP broke the 25% rule in the first place, and that 25% was calculated fairly, and not sneakily on the running balance to void the bet close to busting out that began the winning streak.

 

[Nifty29]

So, why have TWO terms when ONE will suffice. It seems the lesser penalty is not used, so why take up additional space in an already long document.

The terms should be written with clarity and brevity in mind. We should have less of the "may" and more of the "will". The terms should show the strictest sanctions the casino will follow in the event of a breach. This will kill the debate over which of a number of sanctions will be used for a specific breach. If the casino decides not to apply the full sanction, this should be a goodwill gesture on a case by case basis, and not something in the terms that opens up avenues of appeal.

Now we still have the argument as to why the OP should suffer sanction B rather than sanction A. There is redundancy as sanction A naturally follows as a result of sanction B being applied. Perhaps Harrys Casino are going to tell us that they closed the OPs account, confiscated the winnings, but they ate not going to ban the OP from future bonuses as proscribed in sanction A


Terms are long winded and convoluted enough as it is, we don't need additional "complimentary" terms in different places when ONE encompassing term is both briefer, and clearer.

Even this is assuming that the OP broke the 25% rule in the first place, and that 25% was calculated fairly, and not sneakily on the running balance to void the bet close to busting out that began the winning streak.

Brevity and other arguments related to how the terms are set out is a totally seperate argument.

The terms still do not contradict each other. It would be at the discretion of the casino whether they enforce only the first or both.

There are far worse things going on with online casinos than whether there should be two related terms or one.....as long as they don't expressly contradict each other,and they don't, then it is a storm in a teacup.

As for the legal stuff, it is irrelevant as it is not going to court, and you are not a lawyer anyway. You should be (IMO) giving others practical real advice pertaining to your long ecperience in online gambling, rather than making every other post look like a script from Law & Order: Special Gamblers Unit.. It would be far more helpful, as (afaik), nobody has taken online casino disputes to court....at least not any from here.

IIRC, the player said the game he played wasn't on the wagering list. A logical conclusion would be that it didn't count. It is poor form to not list it as specifically excluded, but I know myself that I would be clarifying it with the casino first. The OP, like so many others, don't take the time to clear such things up and roll the dice and hope everything will be OK come cashout time....and when it isn't, they make a noise and say they were stooged.

Bottom line....and this advice has served me well....ALWAYS clarify ANYTHING that you don't understand clearly in a casinos terms. If support can't or won't help, then DON'T PLAY. Go elsewhere. Crossing your fingers and going ahead regardless is just asking for trouble.

Mind you, most players that get into bonus problems are those that couldn't be fagged reading them properly anyway, so I'm probably preaching to the converted.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Beside that Casino bonuses are reserved for HarryCasino games only and cannot be used to play Casino Poker

Weird rule when just above it games like TXS Hold’em Poker, Casino Hold’em, Pai Gow Poker contribute 10%.

Also when I played Trey poker the amount that I needed to wager went down, so it contributed to the wagering requirements.

Brevity and other arguments related to how the terms are set out is a totally seperate argument.

The terms still do not contradict each other. It would be at the discretion of the casino whether they enforce only the first or both.

There are far worse things going on with online casinos than whether there should be two related terms or one.....as long as they don't expressly contradict each other,and they don't, then it is a storm in a teacup.

As for the legal stuff, it is irrelevant as it is not going to court, and you are not a lawyer anyway. You should be (IMO) giving others practical real advice pertaining to your long ecperience in online gambling, rather than making every other post look like a script from Law & Order: Special Gamblers Unit.. It would be far more helpful, as (afaik), nobody has taken online casino disputes to court....at least not any from here.

IIRC, the player said the game he played wasn't on the wagering list. A logical conclusion would be that it didn't count. It is poor form to not list it as specifically excluded, but I know myself that I would be clarifying it with the casino first. The OP, like so many others, don't take the time to clear such things up and roll the dice and hope everything will be OK come cashout time....and when it isn't, they make a noise and say they were stooged.

Bottom line....and this advice has served me well....ALWAYS clarify ANYTHING that you don't understand clearly in a casinos terms. If support can't or won't help, then DON'T PLAY. Go elsewhere. Crossing your fingers and going ahead regardless is just asking for trouble.

Mind you, most players that get into bonus problems are those that couldn't be fagged reading them properly anyway, so I'm probably preaching to the converted.

More "complimentation" in the rules. Casino poker can't be played, but then a list is given of casino poker games that CAN be played

Since the WR requirement went down during Trey poker play, it COUNTED!!!

The second point raised by the casino is wrong, and leaves only with the first, whether or not bets exceeded 25%.


Messy terms like this lead to 2 consequences.

1) Players not knowing where they stand, and thus getting screwed by piecing the puzzle togther differently to the casino manager.

2) Clever players exploit loopholes and ambiguities that result from poorly drafted terms.

Both turn what could be a clear cut case into a debate. Some will favour the casino, others believe any doubt should be to the benefit of the player, regardless of ability.

It seems the casinos are just as guilty of using amateur legal teams when preparing their terms as players are who interpret my posts as solid legal advice rather than opinion based on experience of consumer law in general.

Companies that don't properly draft their terms of service can get clobbered by customers, and where things do get to court, the company has to take the consequences, not the hapless consumer.

Casinos only get away with this because such cases rarely make it into a courtroom, so there has been little in the way of legal precedent in terms of player vs online casino.

 

[Digi]

To answer the question if I did break the 25% rule, I'm sure I did, I made big bets of more than 25%.

the player said the game he played wasn't on the wagering list. A logical conclusion would be that it didn't count.

The game wasn't specified but in the terms it says "All other games count 100%" so it is logical that all other games that haven't a reduced contribution count towards the wagering requirements and are not banned.


The term they state for voiding my winnings is if I would break the terms of use (fraud, underage play, playing from a banned country etc) and not the promotional terms.


Should I submit a PAB or make a complaint to the regulator?

 

[rainmaker]

More "complimentation" in the rules. Casino poker can't be played, but then a list is given of casino poker games that CAN be played

Well, the thing here is that the rule you are referring to is listed in their "general bonus rules" section. There are many casinos that for example have table games listed as restricted games in their general rules, but allow play on table games for certain bonuses. That is also why it is natural to list wagering contribution for certain poker games in their general rules, even though it only may apply to certain bonuses. Specific bonus rules will always apply before general bonus rules.

 

[rainmaker]

Should I submit a PAB or make a complaint to the regulator?

You should file a PAB. Although you have admitted that you violated their rules, so I can not see you have a case. But if you still think you are right, then do a PAB:

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/help/pab-rules/

 

[Nifty29]

so there has been little in the way of legal precedent in terms of player vs online casino.

Exactly, so stating that "xyz Act of 1674" or any other legislation that applies to other entities, is applicable to online casinos is completely pointless.

My simple understanding of basic contract law is that a contract is legal and binding IF the terms are reasonable and made available for the customer before signing.

I don't see any unreasonable term here.

The player admitted to making "big bets" (over 25%), hence he broke one of the terms, hence he can have his winnings and bonus removed and deposit returned.

Again, there is NO conflict here. If the first term had said "if the player breaches this term, their winnings will be paid but will be banned from further promotions" then you would have an argument i.e. the consequences conflict i.e. you can't pay someone their winnings AND not pay someone their winnings....THAT would be contradictory. The question is can you ban someone from future promotions AND remove the winnings and bonus?...and the answer is YES. So....NO contradiction.

You are complaining about not enough brevity in the terms...but you seem to want the casino to say "if you breach this term your winnings and bonus will be removed" at the end of every single term in addition to any other consequences. Surely this would make the terms even LONGER. Instead, the casino added a "catch-all" term at the end saying that ANY breach of the terms may result in winnings and bonus being confiscated.

You just can't ever bring yourself to concede a point can ya Vinyl?

(And now for the "Yes, but....)

 

[Mouche12]

QTE: The question is can you ban someone from future promotions AND remove the winnings and bonus?...and the answer is YES. So....NO contradiction.UNQTE

Yes, but this should have been included in the same clause. As it stands now, it is confusing to the players and, in accordance with the principles of fairness and reasonability, when there is confusion the consequences should be for the account of the casino, not the player. It is the casino's responsibility to draft clear and unambigous terms.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Exactly, so stating that "xyz Act of 1674" or any other legislation that applies to other entities, is applicable to online casinos is completely pointless.

My simple understanding of basic contract law is that a contract is legal and binding IF the terms are reasonable and made available for the customer before signing.

I don't see any unreasonable term here.

The player admitted to making "big bets" (over 25%), hence he broke one of the terms, hence he can have his winnings and bonus removed and deposit returned.

Again, there is NO conflict here. If the first term had said "if the player breaches this term, their winnings will be paid but will be banned from further promotions" then you would have an argument i.e. the consequences conflict i.e. you can't pay someone their winnings AND not pay someone their winnings....THAT would be contradictory. The question is can you ban someone from future promotions AND remove the winnings and bonus?...and the answer is YES. So....NO contradiction.

You are complaining about not enough brevity in the terms...but you seem to want the casino to say "if you breach this term your winnings and bonus will be removed" at the end of every single term in addition to any other consequences. Surely this would make the terms even LONGER. Instead, the casino added a "catch-all" term at the end saying that ANY breach of the terms may result in winnings and bonus being confiscated.

You just can't ever bring yourself to concede a point can ya Vinyl?

(And now for the "Yes, but....)

They HAVE repeated themselves. They had a term for the more specific situation where the 25% rule was breached, but instead ignored this specific rule and employed the catch all general rule governing breaches in general. There was no need to have an additional term just covering a breach of the 25% rule if breaches of the 25% rule are instead dealt with under the catch all term. They thus have a redundant term that is not used, and so ONLY need a single catch all term governing any breach of the terms, not a cluster of specific terms added to each different bonus.

Since the player admits to breaking the 25% rule in any case, the question is WHY?, given that there would be some kind of penalty however unclear the terms were.

Having different rules for different bonuses itself causes a lengthening and complication of the terms. There need only be a single formula governing play on any bonus. Microgaming saw the need for this when they introduced the Clearplay tracking system, which was about as simple as it could get; a xB requirement and game weightings. It was operators who seemed hell bent on taking something simple and making it back into something as complicated as what went before. To me, complex terms that players sometimes struggle to understand is done intentionally, rather than being a result of trying too hard to create a fair system.

 

[Nifty29]

They HAVE repeated themselves. They had a term for the more specific situation where the 25% rule was breached, but instead ignored this specific rule and employed the catch all general rule governing breaches in general. There was no need to have an additional term just covering a breach of the 25% rule if breaches of the 25% rule are instead dealt with under the catch all term. They thus have a redundant term that is not used, and so ONLY need a single catch all term governing any breach of the terms, not a cluster of specific terms added to each different bonus.

Since the player admits to breaking the 25% rule in any case, the question is WHY?, given that there would be some kind of penalty however unclear the terms were.

Having different rules for different bonuses itself causes a lengthening and complication of the terms. There need only be a single formula governing play on any bonus. Microgaming saw the need for this when they introduced the Clearplay tracking system, which was about as simple as it could get; a xB requirement and game weightings. It was operators who seemed hell bent on taking something simple and making it back into something as complicated as what went before. To me, complex terms that players sometimes struggle to understand is done intentionally, rather than being a result of trying too hard to create a fair system.

Since you won't return the courtesy of acknowledging other's points, as per normal, there is little point in debating you. A proper discussion can only occur when both parties can yield. You're a guy with a lot of experience....if you only gave others credit where due (e.g check your thanks vs thanked ratio) you might find more members will debate you, which is something that all of us will benefit from.

Anyhoo.....

The more I read this thread, the more I think the OP isn't telling us the whole story. It just isn't the MO of Netent operators in general to use such serious measures right off the bat.

Have you had issues with this previously at this casino? Or another casino?

I suggest you PAB, so that ALL relevant information can be considered, and not just what you want other members to hear.

If you don't PAB, then the membership can reach their own conclusions as to what that might imply.

I have a feeling that Vinylweatherman might be feasting on his words......anyone got any HP??

 

[skiny]

I don't think any of it matters. If he's admitted that he broke the rules he's not likely to get paid unless the casino is feeling awful generous.

This is the sole reason I never take bonuses. I don't have the time or the patience to wade through all the different scenarios that keep me from getting paid if I win. If I have to sift through a long list of terms and conditions to take a bonus, I'll just not take one and lose my money comfortably knowing I won't have to worry about it later.

Casinos need to take a lesson from the very few that just offer a bonus and let you play any game you like at any wager you like. Keep the bonuses smaller, let each game count toward the WR at it's own rate to minimize risk to the casino and not expect players to have law degrees to know whether or not they're cheating.

 

[Digi]

The more I read this thread, the more I think the OP isn't telling us the whole story. It just isn't the MO of Netent operators in general to use such serious measures right off the bat.

Of course I'm telling the whole story, the fact that I make a thread about it and that I don't agree with harrycasino for voiding my winnings is that I think that the term they used wasn't intended for voiding my winnings (and doesn't apply. Again, it applies to the general terms of use and not the bonus rules)

The reason I say that is because of all wrong information I was given:

First they said that the 25% bonus rule gave them the right to void my winnings and close my account. When i pointed out that the 25% bonus didn't say that but only that I could potentially be banned from future bonuses they replied that "You broke our terms and conditions and therefore we can void your winnings which were won with bonus money from HarryCasino."

I again pointed out that nowhere in the rule is it stated that bonus winnings can be voided and that their is no such thing as bonus winnings ( a bit like a microgaming casino where money won with the bonus is added to the cash balance).

Then when they had no other rule they came up with the 11.1 rule regarding the breach of general terms of rules (which I didn't break) and didn't want to answer anymore queries about this.

When I asked from another email account when the 25% rule was added the first reply I got was: are you referring to the sports product? They don't even have a sportsbook.
The next reply was that the rule was their since the beginning, which I'm pretty sure isn't true.

Then in this thread I see that the manager said that casino poker wasn't allowed and because I played threy poker I broke the rules.
I asked casinoeuro about this rule (harrycasino just copied all the terms) and they told me: "you cannot transfer the bonus to the poker room. In Poker, you can play with your own money."
Harrycasino doesn't have a pokerroom to my knowledge so I can see why the manager is confused about this rule.

So I came to the assumption that the supervisors aren't interpreting the rules correctly and that they are misusing the 11.1 term to void my winnings

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't think any of it matters. If he's admitted that he broke the rules he's not likely to get paid unless the casino is feeling awful generous.

This is the sole reason I never take bonuses. I don't have the time or the patience to wade through all the different scenarios that keep me from getting paid if I win. If I have to sift through a long list of terms and conditions to take a bonus, I'll just not take one and lose my money comfortably knowing I won't have to worry about it later.

Casinos need to take a lesson from the very few that just offer a bonus and let you play any game you like at any wager you like. Keep the bonuses smaller, let each game count toward the WR at it's own rate to minimize risk to the casino and not expect players to have law degrees to know whether or not they're cheating.

This is what we need. Simple and concise rules. It seems that the bigger the bonus, the bigger the bullshit. Casinos KNOWINGLY offer "too good to be true" headline offers with nasty stings in the smallprint as it looks more attractive than a 25% bonus with nothing other than WR to worry about.

Players play to WIN, if they were purely there to enjoy the flashing lights, they would use "fun mode".

I actually use "fun mode" on occasion both to try out a new game, and to play like an Arab Sheik with massive bets and not caring how many tens of thousands of fake fun credits I get through. The fun for me is the occasional big win, even though the vast majority of deposits either disappear, or result in more modest wins that I concede are all I am going to get that session, so cash out anyway.

Most MGS casinos have a relatively straight forward set of bonus rules, with game weightings, and if any game shows as 0%, I take it to mean "prohibited with a bonus". I also expect some kind of max bet rule, and even where there is none, I keep bets to around the 25% of bonus level in most cases. I am extra careful with sign up bonuses, and really choose casinos based on what they offer AFTER the headline grabbing SUB.

I don't target those miserly free chips, nor those £1 for £20 offers. If there is something like this, I will p1$$ it away microbetting on the slots to get it over with and see what is being offered to regular players. It is very rare for a casino to stick a terms and conditions violation on me. The only one to succeed was Crystal Palace under Warren, and it was a free chip in any case, and only proved what I knew about them, and no way were they going to make a loyal player out of me. Winward managed to keep $25 of mine for over a year, but I got it back eventually. Prime pulled a stunt over £500 after they had willingly paid me over 6K the week before - they didn't get away with the bullshit either, they had NOTHING on me, I had played by the rules.

Bending the rules is what can lead to this kind of problem, as one day they will break and you won't get paid.

I DO have a problem with important additional terms being snuck in without attention being drawn to them. Even players who check on a regular basis can be caught out, and I don't believe casinos really expect players to reread a dozen pages of smallprint EVERY time they make a deposit, so if they claim the player should have reread the terms on every deposit, I will call it "bullshit".

 

[Nifty29]

Of course I'm telling the whole story, the fact that I make a thread about it and that I don't agree with harrycasino for voiding my winnings is that I think that the term they used wasn't intended for voiding my winnings (and doesn't apply. Again, it applies to the general terms of use and not the bonus rules)

The reason I say that is because of all wrong information I was given:

First they said that the 25% bonus rule gave them the right to void my winnings and close my account. When i pointed out that the 25% bonus didn't say that but only that I could potentially be banned from future bonuses they replied that "You broke our terms and conditions and therefore we can void your winnings which were won with bonus money from HarryCasino."

I again pointed out that nowhere in the rule is it stated that bonus winnings can be voided and that their is no such thing as bonus winnings ( a bit like a microgaming casino where money won with the bonus is added to the cash balance).

Then when they had no other rule they came up with the 11.1 rule regarding the breach of general terms of rules (which I didn't break) and didn't want to answer anymore queries about this.

When I asked from another email account when the 25% rule was added the first reply I got was: are you referring to the sports product? They don't even have a sportsbook.
The next reply was that the rule was their since the beginning, which I'm pretty sure isn't true.

Then in this thread I see that the manager said that casino poker wasn't allowed and because I played threy poker I broke the rules.
I asked casinoeuro about this rule (harrycasino just copied all the terms) and they told me: "you cannot transfer the bonus to the poker room. In Poker, you can play with your own money."
Harrycasino doesn't have a pokerroom to my knowledge so I can see why the manager is confused about this rule.

So I came to the assumption that the supervisors aren't interpreting the rules correctly and that they are misusing the 11.1 term to void my winnings

So why haven't you submitted a PAB? Is there something that you don't want revealed?

You also didn't answer my question.....have you had this problem I.e. breaching bonus terms, with this or another casino before?

@Vinyl

I read the terms before I take a bonus.

Actually, it IS the player's responsibility to check the terms of use regularly. In fact, we all agree to it when opening an account. If one can't be arsed, one shouldn't open an account in the first place.

Why would anyone not read bonus terms before playing? Anyone remember the south park episode "humancentIpad"?? Always know what you're agreeing to!

 

[vinylweatherman]

So why haven't you submitted a PAB? Is there something that you don't want revealed?

You also didn't answer my question.....have you had this problem I.e. breaching bonus terms, with this or another casino before?

@Vinyl

I read the terms before I take a bonus.

Actually, it IS the player's responsibility to check the terms of use regularly. In fact, we all agree to it when opening an account. If one can't be arsed, one shouldn't open an account in the first place.

Why would anyone not read bonus terms before playing? Anyone remember the south park episode "humancentIpad"?? Always know what you're agreeing to!

What is "regularly". In order to spot a new term, players would have to read EVERYTHING, all xx pages of it. Not only that, but they would have to do this every time they deposit!!. Any less, and they risk a new term being snuck in between rereads. It is the same BS argument about verification before first deposit. The casinos SHOULD be doing it, but they "can't be arsed" because the task is too onerous. If we can accept that verification on first withdrawal, or after xxx amount deposited is a fair compromise, we must also accept that expecting players to go through the entire set of terms for EVERY deposit is also too onerous a requirement, and that once every so often is a fair compromise, or once again when notified of a change.

If casinos demanded a reread on every deposit, and found a means to enforce it, they would go bust - they should be careful what they ask for lest they get it.

There IS a way to enforce a read of the terms, instead of ticking a box, players must enter a code that is randomly dropped somewhere in the terms, and done dynamically each time the page is loaded (different code, different place). Merely ticking the box would not be an option, the terms would have to be trawled for the code, and would be read at the same time, or at worst, skimmed.

 

[Nifty29]

What is "regularly". In order to spot a new term, players would have to read EVERYTHING, all xx pages of it. Not only that, but they would have to do this every time they deposit!!. Any less, and they risk a new term being snuck in between rereads. It is the same BS argument about verification before first deposit. The casinos SHOULD be doing it, but they "can't be arsed" because the task is too onerous. If we can accept that verification on first withdrawal, or after xxx amount deposited is a fair compromise, we must also accept that expecting players to go through the entire set of terms for EVERY deposit is also too onerous a requirement, and that once every so often is a fair compromise, or once again when notified of a change.

If casinos demanded a reread on every deposit, and found a means to enforce it, they would go bust - they should be careful what they ask for lest they get it.

There IS a way to enforce a read of the terms, instead of ticking a box, players must enter a code that is randomly dropped somewhere in the terms, and done dynamically each time the page is loaded (different code, different place). Merely ticking the box would not be an option, the terms would have to be trawled for the code, and would be read at the same time, or at worst, skimmed.

Ummm.....ever heard of "last updated xxxxx" at the top or bottom of the terms page? If they haven't been updated since last time, it is good to go. If they sneak stuff in on purpose, they're obviously rogue anyway.

Could you please explain how preverification would work, if it were introduced by every casino starting tomorrow, and every new casino opening after then.

 

[skiny]

If a casino can send me a bonus offer they can send me a warning that the T&Cs of either regular play or general bonus terms have changed.

Sending me bonus offers is sales, sending me warnings that there are new rules is service.

Sales should not take precedence over service.

If I take a special bonus and don't check the terms and conditions I consider that my fault.

If I take the same bonus I've been taking for some lengthy period of time or just play with my own money with no bonus attached and find out later that the terms have changed without warning. I consider that the casino's fault. How many companies do you know of that have regular customers either under contract or just reordering the same product that would change the conditions without warning anyone?

This kind of behaviour normally comes back to bite most companies in the ass eventually but with online casinos it almost always works in the casino's favour. Can you imagine if your phone company changed your long distance plan and didn't tell you? Expecting players to go back and re-read the T&C's every time they play is unacceptable.

In my opinion when I create an account I click a button that says I accept the terms and conditions. Those should be the terms and condition I expect to be following when I play at that casino and if they change them they should let me know and give me the option to accept or refuse the new conditions.

 

[Digi]

So why haven't you submitted a PAB? Is there something that you don't want revealed?

You also didn't answer my question.....have you had this problem I.e. breaching bonus terms, with this or another casino before?

Why are you immediately assuming that I have something to hide?! I'm thinking of what I could do (regulators, PAB or Small claims court) and what would be the most effective and also if I have a "case"

I did have a problem a long time ago with a netent casino. I don't remember the exact details but it wasn't a breach in bonus terms. I think it had something todo with conflicting terms and they admitted it.

 

[Digi]

Ummm.....ever heard of "last updated xxxxx" at the top or bottom of the terms page? If they haven't been updated since last time, it is good to go. If they sneak stuff in on purpose, they're obviously rogue anyway.

Harrycasino doesn't have that and they don't want to tell you or just lie and say they haven't changed.

 

[Nifty29]

Why are you immediately assuming that I have something to hide?! I'm thinking of what I could do (regulators, PAB or Small claims court) and what would be the most effective and also if I have a "case"

I did have a problem a long time ago with a netent casino. I don't remember the exact details but it wasn't a breach in bonus terms. I think it had something todo with conflicting terms and they admitted it.

Submitting a PAB has several advantages:

1. It is FREE

2. It has no bearing on future legal avenues as it is NOT a legal service

3. It is FAR better than relying on members here who think they are lawyers

4. You WILL receive a fair hearing and ALL information will be considered from BOTH sides.

5. It is FREE

Digi, I don't see what the big decision is.....just do it.

I can only assume there is a reason for not wanting to go ahead. If other information were to come to light, for example, that indicates that you knew what you were doing (for example) because it had happened before (for example), then I can understand why you would not want to have ALL the information made available.

I'll say one thing....calling the casino "liars" etc won't help your case at all.

The help has been offered. Take it or don't take it. Everyone will make up their own mind after that.

 

[rainmaker]

Why are you immediately assuming that I have something to hide?!

It happens we see players complaining on the forum about a case, but refuse to file a PAB, despite the fact that they are continuing to discuss the case in public. This could mean they have something to hide, but are trying to "threaten" the casino by saying that they may want to take it to court combined with the sympathy they get from a few members.

Not saying this is the case here. Just in general.

So file a PAB and be done with it. As I have said before. You violated a clear rule that very few players most likely ever will have a problem with, so I can not see you have a case.

As Nifty says. All information will be made available for Max in a PAB process. If you strongly believe you have a case, then I do not understand why you do not want to do a PAB.