Bonus Complaint Harrycasino voided my winnings

[skiny]

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.

I'm pretty sure going to court would be a waste of time since you admitted that you broke the terms and conditions which puts you in a breach of contract position. Especially since there is more than likely a term in there that says the terms can change without warning. This puts the onus on you to make sure you know the conditions you're playing under every time you play.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying that you agreed to it. We all agree to it every time we make a deposit.

Actually, I don't normally because I don't take deposit bonuses. I pretty much only play slots so it'll be a cold day in hell when a casino tells me I made a straight forward deposit and broke the rules playing a slot game regardless of how I played it.

I've been saying for years that these huge bonuses are nothing but trouble but players still seem to want to go claim them and then try to grind out the ridiculous WR while avoiding breaking the 10 pages of rules that are attached to them. I don't pay enough attention to bonus offers anymore to really know what the current trend is but there was a time when it seemed like a battle between casinos to see who could offer the biggest bonus. 100%, 200% 500% it didn't take long for me to start wondering what kind of T&Cs and how high the WR had to be for casinos to offer these amazing bonuses. It certainly wasn't something I wanted to get involved in.

 

[rainmaker]

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!!.

You are taking this way too far again VWM, which is a shame.

As Nifty just replied to you in another thread (Omni):

"As usual, you're making this operator look like some kind of "predator" waiting to pounce on unsuspecting players."

To indicate that Betsson (the operator), one of the worlds largest operators, is constantly chancing/removing/adding rules must be based on ignorance.

 

[vinylweatherman]

You are taking this way too far again VWM, which is a shame.

As Nifty just replied to you in another thread (Omni):

"As usual, you're making this operator look like some kind of "predator" waiting to pounce on unsuspecting players."

To indicate that Betsson (the operator), one of the worlds largest operators, is constantly chancing/removing/adding rules must be based on ignorance.

Unless there is a set date given to check the terms, one could check them weekly and STILL miss an important update for up to 6 days. Nothing can beat what every other company does which is to tell their customers the date a change in the terms comes into effect, and where to read them. In the UK, this has to be done by law, and where the terms change is to the detriment of the customer, they have to give a minimum of 30 days notice before any changes come into effect.

Casinos can simply change one paragraph on the website on some random day, and state that the change is effective immediately. A date stamp is effective only if it is changed when the terms are altered. Players need only check the date stamp, which takes a few seconds, in order to know whether or not a set of terms needs to be checked over again.

I have seen several changes sneaked in with no notice to players, even at accredited casinos. Although many were minor, they were also important enough to cause players to change the way they play.

The ONLY defence a player has is to read the terms again on every deposit, or trust the casino enough to believe they won't sneak in a detrimental term and hit you with it straight away. A rogue casino would, but an accredited casino would accept that the term was so recent that unless the player reread them every time they played, it could have been missed.

There are also other ways to catch out casinos who sneak in a change and then claim it was "always there".

 

[ace4suited]

To me the terms and conditions are messy and should be changed. The player clearly fell foul though of rules that were reasonably clear but that does not change the following:

a) Harry Casino's defence on the issue included stating that the player had agreed to T&C's when signing up to the casino that they would be the final arbiter of any dispute - This is a totally BS clause that should not be in the T&C's, would not be enforcable in many legal jurisdictions (I am trained in private international law) and is not helpful to any amicable resolution.

b) Having a last updated clause to T&C's would be helpful - this should be promoted as good practice

c) If a bonus is offered but there has been a recent change to bonus terms then obviously casinos should point this out or give considerable latitude to the T&C's

d) Messy bonus terms are bad for business - people will either stay clear or gamble then complaint. They are not in the casinos interest and they could be easily changed so that they were more easily understood. Despite this though many bonus terms are just bad copy jobs from one casino to another by someone who has not read or understood the rules and as rules are modified they are done in a way that increasingly makes rules more complex and less coherent rather than in a sensible way trying to provide rules that are easy to read and understand.

e) Just because the WR goes down does not mean a bet "counts" for the WR within the rules - that is defined by the contract, not the coding. Players would have a much better time with bonuses if they were prevented from doing things that contrivened the bonus terms (large bets, prohibited games etc) but casinos either cannot or will not impliment these.

As for the player in question - getting your deposit back is probably the best you can hope for having signed up for a bonus and clearly violated the 25% bet requirement. Most casinos will regard big betting as against bonus T&C's so if you want to play in this way you really do need to read the T&C's closely before making deposits and either bet in ways that are clearly 100% within the T&C's or get clarification first before doing so. Otherwise this will not be the last casino you will end up in problems with around bonus issues whether it is specific clauses, ambiguity being interpreted against you or "spirit of bonus" problems.

 

[Cogge]

Hi. Personally I find this rule really ridiculous.

Just wondering if he played those 25%+ bets and lost would they make a deal of it? Would they have even cared? I doubt it. I just don't get this rule at all.

If I played a slot game and only had a dollar left in my account, I couldn't play a 25 line slot with a one coin bet? Sorry if I am sounding a bit dense, I just don't get it.

On the other hand, each casino has their own terms and it's players responsibility to read them, even if it means re-reading the same rules a gabillion times.

"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. Players deemed to be adopting such a strategy could potentially be excluded from receiving bonuses in the future."

It may be written poorly, but the rule usually refers to the original balance when claiming the bonus. I.e. Deposit €100, get €100 bonus. You may not bet higher than €50 per spin whilst wagering the bonus. Many casinos write it as a fixed limit instead of a % of the given bonus / total balance, it makes it much clearer for the player. This is from 32red for example:

"There is a maximum stake of 6.25 Chips (or coin equivalent) per bet until the playthrough requirement has been met. For the purposes of this rule a Bet is defined as one roulette spin or one dealer's dealt hand in any table game, or one deal in any Video or Power Poker game (this includes Multi-Hand/Play games)."

 

[vinylweatherman]

To me the terms and conditions are messy and should be changed. The player clearly fell foul though of rules that were reasonably clear but that does not change the following:

a) Harry Casino's defence on the issue included stating that the player had agreed to T&C's when signing up to the casino that they would be the final arbiter of any dispute - This is a totally BS clause that should not be in the T&C's, would not be enforcable in many legal jurisdictions (I am trained in private international law) and is not helpful to any amicable resolution.

b) Having a last updated clause to T&C's would be helpful - this should be promoted as good practice

c) If a bonus is offered but there has been a recent change to bonus terms then obviously casinos should point this out or give considerable latitude to the T&C's

d) Messy bonus terms are bad for business - people will either stay clear or gamble then complaint. They are not in the casinos interest and they could be easily changed so that they were more easily understood. Despite this though many bonus terms are just bad copy jobs from one casino to another by someone who has not read or understood the rules and as rules are modified they are done in a way that increasingly makes rules more complex and less coherent rather than in a sensible way trying to provide rules that are easy to read and understand.

e) Just because the WR goes down does not mean a bet "counts" for the WR within the rules - that is defined by the contract, not the coding. Players would have a much better time with bonuses if they were prevented from doing things that contrivened the bonus terms (large bets, prohibited games etc) but casinos either cannot or will not impliment these.

As for the player in question - getting your deposit back is probably the best you can hope for having signed up for a bonus and clearly violated the 25% bet requirement. Most casinos will regard big betting as against bonus T&C's so if you want to play in this way you really do need to read the T&C's closely before making deposits and either bet in ways that are clearly 100% within the T&C's or get clarification first before doing so. Otherwise this will not be the last casino you will end up in problems with around bonus issues whether it is specific clauses, ambiguity being interpreted against you or "spirit of bonus" problems.

This is one of the biggest problems, and one likely to make most of these terms void if it ever went to court. Given that the casino argues that this is a legal contract, it should be drawn up with the respect such a document warrants, not cobbled together from a bunch of cut & pastes from various other sites by someone who has English as a second language.

When courts hear such cases, a subtle grammatical difference can completely change the meaning of a contract. Casinos should treat their terms with the respect they deserve, having them drawn up by someone with English as their first language, or who are very fluent in it as a second. This person also needs to be legally trained to a level that enables them to convert what the casino intends into a clear and unambiguous set of contract terms that would stand up to the scrutiny of a civil court.

Whilst operators' claims that such things can't be enforced through the software, this is a "can't be arsed to" rather than "not technically possible". Cynics argue that watertight enforcement via the software would deprive casinos of the abilty to void winnings when they feel the player has got one over on them, but can't prove it, sometimes expressed as "spirit of the bonus", or "played in a professional sense".

Although the 25% rule is vaguely worded, if the offending bets were more than 25% of the bonus credited, it would be a watertight case for the casino, as this is the most liberal interpretation possible.

Casinos should also avoid the vague use of "may" and "reserve the right" when they mean "will". They should also call a prohibited game a "prohibited game", not mince their words by saying "does not contribute to WR" or "weighed at 0%".

When changes are made, the whole set of terms should be reexamined by the legal team to ensure that the changes do not introduce conflicts with existing terms, and that the wording achieves what is intended. The date from which the new terms apply should also be clearly stated, which can be done through having a "last changed" datestamp at the beginning.