How can a casino Licensing Authority approve these rules?

[GamblerXXXl]

Dear Members

I was scrolling through some rules of the casino I played in and what amazed me was I found a certain rule that is just to screw casino players over, I cannot understand a license provider approve these kind of rules aren't there any guidelines for casino to hold on to?? I am talking about the mansion group they have the following rule.

11.2 Once your Player Account has been deemed Dormant we will be entitled to charge you an administrative fee equivalent to 5% of your total account balance (“Administration Fee”). The minimum deduction amount is $15 or currency equivalent and the maximum deduction amount is $500 or currency equivalent. We will deduct the Administration Fee from your Player Account balance every thirty (30) days from the moment your account has become dormant.

11.6 Should your Player Account remain Dormant and not be accessed by you and used for real money Betting for any consecutive period of 180 days from becoming Dormant and where your account also has a balance, we shall continue to contact you with a view to returning any remaining funds. Should this not be possible, then the remaining balance in that Account will be removed at the end of this further period of 1 year in total from becoming Dormant and the Account closed.


So when I am on a long holiday or for some personal reason I cannot play and I have a 10K balance they just keep scrapping money of the top till I don't have nothing left anymore how in the world is this possible for any company, should your funds not be save at the big company like this instead they added a rule to take your money away from you and what about the regulators to they approve this "Administration Fee" . I am familiar with this rule party group has it to it's like a 5 dollar a month. Is this rule even legal for a company to have in it's terms and conditions?


Looking forward to a responds.

 

[Nifty29]

Personally, I think anyone that leaves large amounts in casino accounts is crazy.

Casinos are not banks. Money in accounts is a liability for the operator, and it's possible these rules are intended to discourage the use of accounts to store funds.

Regardless of what a licencing body or anyone else says or does, it's up to the player to read and understand the terms. If one doesn't like them, one can decide not to play at that casino. Simple.

If one doesn't read the terms they agreed to, then one must accept that they were careless and cop it on the chin.

 

[KasinoKing]

These rules are not that uncommon.
What you didn't quote is that at Casino.com or Mansion Casino (the casino group in question) an account is deemed dormant after 6 months (180 days) of no betting activity at all.
Would you really go on holiday for more than 6 months leaving a 10K balance in your account?
I think not.

Like Nifty said, casinos can have pretty much any rules they want, I mean, how come there are 30+ Playtech casinos who are "allowed" to hold on to a Progressive Jackpot and drip-feed it to the winning player even though the money NEVER belonged to the casino at any point?

Buyer beware...

KK

 

[rshkrn]

I believe it's always up to the player to read and accept the terms if they want to play at that casino, whatever the terms may be....anyways think 90% do not even bother to read them properly

 

[skiny]

I'm not sure what the problem is. They say they'll continue trying to contact you for a year. I don't know who goes on vacation for a year but even people on vacation check their emails.

If they can't check their emails they should probably contact the casino who's holding their money before they leave.

"Dear casino,

I'm leaving for Mars tomorrow. I will be out of Earthly contact for 12 months. Will my funds be safe until I return?"


"Dear crazy person,

If we can't contact you for 12 consecutive months we keep your money."


Now you know.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Some people may worry that it will be unplanned, such as being in an accident and unable to contact the casino due to being in hospital. I think in most cases it's to deal with players who leave small amounts in accounts because they have decided not to play there any longer, but the amount is also too small to withdraw. Most players would surely withdraw any worthwhile sums once they had decided not to play any longer.

I have also noticed that many casinos with such terms will return the money to the player if they come back expressing an intent to play some more. Ones licensed in Malta have to hand over the balance to the LGA, they are not allowed to just keep it as extra profit. Players can still retrieve their money from the LGA afterwards.

They probably allow it because it is seen as a book keeping exercise, rather than a means to rip off the players by confiscating unused balances.

 

[petr1]

Personally, I think anyone that leaves large amounts in casino accounts is crazy.

Casinos are not banks. Money in accounts is a liability for the operator, and it's possible these rules are intended to discourage the use of accounts to store funds.

Regardless of what a licencing body or anyone else says or does, it's up to the player to read and understand the terms. If one doesn't like them, one can decide not to play at that casino. Simple.

If one doesn't read the terms they agreed to, then one must accept that they were careless and cop it on the chin.

No, that's why there are licencing/regulatory bodies. If the terms are illegal, the casino has absolutely no right to enforce them, even if one has accepted them.

 

[GrandMaster]

Personally, I think anyone that leaves large amounts in casino accounts is crazy.

Casinos are not banks. Money in accounts is a liability for the operator, and it's possible these rules are intended to discourage the use of accounts to store funds.

There is also corresponding asset in the casino's bank or Neteller or similar account. Ignoring processing costs, making or receiving payments from players does not affect the casino's net assets. In general, businesses are only too happy to receive interest-free credit, of course, the casino would prefer the player to play and to lose the money.

 

[mcgameboy]

IF I was lucky enough to end up with a 10k balance at any online casino, I wouldn't have it sitting "dormant" in there for 24 hours, let alone 180 days.

Unless I get struck by lightning or suffer a fatal heart attack within 10 minutes of hitting a five figure random jackpot at a casino. I'd have that withdraw button (to cashout at least 9k of the 10k balance) clicked so fast my mouse would end up with second degree burns.

 

[Nifty29]

No, that's why there are licencing/regulatory bodies. If the terms are illegal asino has absolutely no right to enforce them, even if one has accepted them.

It depends what you mean illegal. I've not heard of online casinos being challenged in court...successfully at least...for having "illegal" terms.

What you say sounds nice, but it's not reality. If it was, the PAB service wouldn't be half as busy. Just talk to players who have taken such cases to LGA in Malta and such places...talk to the hand has been a popular reply.

The reality is that if you accept a term, you're bound by it in the online casino world. The armchair lawyers can quote legislation etc, but that's how things are. Is it right? No. The problem is that dodgy operators will always find another licensing body if they are acted upon for awful terms, and the licensing bodies make a nice sum out of license fees....so they don't want to rock the boat too much, nor bite the hand that feeds them.

If you don't believe me, go to a casino that has "illegal" terms, breach those terms, and then see how far you get with the "you can't enforce it...it's illegal" argument.

 

[skiny]

Actually the question was "How can a casino Licensing Authority approve these rules?"

I'm not sure a casino licensing authority even reads them. These terms and conditions change on a regular basis. It seems unlikely that anyone is constantly checking to see whether any new rules are legal or not.

Even if there was a case where the LGA would rule against the casino, they probably wouldn't even know this unenforceable rule existed until there was a complaint about it.

 

[KasinoKing]

Actually the question was "How can a casino Licensing Authority approve these rules?"
I'm not sure a casino licensing authority even reads them. These terms and conditions change on a regular basis. It seems unlikely that anyone is constantly checking to see whether any new rules are legal or not.
Even if there was a case where the LGA would rule against the casino, they probably wouldn't even know this unenforceable rule existed until there was a complaint about it.

FYI: In this particular case, the Licensing Authority is Gibraltar.

KK

 

[skiny]

Who ever it is, I don't think it's any different from the PAB system.

Nobody expects Brian or Max to read all the T&Cs for every accredited casino every day, week or month.

That doesn't mean they'll accept them as fair just because someone clicked "I agree."