Question If a casino forgets to "ban" a slot/provider for a specific country...

[Balthazar]

...and the player happens to win something big on it, should he get paid?

I ask because I've heard reps in the past saying that Canadians wouldn't get paid by NetEnt if they happen to win a progressive since we're not even supposed to play (apparently). I also ask because sometimes casinos "forget" to ban certain slots that we aren't supposed to play as Canadians (usually for copyright reasons).

Could the casino potentially use this as an excuse not to pay me if I win something substantial on a "forbidden" slot? (No progressive).

Would Max side with the casino if they refused to pay me in that hypothetical scenario? What if the player genuinely didn't know that he's not supposed to play this slot?

Yes, I know that the correct thing to do is telling the reps that they should ban the slots, but I'm just speculating about what would/could happen.

 

[Dinahnana]

...and the player happens to win something big on it, should he get paid?

I ask because I've heard reps in the past saying that Canadians wouldn't get paid by NetEnt if they happen to win a progressive since we're not even supposed to play (apparently). I also ask because sometimes casinos "forget" to ban certain slots that we aren't supposed to play as Canadians (usually for copyright reasons).

Could the casino potentially use this as an excuse not to pay me if I win something substantial on a "forbidden" slot? (No progressive).

Would Max side with the casino if they refused to pay me in that hypothetical scenario? What if the player genuinely didn't know that he's not supposed to play this slot?

Yes, I know that the correct thing to do is telling the reps that they should ban the slots, but I'm just speculating about what would/could happen.

OK this is my take on the situation. If slot provider or particular slot is listed under the t&c's as banned from play but the casino didn't for some reason prevent the player from playing I would say the casino would be in the right in not paying. Always read the t&c's. If it's not in the t&c's the casino ought to pay up. Either way the casino would need to correct the issue and block the slot ASAP.

 

[Matti]

NetEnt don't take any responsibility for casinos allowing Canadians to play. If a Canadian hit a Progressive Jackpot NetEnt will not pay. I asked them on ICE since they were some threads about this previously.

I wonder how many casino operators really can pay if someone hits a really big jackpot and NetEnt refuses. Like osulle said in his thread. Read the T&C beacause I guess that is the only way they can try to get around it.

Are there casinos offering the NetEnt progressives in Canada?

 

[Balthazar]

Are there casinos offering the NetEnt progressives in Canada?

Yes.

 

[Matti]

Yes.

Well, when I think about it maybe it's not such a big thing. It's just Scandinavians and Finns that win the progressive jackpots on NetEnt anyway

 

[maxd]

...and the player happens to win something big on it, should he get paid?

I ask because I've heard reps in the past saying that Canadians wouldn't get paid by NetEnt if they happen to win a progressive since we're not even supposed to play (apparently). I also ask because sometimes casinos "forget" to ban certain slots that we aren't supposed to play as Canadians (usually for copyright reasons).

Could the casino potentially use this as an excuse not to pay me if I win something substantial on a "forbidden" slot? (No progressive).

Would Max side with the casino if they refused to pay me in that hypothetical scenario? What if the player genuinely didn't know that he's not supposed to play this slot?

Yes, I know that the correct thing to do is telling the reps that they should ban the slots, but I'm just speculating about what would/could happen.

Not ignoring your question just __exceptionally__ busy with personal stuff this weekend. I expect I'll be able to consider your question and respond on Monday ... ish.

 

[Finn]

Well, when I think about it maybe it's not such a big thing. It's just Scandinavians and Finns that win the progressive jackpots on NetEnt anyway

If you are playing Mega Fortune Dreams, Benelux is also ok, 60% of MFD Mega jackpots have gone there.

Sweden is slacking, no MFD Mega Jackpots for Swedes thus far

MFD winners thus far

Benelux
Belgium 2
Netherlands 1

Nordic countries
Norway 1
Finland 1

 

[Jakestar]

I have wondered this too. Mainly with WMS as some sites let me play them, but are restricted to play online in Aus.

 

[spintee]

I agree if its in the terms than I wouldn't think you have a leg to stand on, What would happen if a big win was to get hit than I do not no, Any respectable casino should not be offering JP to not aloud states unless they have the back up funds to pay if netent's has out right stated they will not pay,

Casino's can and always will make some sort of mistake but I think this is one that they should no about as alot of players will not no about games not being aload to be played ect,

What happened to the good ole days before the bloody health & safety, Copyrights, & corrupt goverments

 

[vinylweatherman]

It can be a problem because some casinos are offering the games in Canada because they believe this is OK according to the contract they signed, therefore it's impossible for players to know otherwise.

In the Casinomeister meet this was discussed, with one operator who had blocked the games from Canada angry that others hadn't and NetEnt was doing nothing about enforcing it.

In effect, it's a PR disaster waiting to happen, and the negative fallout from Netent refusing to forward the money if a Canadian were to win a progressive will probably be a bigger problem for Netent than would paying out and then suing the casino responsible for creating the situation.

The problem is that this is an arbitrary decision that NetEnt made last summer, nothing really to do with external licencing agreements. It is therefore up to NetEnt to enforce their B2B contracts so that players from Canada don't get stuffed.

One casino that still offered the games to Canadians said they would continue to do so until they received a formal demand from NetEnt to "cease and desist". Whilst NetEnt had told operators of the change, they had not given a set date by which Canadians had to be blocked. It was more or less a "when you get around to it". Obviously, operators were in no hurry to "get around to" implementing a measure that would put a dent in their revenue stream, so were happy to carry on offering the games to Canadians right up until they were forced to stop doing so.

It seems this situation still exists, some 4 months after ICE in London, with Canadian players having been exposed to a royal screwing over.

Remember, this is NOTHING to do with terms and conditions of bonuses, which is where casinos list excluded games. This is where players from Canada use their own cash, without claiming a bonus, because they want to be able to play any game they want that is available, including progressives.

The longer this drags on, the bigger the scandal when it eventually happens, and the worse it will be for NetEnt when it is revealed how many months bets were being taken from Canadian players for a prize they could never win. The offending casino would probably go bust under the strain of the liability unless it was large enough to pay from it's own pockets and hide the issue from public gaze.

 

[Balthazar]

I agree if its in the terms than I wouldn't think you have a leg to stand on

I've yet to see terms that would say "players from X countries are forbidden to play the following slots..."
The slots that we can't play are just not available unless they forget to block them.

 

[spintee]

I've yet to see terms that would say "players from X countries are forbidden to play the following slots..."
The slots that we can't play are just not available unless they forget to block them.

I have no dout have seen players from x are not aloud to play certain providers, Maybe this is just a provision incase there is a hick up with the site, Next time I come across such terms I be sure to pop back,

 

[Dinahnana]

It can be a problem because some casinos are offering the games in Canada because they believe this is OK according to the contract they signed, therefore it's impossible for players to know otherwise.

In the Casinomeister meet this was discussed, with one operator who had blocked the games from Canada angry that others hadn't and NetEnt was doing nothing about enforcing it.

In effect, it's a PR disaster waiting to happen, and the negative fallout from Netent refusing to forward the money if a Canadian were to win a progressive will probably be a bigger problem for Netent than would paying out and then suing the casino responsible for creating the situation.

The problem is that this is an arbitrary decision that NetEnt made last summer, nothing really to do with external licencing agreements. It is therefore up to NetEnt to enforce their B2B contracts so that players from Canada don't get stuffed.

One casino that still offered the games to Canadians said they would continue to do so until they received a formal demand from NetEnt to "cease and desist". Whilst NetEnt had told operators of the change, they had not given a set date by which Canadians had to be blocked. It was more or less a "when you get around to it". Obviously, operators were in no hurry to "get around to" implementing a measure that would put a dent in their revenue stream, so were happy to carry on offering the games to Canadians right up until they were forced to stop doing so.

It seems this situation still exists, some 4 months after ICE in London, with Canadian players having been exposed to a royal screwing over.

Remember, this is NOTHING to do with terms and conditions of bonuses, which is where casinos list excluded games. This is where players from Canada use their own cash, without claiming a bonus, because they want to be able to play any game they want that is available, including progressives.

The longer this drags on, the bigger the scandal when it eventually happens, and the worse it will be for NetEnt when it is revealed how many months bets were being taken from Canadian players for a prize they could never win. The offending casino would probably go bust under the strain of the liability unless it was large enough to pay from it's own pockets and hide the issue from public gaze.

So Netent and casinos are both to blame here IMO. Netent should be taking a stronger stance and force the casinos to stop offering Netent games to
Canadians. The casinos are aware of Netents decision to stop offering games to Canadian players so that is what they should do. Casino operators are no dummies and have to realise that by continuing to offer these games leaves them open to a world of hurt down the line.

In any case I don't understand why they would want to ban Canadian players in the first place. It's a large market where online gambling is legal so what's the problem? Am I missing something?

 

[Freeman]

...and the player happens to win something big on it, should he get paid?

I ask because I've heard reps in the past saying that Canadians wouldn't get paid by NetEnt if they happen to win a progressive since we're not even supposed to play (apparently). I also ask because sometimes casinos "forget" to ban certain slots that we aren't supposed to play as Canadians (usually for copyright reasons).

Could the casino potentially use this as an excuse not to pay me if I win something substantial on a "forbidden" slot? (No progressive).

Would Max side with the casino if they refused to pay me in that hypothetical scenario? What if the player genuinely didn't know that he's not supposed to play this slot?

Yes, I know that the correct thing to do is telling the reps that they should ban the slots, but I'm just speculating about what would/could happen.

Tricky one, but I would go with void. The smallprint are there for their pretection, and believe me: They'll use it for sure.

 

[Casinomeister]

This is an excellent question and should be addressed. I would say that the software provider, who is in charge of the pooled progressive funds would not be liable to pay a progressive payout. But the casino, which should be blocking these bets, would be in a potential legal dilemma. They had knowingly accepted bets from a banned jurisdiction, and litigation may be on the table for the player. I would assume those bets be returned to the player, but the progressive pool would be contaminated with bad bets since they got as far as Netent.

You are correct in assuming that this is a PR disaster waiting to happen. I would not want to be that casino rep who would have to deal with this potential nightmare.

 

[Mr Wild]

I actually had a discussion with Netent regarding this issue last week as I work with Videoslots.com. We do our best effort to follow Netent's policy by the book and we are not happy that other operators don't.

Netent's point is that they don't want to act as a police among its operators. It's the operator responsiblity to block the restricted countries and to make sure to be compliant. In all jackpot contracts it is specified that if a player win the jackpot from a restricited country, the jackpot win will be invalid and returned to the progressive account.

Any casino operator who allows for example Canadiens to play their Netent games, especially the Progressive jackpot games, are taking a big risk on the players expense. I think that should be noted on the accredited section. However some casinos might feel that if the jackpot will be hit from a restricted country, they feel they afford to pay it from their own pockets. That should then be noted in their terms and conditions if this is the case. They also have to report this to the MGA if they have a maltese license, as they need to hold the funds seperatley together with player balances and declare this to the MGA every month.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I actually had a discussion with Netent regarding this issue last week as I work with Videoslots.com. We do our best effort to follow Netent's policy by the book and we are not happy that other operators don't.

Netent's point is that they don't want to act as a police among its operators. It's the operator responsiblity to block the restricted countries and to make sure to be compliant. In all jackpot contracts it is specified that if a player win the jackpot from a restricited country, the jackpot win will be invalid and returned to the progressive account.

Any casino operator who allows for example Canadiens to play their Netent games, especially the Progressive jackpot games, are taking a big risk on the players expense. I think that should be noted on the accredited section. However some casinos might feel that if the jackpot will be hit from a restricted country, they feel they afford to pay it from their own pockets. That should then be noted in their terms and conditions if this is the case. They also have to report this to the MGA if they have a maltese license, as they need to hold the funds seperatley together with player balances and declare this to the MGA every month.

This just isn't good enough. The average player would have no way of knowing that the casino was in breach of it's B2B agreement with the software supplier. With non progressives, NetEnt appear to be saying that casinos can just carry on offering the games in violation of their B2B agreement because NetEnt won't stop them, and as non progressives, the casinos are paying from their own funds in any case.

The progressives are a different matter altogether. The casinos may not have the funds to cover the payout, and it's the player that gets shafted. This is not so different from the Playtech problem where operators void progressives without good reason and pocket the cash, whilst Playtech just looks the other way.
This situation has been going one with NetEnt and Canadians for a while, and so it's a matter of when, not if, the proverbial hits the fan.

It won't be a matter for that one casino and the player either, it's bound to attract massive publicity when it happens, and it could knock confidence in NetEnt not just in Canada, but the rest of the world. One has to remember that most players are not active here, and probably have no idea that this is a disaster waiting to happen.

The casinos who are refusing to block Canadians are not just the rogues, there are some highly regarded accredited casinos involved with this issue.

Canadian players on this forum should not take the risk, but as far as non progressives from NetEnt go, they may as well play whilst they can because NetEnt won't police the rules, and operators can freely flout them and pay from their own float as is always the case with non progressives.

Given the vague legality of this in Canada, maybe the casinos are banking on not being taken to court when they have to tell a Canadian winner that NetEnt have voided their jackpot because of a term in the B2B agreement that the player can't really know about.

When Microgaming faced a similar problem just prior to their complete pull out from the US, we had reports of US players asking "where are all the progressives", and for the most part, they were receiving vague and conflicting answers until MGS told operators that it was something that had been blocked centrally. It was probably down to MGS not wanting to be in the position of having to forward millions of dollars to a player in a country where the payment would be illegal or tarnishing it's reputation by having to void the payout due to an unpublished term.

Such problems would not happen in the old style single supplier download client, it's a problem when a multi supplier platform sits between the game provider and the player, it is then this platform provider that has to ensure their software can block games from players in certain countries, and then it's for operators to implement the facility. This is the latest, and biggest, in a number of issues that are damaging to the trust players have in such products compared to the simpler download client or single supplier models.

 

[Matti]

This just isn't good enough. The average player would have no way of knowing that the casino was in breach of it's B2B agreement with the software supplier. With non progressives, NetEnt appear to be saying that casinos can just carry on offering the games in violation of their B2B agreement because NetEnt won't stop them, and as non progressives, the casinos are paying from their own funds in any case.

The progressives are a different matter altogether. The casinos may not have the funds to cover the payout, and it's the player that gets shafted. This is not so different from the Playtech problem where operators void progressives without good reason and pocket the cash, whilst Playtech just looks the other way.
This situation has been going one with NetEnt and Canadians for a while, and so it's a matter of when, not if, the proverbial hits the fan.

It won't be a matter for that one casino and the player either, it's bound to attract massive publicity when it happens, and it could knock confidence in NetEnt not just in Canada, but the rest of the world. One has to remember that most players are not active here, and probably have no idea that this is a disaster waiting to happen.

The casinos who are refusing to block Canadians are not just the rogues, there are some highly regarded accredited casinos involved with this issue.

Canadian players on this forum should not take the risk, but as far as non progressives from NetEnt go, they may as well play whilst they can because NetEnt won't police the rules, and operators can freely flout them and pay from their own float as is always the case with non progressives.

Given the vague legality of this in Canada, maybe the casinos are banking on not being taken to court when they have to tell a Canadian winner that NetEnt have voided their jackpot because of a term in the B2B agreement that the player can't really know about.

When Microgaming faced a similar problem just prior to their complete pull out from the US, we had reports of US players asking "where are all the progressives", and for the most part, they were receiving vague and conflicting answers until MGS told operators that it was something that had been blocked centrally. It was probably down to MGS not wanting to be in the position of having to forward millions of dollars to a player in a country where the payment would be illegal or tarnishing it's reputation by having to void the payout due to an unpublished term.

Such problems would not happen in the old style single supplier download client, it's a problem when a multi supplier platform sits between the game provider and the player, it is then this platform provider that has to ensure their software can block games from players in certain countries, and then it's for operators to implement the facility. This is the latest, and biggest, in a number of issues that are damaging to the trust players have in such products compared to the simpler download client or single supplier models.

I just don't get it. It can't be worth the risk showing the progressive jackpots on illegal markets. As you say many are highly regarded accredited casinos. I think that maybe they are a bit naive and don't understand the full consequence could be.

 

[Dinahnana]

The solution to this problem is fairly easy. Casino operators need to block all banned Netent slots for Canadian players. They have programmers and should be able to do this easily enough IMHO. The only reason they don't is because they are probably afraid they will loose money (which they probably would) since their slot portfolio would be greatly reduced.
At least for now they should block the Jackpot slots. My 2cents

 

[vinylweatherman]

I just don't get it. It can't be worth the risk showing the progressive jackpots on illegal markets. As you say many are highly regarded accredited casinos. I think that maybe they are a bit naive and don't understand the full consequence could be.

Maybe they are in denial, not believing that this could possibly ever happen. The other issue is that NetEnt are not enforcing this rule, so maybe this is a case of the casinos' position being that this rule is not part of their contract, and that were NetEnt to refuse to pay out, they would be in breach of their B2B contract with the casino. Still it's the PLAYER who will be caught up in the ensuing legal shitstorm between NetEnt and a Canadian facing operator should this situation arise, and it will be over a life changing sum of money.

It appears to be a purely arbitrary choice by NetEnt to stop providing their games to the Canadian markets, but they will have agreed to contracts with the casinos prior to this, and these contracts may still be in force, and operators may see no legal case for NetEnt insisting upon such a change until the contract is up for renewal, so they are ignoring the "request" as they see it until a new contract is under negotiation.

 

[Mr Wild]

It would be interesting to hear from an accredited casino about their thoughts on this.
Which accredited casinos accept bets from Canada on progressive jackpot games from Netent?

 

[Jasminebed]

I think it is safe to say Canadians have always embraced technology. From early days of ATMs and debit cards through listening to people in their seventies talking about Skyping with their grandchildren. We are seeing television campaigns for dot net play slots for free for many years.

I was not aware that I risked not being paid if I won, and those who know me know I read things more closely than the average Joe. I think most of the members here are the same.

While I don't play NetEnt progressives often recently Hall of Gods saw a bit of action from me. I was sent emails from more than one accredited casino encouraging me to.

Are NetEnt refusing to accept the pool contributions from those slots?

Nordicbet was the first one to close its doors, at least the ones I play at. Mr Green no longer offers me the ability to play any NetEnt product.

Betspin, which is newly accredited and would have quite recent agreements with the provider has free spins on Cosmic fortune as part of their welcome package specifically for Canadians. I do rather enjoy that one and have wondered why some can bet .15 euros and I have to play 75 cents.

 

[Mr Wild]

I think it is safe to say Canadians have always embraced technology. From early days of ATMs and debit cards through listening to people in their seventies talking about Skyping with their grandchildren. We are seeing television campaigns for dot net play slots for free for many years.

I was not aware that I risked not being paid if I won, and those who know me know I read things more closely than the average Joe. I think most of the members here are the same.

While I don't play NetEnt progressives often recently Hall of Gods saw a bit of action from me. I was sent emails from more than one accredited casino encouraging me to.

Are NetEnt refusing to accept the pool contributions from those slots?

Nordicbet was the first one to close its doors, at least the ones I play at. Mr Green no longer offers me the ability to play any NetEnt product.

Betspin, which is newly accredited and would have quite recent agreements with the provider has free spins on Cosmic fortune as part of their welcome package specifically for Canadians. I do rather enjoy that one and have wondered why some can bet .15 euros and I have to play 75 cents.

Well if you play local jackpots its not a big problem as these are held locally within the casino itself. However if you can play Hall of Gods at Betspins, which is a progressive jackpot, this is a major problem for you. Then Betspin need to answer you how they would pay you the progressive jackpot win if you hit it, as Netent will not pay it to them.

 

[Balthazar]

Personally I think that all casinos should offer NetEnt products to Canadians except the progressives. NetEnt won't enforce their bizarre "anti-Canada" policy so it's not a risk for operators, and there's no risk for the player since the non-progressive wins come from the casinos' pockets. It's a win-win situation for both the casinos and Canadian players.

Now what if an accredited casino here forgot to block a non-progressive MGS game that's supposed to be blocked for Canadians? Could they not pay me if I win on it?

 

[Batman]

It depends.

1. T&C mentions that your jurisdiction is banned; The slot is banned for your jurisdiction; You decide to change IP and play it - You shouldn't get paid.
2. T&C mentions that your jurisdiction is banned; The slot isn't banned for your jurisdiction; You decide to play - You will not get paid (you breached their Terms).
3. T&C isn't mentioning that your jurisdiction is banned; The slot is banned for your jurisdiction; You decide to change IP and play it - You won't get paid even if you should.
4. T&C isn't mentioning that your jurisdiction is banned; The slot isn't banned for your jurisdiction; You decide to play it - You should get paid.

This term may not be mentioned in the Terms and Conditions, but on other places on the website (the description of the game, or any other place), so be careful.

*Regarding point number 3 and 4: even if you should get paid, you (99% sure) won't be. So my advice is be smart, do your homework before playing and try to stay as safe as possible.
"It's a jungle out there"


To be more specific to the question at hand:

Now what if an accredited casino here forgot to block a non-progressive MGS game that's supposed to be blocked for Canadians? Could they not pay me if I win on it?

They won't pay, because it's probably mentioned somewhere on their website that Canadians aren't allowed to play that slot (have restrictions on certain slots)

(Playboy?)