Those statements are invalid on premise of purchase of service.
When you deposit, or more correctly place a wager, you are purchasing a service that enables you to gain from that purchase or lose it. Its quite literally like buying iTunes as you aptly put it but the product is different - its a gamble. When you purchase in GBP, stemming from UK, your product (potential return) is given in GBP should it come to fruition.
That is where it ends.
You are under the impression that you are legally purchasing bonuses. You are not. Bonuses are a promise of loyalty reward offered by the 'shop' aka. a casino, on pure and unchallengeable terms set upon the casino offering them and carrying the behavioural conditions they impose.
To go to outright extremes, when it comes to a bonus, a casino can wait for you to complete 99% of wagering and lose your real funds and invalidate a bonus - and you would sill have no case. At best, you could push for false advertising and that's a stretch. Of course they'd end up in the rogue pit, but that's besides the point. Legally you as a single individual have no ground to stand on. Only if its done in masses and the regulator receives a vast number of complaints they *may* do something about the way that casino operates commercially.
I say you would have no case because for every real money bet you placed on the casino, you received a chance to win money back. Players seemto be forgetting that this is what they are buying. You aren't buying bonuses - you're buying into a gamble. Bonuses come extra and are our prerogative, not yours.
You remain with a choice to gamble her or there based on what's being offered, but to go as far as to say that its legally required of me to give the same loyalty comp points reward program to one player because I gave it to another, or one group of players because of another is ludicrous.
Casinos should own up to their T&C's - it's undeniable - but what their T&C's are composed of is their choice and their choice alone. Don't like it? Don't play. There's enough choice around.
I wouldn't be so sure.
There is a more recent debate that the casinos are themselves "selling bonuses" rather than the service of playing the games via a software interface. Almost ALL marketing is now based on the bonus, and making it look better than the competition. You do NOT see so much of marketing that sells the GAMES, with statements like "our Blackjack is better than the blackjack at other casinos because............", or "we pay faster than the rest".
If anything, these other services like speed of payment have become WORSE than ever before, whilst the marketing of bonuses has become ever more intrusive and aggressive. Go to most affiliate sites and you will see it is the welcome bonus, not the quality of service, that is being "sold". Rankings are nearly always based on the quality of the bonus, rather than other aspects of the service.
You are also wrong in another sense. If a bonus promise is used to entice the player to make a contract by purchasing, it is still a breach of contract to void the bonus where no contractural terms have been broken by the player. It is the same with shops, and has been upheld in legal cases. Where a shop offers a "free gift" as an inducement to buy a product, the free gift forms part of the contract, and the shop is obligated to supply the free gift, and it must be of "merchantable quality" in the same way it would be if bought. A faulty free gift, or it's non arrival, is even grounds for the consumer getting a refund on the purchase because of breach of contract.
Google "hoover free flights fiasco" for an example of what happens to a company that promises a free gift as an inducement to purchase a product, but fails to deliver. In the end, it brought the company down, and the brand was bought out by an American company.
The main reason online casinos see it differently is the lack of regulation. Most casinos are not regulated in the same country as the player, so it is much harder to pursue a case. The recent proposals by the UK government are due in part to the realisation that UK players are not properly protected with the current system, spurred on of course by the prospect of getting some TAX out of these offshore operators, and selling it to voters as better protection against the rogues.
Within the EU, there have already been cases where companies have tried to subject specific countries to worse terms than another, and the EU courts have ruled this to be illegal. Apple, for example, offered a better price in Euros than in UK Pounds on it's French iTunes site, and then blocked UK customers from buying in Euros from the French site. This was outlawed by the EU, yet Apple have now resorted to trickery. Although UK customers can no longer be blocked from buying from another EU countries' iTunes store, they have blocked the use of UK cards, so a UK customer would have to get, for example, a French issued card, in order to exercise their "single market" rights.
This only applies within the EU, and only where the casino itself is regulated within the EU. It is still very hard for an individual player to make a case, so apart from venting about it in forums since 2008, there has been little progress.
We STILL have the argument that just because a late night TV channel offers a guide to "bonus abuse", EVERY person is bound to have seen it, and decided to try it. There is also the fact that there is nothing on that show that cannot be gained from looking around the internet, so "bonus abusers" do not rely on this TV show for knowing how to play best.
I bet I know a few things NO Danish late night TV viewer could have found out by watching that show
The REAL problem is that casinos "sell" the welcome bonus as a "loss leader" like a supermarket selling bread or beans for 1p in order to entice customers into the store, where the hope is that they will do their entire shop there, rather than walk out with 50 loaves or 50 tins of beans. Supermarkets already know this doesn't work, because this is exactly what happened, and they stopped doing it. Casinos on the other hand STILL persist in offering "loss leader" welcome bonuses, and have to use subtle, even devious, means to ensure that they don't have too many players walking out with the proverbial 50 loaves rather than making the casino the place for their "regular play".
With internet TV and a global community, excluding by country is not a long term solution to the problem, as all it does is move it along to a different country, or even a like minded virtual community NOT connected geographically. Such a community would be "all Casinomeister members".
There are also many community forums dedicated to the arts of "bonus abuse", with a few that move into "fraud" territory, such as discussions on how to multi-account and get away with it. These are easy to find by anyone interested in "abusing a bonus", whether or not they are from Denmark.
All this does is make the MAJORITY of players from a blighted country feel that they are being treated as second class customers, yet still expected to pay "first class" prices, if not more, for the same service. As far as they are concerned, there is no good reason for this other than a "random" prejudice. Casinos are often unwilling to explain WHY such a rule is in place when one of these "blighted" customers asks, so it reinforces the view that it is a rule without reason.
Playtech, for example, have a stock advisory to all operators to "blight" the UK. When this was discussed here, a Playtech operator explained that the rule was there simply because Playtech advised it was needed, and the operator just followed along, rather than thinking for themselves. Playtech won't say why they are giving such advice, nor explain WTF it even has to do with them as after all, they are "merely the software supplier", as they explained when trying to claim there was nothing they could do to police their licensees and make them play by the rules.
The UK does NOT have a late night TV show on "bonus abuse", so there seems no logical reason for the UK to be seen as a "hotbed of abusive players".