Licensing question for Rep's

[Rusty]

To all Reps

With which Licensing authority is your Casino registered and on what basis did your Casino choose this Licensing authority over others?

Thanks

 

[Ed Ware]

Hi Rusty

Providing a good spread of operators decide to contribute to this thread, you should get some interesting answers to your question.

As far as 32Red is concerned, we have always seen the licensing jurisdiction as very much part of the overall proposition to the player and not just a means to an end (to doing business). We believe that being a licensee in a creditable and regulated jurisdiction says a lot of about the quality of the operation and should be something a player researches before joining a casino. In 2002 the choice for operators basically consisted of some Caribbean locations, Kahnawake and Gibraltar.

Gibraltar has always operated a very strict and controlled approach to licensing online gaming operators and it is clear that not every applicant has been able to attain a licence in Gibraltar. We regard this as a sign of a strong licensing regime and while the reasons for refusals arent known, it is clear that Gibraltar has set out to establish itself as home to blue chip companies including Ladbrokes, Bwin and Coral Eurobet. We have always believed that this sends a clear and positive message to those prospective players who feel licensing jurisdiction is important when making their choice of casino.

Gibraltar has a structured licensing and regulatory environment which serves to protect the player (and thus the reputation of Gibraltar and the operators based here). The Government continues to apply a great deal of resource to regulating the operators and upgrading various parts of the legal framework. In essence, the enterprise is taken extremely seriously by the Authorities and not just as a way of getting money into central coffers. This is important to 32Red.

Additionally, with our interest in the UK player, Gibraltar offers unfettered access to that market basically through its status as British Overseas Territory. Being in the European Economic Area is also important in this regard and the physical proximity to the United Kingdom is an obvious logistical advantage for us. This has become even more important since the passing of the 2005 Gambling Act which prohibits advertising in the UK by online gambling firms, unless they are licensed in particular jurisdictions. Gibraltars position, thanks to its status and heritage is rock solid.

Since 32Red opened its virtual doors, the United Kingdom and Malta have become viable alternatives. However, from our perspective both still have some areas to attend to before they can be considered serious alternatives to Gibraltar.

I hope thats of some use.

Best wishes

Ed.

 

[Pinababy69]

Malta have become viable alternatives. However, from our perspective both still have some areas to attend to before they can be considered serious alternatives to Gibraltar.

I don't know much about the UK alternative Ed, but your comments re: Malta are putting it mildly. They could start with taking less time than six months to answer a player complaint. That's if they ever do. Honestly, they are useless, and IMO, nothing more than window dressing for some casinos to post on their websites.

Gibraltar is about the only licensing jurisdiction I have any faith in whatsoever. The Lucky Ace (888 whitelabel) issue comes to mind....that got cleared up pretty quickly once the Commissioner got wind of it, and the complaints were sent in.

You made a wise choice.

 

[Rusty]

Hi Rusty

Providing a good spread of operators decide to contribute to this thread, you should get some interesting answers to your question.

As far as 32Red is concerned, we have always seen the licensing jurisdiction as very much part of the overall proposition to the player and not just a means to an end (to doing business). We believe that being a licensee in a creditable and regulated jurisdiction says a lot of about the quality of the operation and should be something a player researches before joining a casino. In 2002 the choice for operators basically consisted of some Caribbean locations, Kahnawake and Gibraltar.

Gibraltar has always operated a very strict and controlled approach to licensing online gaming operators and it is clear that not every applicant has been able to attain a licence in Gibraltar. We regard this as a sign of a strong licensing regime and while the reasons for refusals arent known, it is clear that Gibraltar has set out to establish itself as home to blue chip companies including Ladbrokes, Bwin and Coral Eurobet. We have always believed that this sends a clear and positive message to those prospective players who feel licensing jurisdiction is important when making their choice of casino.

Gibraltar has a structured licensing and regulatory environment which serves to protect the player (and thus the reputation of Gibraltar and the operators based here). The Government continues to apply a great deal of resource to regulating the operators and upgrading various parts of the legal framework. In essence, the enterprise is taken extremely seriously by the Authorities and not just as a way of getting money into central coffers. This is important to 32Red.

Additionally, with our interest in the UK player, Gibraltar offers unfettered access to that market basically through its status as British Overseas Territory. Being in the European Economic Area is also important in this regard and the physical proximity to the United Kingdom is an obvious logistical advantage for us. This has become even more important since the passing of the 2005 Gambling Act which prohibits advertising in the UK by online gambling firms, unless they are licensed in particular jurisdictions. Gibraltars position, thanks to its status and heritage is rock solid.

Since 32Red opened its virtual doors, the United Kingdom and Malta have become viable alternatives. However, from our perspective both still have some areas to attend to before they can be considered serious alternatives to Gibraltar.

I hope thats of some use.

Best wishes

Ed.

Thank you for taking the time to reply with such a detailed answer and addressing the question directly.
It would be unfair to press you for an opinion on other LGA's but I assume the issue with the UK is not with the regulations or credibility as such but rather a tax issue?

I hope more Reps will respond to this thread.

 

[Ed Ware]

Thank you for taking the time to reply with such a detailed answer and addressing the question directly.
It would be unfair to press you for an opinion on other LGA's but I assume the issue with the UK is not with the regulations or credibility as such but rather a tax issue?

I hope more Reps will respond to this thread.

Thanks Rusty and I think you are right on the UK....

 

[Simmo!]

Gibraltars position...is rock solid.

Impossible to argue that

Gibraltar is about the only licensing jurisdiction I have any faith in whatsoever.

Alderney just gets my vote ahead of Gib but I don't think it was an option until the past 3 years or so. The only ones I feel I really trust are Gib, Alderney and the Isle Of Man. Good topic Rusty.

Jurisdiction is important to me when deciding where to play but more when deciding where *not* to play. I wouldn't play any in Costa Rica, it used to be I'd only play a Kahnawake operator if it was Microgaming, but now I have less confidence in Microgaming's backup, I probably wouldn't play Kahnawake period unlesss the casino had a good history behind it.

 

[Pinababy69]

Alderney just gets my vote ahead of Gib but I don't think it was an option until the past 3 years or so. The only ones I feel I really trust are Gib, Alderney and the Isle Of Man. Good topic Rusty.

I had high hopes for Alderney until that PKR.com case....maybe a year or more ago? I'd have to go back and find the thread, but I'm pretty sure they initially ruled against the player....who, as far as I can remember, hadn't done anything wrong. There were also some pretty serious implications of the casino accusing the player of fraud to Moneybookers and having their account closed there. To be fair to Alderney, I believe they reversed their decision and that the player did get paid. I guess the most important thing was that they eventually made the right decision...it just wasn't the best first impression for me.

EDIT: Just for reference, as Alderney was quite involved with this one.....thought maybe some might like to read it.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/pkr-revoking-bonus-for-no-reason.25696/

 

[Rusty]

Quite disappointing that only One Rep has responded to this thread thus far.
I have to wonder why so many are reluctant to participate.

Licensing Authorities are increasingly coming under the scrutiny of the player and we currently have an ongoing high profile case in the hands of LGA of Malta.

Malta has already had its integrity questioned over recent (none)actions so some players and no doubt Casinos will be looking very carefully at their findings over the disputed Jackpot win at Casino club.

Which ever way they rule they need to show that they have approached this case objectively and taken into consideration all the available information and evidence at their disposal and acted accordingly.
Any failure to address any of the arguments in this manner will result in the assumption that they are incompetent or even prejudice in some way.

We have already seen previously respected (because they never had to make an important ruling) Kahnawake Gaming commission fall over themselves to appear as corrupt and inept as possible with their handling of the Absolute poker Scandal.
Without dragging up the well publicised details of the case again I think it fair to say anyone who is aware of them would never trust Kahnawake Gaming commission to make a fair judgment on a case again and this of course has big implications for the Casinos who are licensed under them.

Also as PinaBaby mentions Alderney have not exactly covered themselves in glory recently either.
What is really concerning is that these were Two of the more respected licensing authorities, there are a whole plethora backwater jurisdictions that this sort of behaviour could be expected from.

All these Licensing authorities demand fees from their clients and for many this seems to be where there responsibilities end.
The Casinos that pay these fees and the players should both demand much more.
It is in the Casinos best interests as well as the players that the authority they are licensed by are proactive and seen to be fair.

Casinomeister has a wealth of information with which the player can educate themselves and this includes some references to gaming authorities.
Perhaps though it is time to draw up a list such as the Ones for Casinos that players can easily reference.
I would personally nominate Kahnawake for the rogue section along with many others and Alderney and Malta in the not recommended but this would be for Casinomeister to judge.
There is no reason not to have a positive list such as recommended either.

What are your feelings on such a list Bryan?

 

[Casinomeister]

Quite disappointing that only One Rep has responded to this thread thus far.
I have to wonder why so many are reluctant to participate.

Because most reps are focused on the complaints section - and there are a number who are licensed in Kahna-haha-wake

They may be reluctant to be slam-basted .

I would personally nominate Kahnawake for the rogue section along with many others and Alderney and Malta in the not recommended but this would be for Casinomeister to judge.
There is no reason not to have a positive list such as recommended either.

What are your feelings on such a list Bryan?

Licensing is a tricky subject - mainly because there are a number of variables that come into the decision making process when it comes to licensing. A lot of it has to do with costs - how much money a start up operation can dictate where they choose to go. It could be Cowboy Town - it could be the Isle of Man/Gibraltar - or somewhere in the EU.

There are some crapholes of casinos operating out of Costa Rica - and yet there are some excellent ones as well. Same thing goes for Kana-haha-wake. There are pros and cons for each jurisdiction and I feel that a jurisdiction can reflect on a casino, it can't reflect on it 100%. That's why I don't rogue jurisdictions.

I do write about them though. These write-ups can be found here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/bestworst2008.php
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/bestworst2007.php

Edited to add: What is frustrating for me is that most licensing entities are set up primarily to serve the operator. Players have a difficult time trying to contact a real person who can resolve a complaint. This industry is over ten years old, and most jurisdiction fail when it comes to dealing with player issues effectively. It's truly amazing.

 

[Pinababy69]

I do right about them though.

You mean you write about them...tsk, tsk.

 

[jetset]

I would agree that Alderney and the Isle of Man are suitable alternatives to Gibraltar.

And although it is a very human reaction, I think it would be unfair to condemn a jurisdiction out of hand on the basis of a single adverse ruling, mistake or failure - especially when the situation is ultimately rectified.

Unfortunately, in the case of some of the jurisdictions criticised here, there have been way more than single failings and a lamentable lack of player sensitivity, and it is therefore hard to disagree with the harsh judgements in those cases.

I often wonder whether these licensing jurisdictions really appreciate how critically important it is from a player trust perspective to have a responsive player complaint channel.

It always astonishes me when I hear of player complaints being ignored, or treated in a lax and dilatory manner.

And I find it difficult to believe that most of these complaints cannot be resolved within days or weeks rather than months (often without the player receiving the courtesy of progress reports) When I look at the turnarounds on most PABs here at Casinomeister it confirms that this is entirely possible with the right structure and will.

This is an interesting topic, and I hope that other operators will give us their perspectives.

 

[Casinomeister]

You mean you write about them...tsk, tsk.

OMG - haven't done that in a while

..And I find it difficult to believe that most of these complaints cannot be resolved within days or weeks rather than months (often without the player receiving the courtesy of progress reports) When I look at the turnarounds on most PABs here at Casinomeister it confirms that this is entirely possible with the right structure and will...

Mind boggling, really. It's funny how our PAB section with Max at the helm is way more effective than most of the jurisdictions all put together.

We have over 10,000 members here - around 2000 are active participants, and this forum is over ten years old. Show me the posts where players actually submitted complaints to a gaming authority - and then had these dealt with in a swift and fair manner.

If you do find any, (which I doubt you will), I bet you could count them on one hand.

All it would take is to add a "complaints" submission form on their websites and then hire a couple of interns to manage the complaints.

I'll see if I can stir up the interests of some of the I-Gaming Reps.

 

[JSM_Jason]

All Rival casinos are licensed and regulated by the Government of Curacao N.V.

I'm just a rep for our specific Rival casinos so I don't know the exact details of how or why Rival decided on Curacao, but from what I understand (and what I've heard), although it's more expensive than some other jurisdictions, it's one of the most secure places to be licensed.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rusty]

Because most reps are focused on the complaints section - and there are a number who are licensed in Kahna-haha-wake

They may be reluctant to be slam-basted .

Rusty>


Licensing is a tricky subject - mainly because there are a number of variables that come into the decision making process when it comes to licensing. A lot of it has to do with costs - how much money a start up operation can dictate where they choose to go. It could be Cowboy Town - it could be the Isle of Man/Gibraltar - or somewhere in the EU.

There are some crapholes of casinos operating out of Costa Rica - and yet there are some excellent ones as well. Same thing goes for Kana-haha-wake. There are pros and cons for each jurisdiction and I feel that a jurisdiction can reflect on a casino, it can't reflect on it 100%. That's why I don't rogue jurisdictions.

I do write about them though. These write-ups can be found here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/bestworst2008.php
https://www.casinomeister.com/static/bestworst2007.php

Edited to add: What is frustrating for me is that most licensing entities are set up primarily to serve the operator. Players have a difficult time trying to contact a real person who can resolve a complaint. This industry is over ten years old, and most jurisdiction fail when it comes to dealing with player issues effectively. It's truly amazing.

Thanks for your perspective on that Bryan.
I was at first thinking along the same lines as regards guilt by association but then I considered that perhaps the pros far outweighed the cons?

After all, if Licensing authorities are scrutinized in this way and come out negatively then is it not up to the Casino to consider that the authority with which they are with may be damaging their reputation and so change to another more credible authority?
If I were running a legitimate business that relies on customer trust I would not be hiring a known crook to do my accounting.

The longterm upshot of this would be that poorly performing authorities would get less and less revenue and have to improve their ways or sink.
Authorities that performed well would get more revenue.
Casinos would benefit from being with flagship authorities with increased reputation and probably revenue.
Players would have more idea of where a safe online gaming environment might exist.

Of course all that would depend upon just how much influence and impact such a list would have.
Ultimately it is the player that has the power (responsibility) to change things by where they make their deposits and play.
Arming them with as much useful information as possible is all we can do.
After that it is up to them.

Either way I understand your view and I do recognize you post information as and when appropriate but perhaps it is something you may consider again in the future?

 

[Rusty]

All Rival casinos are licensed and regulated by the Government of Curacao N.V.

I'm just a rep for our specific Rival casinos so I don't know the exact details of how or why Rival decided on Curacao, but from what I understand (and what I've heard), although it's more expensive than some other jurisdictions, it's one of the most secure places to be licensed.

Hope that helps.

Thank you for contributing.
I have not heard of any misgivings about Curacao but a concern would obviously be with it being such a small Island with a population of around 150 Thousand it is not recognized for its tight legislation.
It is to your credit that you have posted here and it is difficult to ask you for more information without it looking like an interrogation.
Could you tell us though why you understand it to be One of the more secure Licensing authorities?

Thanks

Edit:
Reading back,
Perhaps my comments are unfair regarding Curacao as they should be judged on performance and nothing else.

 

[TheBoyMitchell]

Hi there

Yeah - I didnt see this thread until Bryan pointed it out to me.

William Hill is licensed in Gibraltar as well and is also listed in the UK Stock Exchange. It has over 2300 bricks and mortar shops in the UK.

As an Account Manager I dont know why Gibraltar was chosen, but I am going to assume that as William Hill is an old established company and that Gib was the most reputable place to be licensed then it seemed an obvious choice.

Hope that helps

 

[thelawnet]

Because most reps are focused on the complaints section - and there are a number who are licensed in Kahna-haha-wake

They may be reluctant to be slam-basted .

And let's not forget the shambles that is Malta. I get the impression Antigua are slightly better these days, although at heart they will always be a tiny country with a history of influence by dubious men.

Edited to add: What is frustrating for me is that most licensing entities are set up primarily to serve the operator. Players have a difficult time trying to contact a real person who can resolve a complaint. This industry is over ten years old, and most jurisdiction fail when it comes to dealing with player issues effectively. It's truly amazing.

It's a shame that EU jurisidictions are greenlighted in the UK simply because they are in the EU.

Otherwise there might be some motivation for Malta to improve their act.

As it is, there is not.

 

[thelawnet]

All Rival casinos are licensed and regulated by the Government of Curacao N.V.

I'm just a rep for our specific Rival casinos so I don't know the exact details of how or why Rival decided on Curacao, but from what I understand (and what I've heard), although it's more expensive than some other jurisdictions, it's one of the most secure places to be licensed.

Hope that helps.

Hmm. They didn't turn down Golden Palace.

I bet they wouldn't have got a Gibraltar licence.

 

[JSM_Jason]

Thank you for contributing.
I have not heard of any misgivings about Curacao but a concern would obviously be with it being such a small Island with a population of around 150 Thousand it is not recognized for its tight legislation.
It is to your credit that you have posted here and it is difficult to ask you for more information without it looking like an interrogation.
Could you tell us though why you understand it to be One of the more secure Licensing authorities?

Thanks

Edit:
Reading back,
Perhaps my comments are unfair regarding Curacao as they should be judged on performance and nothing else.

As I said, I'm not a rep for Rival, just for 2 casinos that use their software but I was told when I got involved with the casinos that Curacao is one of the more reputable and secure places to be licensed.

I did Google it at the time and found nothing but good comments about licensing in Curacao, supporting this idea. In the 4 years that I have been in this industry I have never heard anything to change my opinion. Simple as that.

I would tent to agree with you that jurisdictions should be judged on performance and as far as I can tell Curacao seems to have a solid track record.

 

[thebescasino]

Thebes Casino

Ok I am just going to go ahead and say it Thebes Casino is licensed in Costa Rica

At Thebes we went with a license in Costa Rica because that is where our software provider is based and licensed from.

Now whilst I can completely understand that some players are hesitant about casinos licensed there and in various other places, I do believe that an casino much like any other operation should be judged by the way it deals with its players or clients.

The fact that Topgame is licensed in Costa Rica is not of a concern to us. More important is the fact that they are a developer who is really trying to deliver a innovative and quality product and they are working very closely with us to achieve this.

Best Regards


David

 

[JSM_Jason]

Now whilst I can completely understand that some players are hesitant about casinos licensed there and in various other places, I do believe that an casino much like any other operation should be judged by the way it deals with its players or clients.

The fact that Topgame is licensed in Costa Rica is not of a concern to us. More important is the fact that they are a developer who is really trying to deliver a innovative and quality product and they are working very closely with us to achieve this.

Well said

 

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by thebescasino View Post

Now whilst I can completely understand that some players are hesitant about casinos licensed there and in various other places, I do believe that an casino much like any other operation should be judged by the way it deals with its players or clients.

The fact that Topgame is licensed in Costa Rica is not of a concern to us. More important is the fact that they are a developer who is really trying to deliver a innovative and quality product and they are working very closely with us to achieve this.

Well said

Nobody is suggesting that Casinos be judged any other way but unfortunately being that we do not live in a utopian World and some Casinos actually do wrong then it is important that a player can feel he will get a fair hearing should a case go to arbitration.

If all the Casino is interested in is a hassle free cheap license and profit and all the Licensing authority is concerned with is their share then that leaves the player out in the cold.

Can you really say that such a situation does not exist with some jurisdictions and Casinos?

Thank you for your input.

 

[Jasminebed]

For me, licencing jurisdiction is not the primary concern for me as a player. To be sure that you are playing in a fair jurisdiction presuposes that you will have a problem, and one large enough to require court processes.

I'm pretty much a low roller, so highly unlike that I hit a huge win unless on a progressive.

For established casinos with few complaints, I'm willing to trust that. Ones accredited here give me access to Casinomeisters Pitch-A-Bitch arbitration process. A decade ago, there were not as many licensing options as now.

Quite frankly, it would be more difficult and costly for me to pursue a win through the court systems in the UK as closer to home in Kahnawake.

For new casinos starting up however, to be licenced where players have a real course of redress, as opposed to a jurisdiction where a licence is granted to anyone with the filing fee does matter.

 

[Rusty]

For me, licencing jurisdiction is not the primary concern for me as a player. To be sure that you are playing in a fair jurisdiction presuposes that you will have a problem, and one large enough to require court processes.

Is that not like saying having house insurance presupposes your house will burn down?
A good licensing jurisdiction is as free to the player as a bad One surely it makes sense to want the best we can get.
The idea of arbitration is to avoid court cases and legal costs but it only works if the arbitrator is up to the task.

 

[bwin]

bwin Casino - Gibraltar

Hello,

bwin Casino is licensed in Gibraltar, because it is like Ed from 32Red already said (thank you very much for the excellent reply, I hope it is ok if I quote you):


"...being a licensee in a creditable and regulated jurisdiction says a lot of about the quality of the operation and should be something a player researches before joining a casino. In 2002 the choice for operators basically consisted of some Caribbean locations, Kahnawake and Gibraltar.

Gibraltar has always operated a very strict and controlled approach to licensing online gaming operators and it is clear that not every applicant has been able to attain a licence in Gibraltar....the United Kingdom and Malta have become viable alternatives. However, from our perspective both still have some areas to attend to before they can be considered serious alternatives to Gibraltar."

there is nothing left to be added for bwin - beside the fact that we would be more then willing to go for more casino licenses especially in european countries if they would open up their monopolies - even though in most of the cases this very likely means higher taxes and even stronger regulations!

Kind regards,

Ben