Casinomeister said:
In January, I deposited and wagered in casinos that misrepresented themselves as owned by UK companies and/or located in the UK, where the pound sterling is the lawful currency. After attempting to withdrawal my winnings, the casinos charged a commission on my winnings. This commission was not disclosed on their website, and in fact would be illegal if they were in fact UK companies. They have subsequently changed their websites at least twice. So the present websites do not read the same as they did previously.
Casinomeister said:
How is this not resolved?
I still haven’t been paid, and after 6 months I should be entitled to interest.
Casinomeister said:
Terms and conditions are key elements to a casino website and are highly focused upon.
Right! Because if accepted, they can form a valid contract between the parties. If a casino wants to do “weird” things, like charging commissions on winnings, it needs to make that clear. That didn’t happen here and no judge would find that they did. Furthermore, is there a page on these websites labeled “terms and conditions”?
Try to find it!
Casinomeister said:
Items such as business info (that most people couldn't care less about) sometimes fall to the wayside.
The business information is key because it tells the player with whom he or she has a contract, i.e., the name and location of the legal entity responsible for the casino, where that “person” can be found in case of a disagreement, and what country’s law and courts will handle any disputes. The fact that a business represents that it is registered or incorporated in a certain country implies that it is subject to laws of that country and is amenable to suit there in that nation’s courts. In this case, it also implies the right to use the lawful currency of that country without penalty or paying a commission. Business vehicles, such as corporations, limited corporations, etc. are artificial “persons” in the law with potentially perpetual existence and must comply with the laws where they exist or do business.
The law in most countries requires that people have a right to know with whom they are doing business. Fictitious names and trade names need to be registered and disclosed for a reason. Misrepresenting who you are, regardless if you are real person, or a juridical person like a corporation, can invalidate contracts. If a player misrepresents who he or she is to a casino, the casino voids all winnings. Why? Because the player was not who he or she claimed to be, therefore no valid contract existed.
How is it different when a casino misrepresents who it really is?
In this case, the corporations listed that I was enticed to deposit money with, did not in fact exist! Therefore, there is no valid contract they can enforce against me, but I have rights I could enforce against them, if I know where they are and where they can be found. I am still not sure I have the whole story about them yet.
Casinomeister said:
At Casinomeister, there are numerous pages that still have copyright 1998 - 2004 on them. That doesn't mean it's not copyrighted and it doesn't mean that info is up for grabs.
Of course not, but you are confusing apples and oranges here. You want to focus on the intellectual property of a “person”, its website address, its trademarks and trade names, copyrights, etc., and ignore the owner of those property rights with whom a player enters into a contract. You can buy and sell intellectual property, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is the “person” who owns that property, a website or online casino, who is legally responsible for the content of that website or casino and the language published on it, etc. Again, in order to have accountability, the owner of this information needs to be known, not concealed or misrepresented.
Casinomeister said:
The only thing MainStreet is guilty of is not updating some of the information on their websites.
Thank you for agreeing that “MainStreet” is guilty here. Unfortunately there no longer is a company by this name. It was dissolved. The successor companies appear to be FWF Investments Ltd., and/or RX Advertising Inc. What they appear to be guilty of is a criminal offense in the UK, where they falsely claimed to be registered as a limited liability company, which in fact no longer existed. They also may be civilly or criminally liable in Canada, Costa Rica or elsewhere for similar offenses and violating fictitious name registration laws.
Casinomeister said:
Whenever their processor moves, the Ltd. is dissolved and another created.
As previously stated, the problem here is beyond the processor. The fact that the processor is listed as the owner of the casino ads a new dimension to this. It appears that the owner may also be the operator of the casino. If so, they are liable for the casino. Even if not determined to be the “operator of the casino” they could also can be required to payback commissions on winnings improperly withheld.
Casinomeister said:
Once a Ltd. UK company is dissolved, it ceases to be legal. Continuing to use the Ltd. after it was dissolved appears to be criminal, and that usually means its wrong. The intent for moving around so much should also be considered. Is it to avoid legal liability from players?
Casinomeister said:
Their websites are being updated with this information.
Well it is very late. This needed to be done months and years ago.
Casinomeister said:
By the way, I wouldn't consider listing one's business as advertising so I don't really understand why you're getting your panties tied in a knot over this.
Regardless of what you label it, it was still patently false. Maybe you wouldn’t, but any judge would call the contents of a commercial website “commercial speech”, and thus advertising.
Casinomeister said:
What annoys me is the length that people go through to dis a casino that has been providing the player community a virtually complaint-free service for years.
“Dis”? What has been factually posted here that isn’t true?
Please tell me!
Am I not allowed to post the truth here?
Is quoting from their own websites “dissing” them?
Am I responsible for their failure to truthfully disclose information on their website?
In normal businesses, failing to be truthful causes problems. They weren’t truthful here.
I can only speak for myself. They didn’t provide me with complaint free service. My dad taught me never to rest on my laurels. Maybe they can learn something from this. However, the owner of the casino that provided compliant free service no longer exists. It has been dissolved. It is just like a restaurant under new ownership. The name is the same and so is the building, but it is not the same owner anymore, and really they moved the building to another country!
Casinomeister said:
If I understand this correctly, the casino offered to give you this difference in a bonus. I would say that's a pretty fair deal.
I didn’t think the offer, which was less attractive than the original bonus, was adequate compensation. Furthermore, I am not convinced that depositing more money in a casino that bizarrely charges commissions on winnings is a wise personal policy. I don’t know of any other casino does this.
Casinomeister said:
And all this mayhem for 19 GBP??
Is this directed at me?
I wanted to make sure they didn’t suck anyone else in with the hidden fees. They could have paid up at any time. Instead, I got the line about how their owner forces them to charge these excessive fees, so that led to the discussion that uncovered that they really aren’t who they said they were. The “mayhem” here was self-inflicted. No one here made them keep false information on their websites in violation of UK law. No one here made them misrepresent who they are and where they can be found. They did all this themselves, and they still haven’t taken responsibility for it. They just made things worse for themselves.
Actually, since I thought I was dealing with UK companies. I thought that they would pay up if threatened with litigation or a complaint to UK authorities. I am confident no UK judge would agree with them. It would have been a slam dunk, AND they would have had to pay the legal fees. Since they obviously are not who they said they were, I have to reevaluate my options.
Casinomeister said:
I really don't appreciate the calls for "roguedom."
I really don’t appreciate getting conned into depositing money into a company that no longer existed. Again, this appears to be a criminal act in the UK. Usually criminal acts have penalties. So what is the penalty for this here? I would not be in this position if they truthfully disclosed who they were, were they where, and their peculiar policy of charging a commission on winnings for wagering in the lawful currency of the country in which they represented they were registered. I am the victim here, along with anyone else who got taken in by them, not them.
