Mansion - bogus affiliate complaint

[AK-]

Ahh and the horrible nightmares continue.

Old 06-18-2007, 10:11 PM
yoshiii yoshiii is offline
GamTraker

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Rep Power: 0
yoshiii is on a distinguished road
Default Beware Mansion Affiliate Program
beware Mansion Does Not Make Good On Affiliate Earnings!!!

Will Make You Bend Over Backwards Sending In Id,

They Request Id Of All Your Referrers And After You`ve Done All

This They Find Any Excuse Not To Make Payment!! They Accusing Me Of Fraud?? I Ask On What Grounds?? They Didnt Have Any??!!!they Refuse To Speak To Me No More Chris Taylor The Affiliate Program Manager...ill Put You Through To Risk Management Then Hangs Up On Me??? I Call Back Str8 Away They Go Aff Team Out To Lunch???? Wth?
I Confirm With My Signups That They Have Sent In Their Id... Having Mansions Confirmation Reciept Forwarded To Me... Mansion Denys Any Knowledge Of Such!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrr

Old 10-17-2007, 06:30 PM
jackpot13 jackpot13 is offline
GamTraker

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
jackpot13 is on a distinguished road
Default Mansion Affiliate steals my earnings / Beware
I started out promoting Mansion affiliate actively around 3 months ago

I got a couple of players on, who tried their poker room and casino. I got some earnings, but they required me to refer atleast 5 players to make any cashout. I started promoting them them more and using more of my time to make people be aware of them. Thanks to promoting the actively, soon I had referred over 10 players. According to the stats many of them played some poker, and some sports bets at the exchange and casino as well. I got complaints that the poker network was superweak, and had only a handful of active players.

Before I could cash out some of my earnings they asked a copy of an ID. I supplied it them and made a withdrawal of over 1000 EUR. After two weeks my cash out was cancelled and I got an email that they had change my affiliate tier to revenue share. They also told me that because my players had made them so little money that they would not pay me my earnings. I called them 3 times, and were blatantly ignored. I sent over 20 e-mails which only one was answered. I only got those basic copy-paste standard e-mails from them that told me that they were going to keep my earnings and never pay me.


In the beginning Mansion partners / affiliates promised to pay me a certain bounty per player. Now that I had brought them over 10 players they refused to pay me. The players complained me that they couldn't play on their site because the action was so poor, and now Mansion is punishing me because the core of the problem is that is their, not my, problem to host a site which interests the players.

Beware Mansion affiliate program. They will lure you with big bounties, but when you have referred a bunch of players they will confiscate and steal earnings. They will make you work for free, and ignore you after that.

Old 10-18-2007, 04:24 AM
jackpot13 jackpot13 is offline
GamTraker

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
jackpot13 is on a distinguished road
Default
I have problems with Mansions at well.

Cliff notes: I started promoting Heavily mansion. After a couple of months big coverage, I tried to make a cash out which was denied. All of my earnings were canceled and affiliate scheme changed. They chose to steal my earnings and almost totally ignored my contacts.




First I refered them a couple of players, but were requested to refer 5 or more before I could cash out. Then I started promoting them actively and spending a lot of time making them a top site in terms of visibly and my time spent.
I advertised their poker, casino and sportsbook bonuses.

In a couple of months time I had referred of around 15 players, and I was about to do my first cash out. After sending my ID I asked for a withdrawal to my bank account. After of around two weeks of pending/processing status it was canceled. They told me that they were going to change my affiliate scheme to Revenue share. I really did not like this, but it was really up to them. However they should have paid my current affiliate earnings at that time. I had earned over 1000 EUR.

In order to talk to them and talk about my account and earnings I phoned them about five times, only once were I answered. After our very brief telephone discussion the rep told me that he was going call back which he never did. I sent over 20 e-mails, only which two were answered. They used those copy-paste standard e-mails which told me that they were going to shut down my account and not pay me, according to their terms and conditions which gave them an option to anything they wanted.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This doesn't look good for Mansion. These cases are from affiliates who DID go on to reach their 5 player min, and THEN it seems Mansion DID then "bait & switch" them to a revenue share agreement, which removed the need for the 5 player+ bounty agreement.

A poor poker network is NOT the fault of the affiliate, and there is nothing the affiliate can do about that, other than prostitute their morals and continue to promote a bad poker room while pretending it is a great place to play. Why not promote Palace of Chance & Crystal Palace casinos while they are at it

Mansion now need to justify non-payment in these cases where more than 5 players were recruited.

To me, this looks like a rogue business move on the part of Mansion, in order to get some free promotion from SMALL affiliates.

By allowing unlimited numbers of affiliates to sign up through a bounty scheme, that looks "too good to be true", then the market becomes saturated with a large number of affiliates, all competing for players. Chances are, under this model, these small affiliates will be hard pressed to reach their 5 player target, and will effectively work for free before they realise they will never make it.

Some of those who have reached, and exceeded, 5 players, now seem to be encountering a new level of excuses and hoops to jump through.
This 5 player target and generous bounty system would also bring in the fraudsters, but Mansion didn't bargain for this, and are now faced with the possibility that some players are not genuine, however, they seem to be expecting ALL affiliates to "eat this", rather than themselves trying to determine who is a fraudulent player or not.

The bottom line is for MANSION to verify the identity of their players, and then check that affiliates have referred players whose ID checks out with Mansion.

Now, WTF is going on with Mansion asking AFFILIATES to prove the ID of their referred players, does this mean that Mansion affiliates are supposedly in possession of the PERSONAL DETAILS of the players that simply click through their links?
If I click through an affiliate link, I expect tracking procedures to make me "anonymous" as far as what the AFFILIATE is able to drag up from their stats, such as knowing me as "vinylweatherman", for example, but not knowing my REAL name and address that I would have to supply on registration to the casino.

Mansino have so far only justified non-payment to AK's place on the basis of the 5 player rule, but the other complaints seem to indicate this is only the tip of the iceberg.

If AK's place were to find 2 more players, would they be paid, or would they then just experience the next level of excuses, changes of terms etc, and just end up sending two more players for free.

Businesses are not protected to the same degree as consumers, and so this is just "sharp business practice", and happens all the time in the world of business, but Mansion had better beware that they don't find they have switched from being predator, to being prey, when someone sharper than themselves comes along, and maybe poaches all their customers and drives them bankrupt, then buys themout for a pittance - it's been done before in other businesses.

 

[chuchu59]

They sponsor Tottingham Hotpur...they can't be that flush

Yeah, I noticed that in their player shirts but you're saying Tottingham Hotpur. Is that the name of a brothel or something?

 

[uungy]

Some strong words there vinylweatherman!

Basically when I put my words they were directed at AK, who seems more interested in blaming Mansion, and not trying to get a result.

In regards to the ID's, it seems as though Mansion want ID from the affiliate, not the players. I agree it sounds absolutely crazy! If you bring in players, who cares who you are? Its not as though you have deposited.

I wouldntcall it roguee, as the terms were there before they signed up, while it does sound unfitting for a group that size. Why cant they pay monthly, like all other affiliates do?

Mansion do need to look into paying affiliates fairly, and I would not advertise a company with so many small words. If they have a min or max, why promote them? there are so many out there are are affiliate friendly!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Some strong words there vinylweatherman!

Basically when I put my words they were directed at AK, who seems more interested in blaming Mansion, and not trying to get a result.

In regards to the ID's, it seems as though Mansion want ID from the affiliate, not the players. I agree it sounds absolutely crazy! If you bring in players, who cares who you are? Its not as though you have deposited.

I wouldntcall it roguee, as the terms were there before they signed up, while it does sound unfitting for a group that size. Why cant they pay monthly, like all other affiliates do?

Mansion do need to look into paying affiliates fairly, and I would not advertise a company with so many small words. If they have a min or max, why promote them? there are so many out there are are affiliate friendly!

Yes, AK signed up under the 5 player term, and has only made 3, so Mansion is saying, "get another two", and is implying all they need to do is play ONE hand of poker or take ONE slot spin, and AK will be paid.

However, the complaints from the others fly right in the face of this, these affiliates exceeded 5 players, but now Mansion want to go back on the original deal and pay them under a far less favourable model, however this is NOT WHAT THEY SIGNED UP TO. Mansion say this is due to the poor "action" received from these players, which contradicts what AK has been offered as a way to meet his quota & get paid.

I would suspect that if AK managed to get 2 more players to take ONE spin, or play a hand of poker, he would STILL not get paid under the ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, but be switched to the "revenue" model, and paid far less.
This is the "bait & switch" that seems to be what is happening to these small affiliates, and has nothing to do with UIGEA and the US pull out.

Maybe we should ask for 2 volunteers to sign up through AJ, and play ONE spin or ONE poker hand, and see what happens; does AJ get his $350, or does he gets switched to the less valuable revenue model and STILL get "screwed".

 

[uungy]

I would have volunteered, however I am a casino player there already.

Also AK compares to ggetting custmoers in a burger shop from US to China. Well internet is one big world, I dont buy the comparison.

For Mansion to say that

Mansion say this is due to the poor "action" received from these players

Is a complete baseless point, and definately needs some clarification, as there is no clause as such in choosing what players they pay out for or not. Besides some players start with a little and slowly warm up to play a year or so later.

Mansion seem to say they will pay for the first 3 with the original agreement, and the new 2 on the new payout, so until another 2 play, this is still unclear if they will actually honour it.

Why mansion dont as a one off, due to the problems with the US, just payout all affiliates effected, is beyond me, and I cant understand why they are being so complictaed, for a few $K. This definatly doesnt do good to their reputation, and also loses their trust with smaller affiliates, which together bring in alot of clients

 

[vinylweatherman]

I would have volunteered, however I am a casino player there already.

Also AK compares to ggetting custmoers in a burger shop from US to China. Well internet is one big world, I dont buy the comparison.

For Mansion to say that
Is a complete baseless point, and definately needs some clarification, as there is no clause as such in choosing what players they pay out for or not. Besides some players start with a little and slowly warm up to play a year or so later.

Mansion seem to say they will pay for the first 3 with the original agreement, and the new 2 on the new payout, so until another 2 play, this is still unclear if they will actually honour it.

Why mansion dont as a one off, due to the problems with the US, just payout all affiliates effected, is beyond me, and I cant understand why they are being so complictaed, for a few $K. This definatly doesnt do good to their reputation, and also loses their trust with smaller affiliates, which together bring in alot of clients

You forget, Mansion will NOT make money from many of these players as they are AMERICAN, and Mansion have thrown them out. These affiliates have done their bit, but Mansion will not make any revenue from many of these players as THEY have decided to sling them out. This makes these affiliate deals a serious liability. It may only be a few hundred bux, but ofer how many affiliates? Further, how many of these referred players will EVER make a profit for Mansion, as if they are from the US, they most certainly not.

Mansion may well be trying to make this issue "go away", because many small affiliates will not fight, but "eat", and Mansion do not care if they piss off the US market, they are through with it!
This is just how US PLAYERS were treated when many casinos pulled out overnight, suddenly these players were not only "locked out", but had certain offers "confiscated" because they could no longer comply with the terms, but this was due to their accounts being locked, and was no fault of theirs.
Mansion seem to be doing the same to these US facing affiliates, they are no longer needed, as Mansion can recruit many more from outside the US, who will be far better equiped to promote the brand outside the US.

Unfortunately, this thread has ensued this issue will NOT just "go away", until all liabilities are SEEN to be dealt with in a fair manner, whatever this turns out to be.

The Mansion rep should take care that THEIR replies cannot be proven to contradict what Mansion is telling these affiliates who complain "through channels".

For example, rep says:-

To that end, I offered to switch Alan to a Rev Share Only campaign. As I explained to him at the time, this meant that all Alan had to do was find two people anywhere in the world outside the US who were willing to play one raked hand of poker or one spin on a casino game. Thats it, and hed have his two elusive QAs to make 5. Unfortunately Alan did not see this as the way forward.

However, an affiliate who DID make the quota reported being told:-

In the beginning Mansion partners / affiliates promised to pay me a certain bounty per player. Now that I had brought them over 10 players they refused to pay me. The players complained me that they couldn't play on their site because the action was so poor, and now Mansion is punishing me because the core of the problem is that is their, not my, problem to host a site which interests the players.

Well, clearly, these players must have played at least ONE hand of poker to be able to judge for themselves how poor the site is, yet Mansion have just found another excuse for non-payment under the ORIGINAL agreement.


This assertion by the rep does not hold water:-

For clarification: Mansion has not broken any agreement or terms with Alan.

Well, maybe not yet, but have certainly done so with the others who reached their 5 player target, and have now found Mansion have decided to switch the deal after the fact to a revenue based one. Given that many of these players will NEVER earn the affiliate ANYTHING under this structure because they are US players, means that effectively, this switch ensures non-payment for work already done by these affiliates pre- US pullout, and they only have the prospect of payment for FUTURE, and NON-US referrals.

Mansion say there is no affiliate term regarding restricted countries, so this means they have NO TERM to use to deny bounty payments for the now non-profit making US players referred before they pulled out, AS WELL as future payments under revenue share for new non-US referrals post - US pullout.

 

[AK-]

Wow thanks gals/gents for the great responses! Hopefully others here are going to the convention where they can warn other people thinking about joining there program.

 

[MANSION Casino]

OK, before you all round up the posse and start making your way up to the castle with flaming torches and pitch forks - let's get a few things clear...

Alan has managed to fill out several pages of this thread by posting and continually reposting quotes of others. Unfortunately, he uses these out of all context and without any further explanation in the hope that this will aid his cause.

Instead of trying to shine a light on to this rapidly escalating thread to reveal the truth, he continues to add to the sh1t storm that actually obscures the truth and makes the whole thing more difficult for the rest of us to unravel.

I am however, eternally grateful to him for selecting the sources he did.

Lets look at his quote from Yoshiii. You can read more about him here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/kanawake-go-wackykekeke.19342/

He is now banned from this forum

Could this be the same guy who had accounts at mansion under the name Yoshimaru and Ondole and Cuong Nguyen?

Could this be the same guy who brought only 6 players to mansion, 5 of whom qualified and triggered payments (wow that's a great ratio, isn't it!?) Three of the accounts deposited via a CC in their own names. Oddly enough all three CC's had EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER.

That's odd don't you think, Alan?

What's more, all accounts had the same IP - need I go on or shall I explain further why this guy didn't get paid by Mansion?

The issues are further confused by some suggesting that in some cases Mansion askes the Affiliate to provide ID for their players. That's simply a misunderstanding. We wouldn't ask an affilaite to do that, however we will ask the 'players' to verify their play accounts with ID and in this particular case do you know that not one of the 5 players provided any ID to dispprove our suspicions?

The quote from Jackpot13 is a little harder for me as I'm not the greatest forum detective. Alan, can you post the URL of the thread this quote originally appeared in, please?

However, it does sound eerily familiar to a few other cases we had around Oct/Nov last year.

You see, at the time we agreed with a few chosen affiliates to offer $10 free to their referred players. This can invite bonus abuse, of course but is obviously a great short-cut for us all to bring in players but as you can imagine, a scenario where the player uses 'our' free $10 to play and trigger a much larger CPA to the affiliate without depositing, we adjusted the CPA amounts and play requirements for these few chosen affiliates.

Unfortunately, one or two other affiliates saw this and decided to get a little 'creative' in their promotions. They started to tell people that Mansion would also give their players a free $10. These promotions were never agreed in advance with Mansion.

When we found out about this we made a decision to still pay the players as a goodwill gesture as they had been duped. However it was never likely that we were going to pay the affiliate a whole heap of CPA that came not from depositors but from our own money.

The issue received quite a bit of attention as you can see here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

and there is further detail here:
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

Now there is no way for me to know the mansion affiliate account name of Jackpot13 or whether or not he is the one mentioned in the links above but either way they sound like one of the few who decided to get mansion to pay bonuses to their referred players without the courtesy of actually tellings us this in the first place!

Both examples mentioned are affiliates who did indeed pass the 5 QA threshold and did not get paid. The reason being that they were identified by the Mansion Risk team as 'Fraud Traffic' as defined in the mansion Affiliate T&C's.

Now whilst the first case of Yoshii may seem an open and shut case of fraud let me explain why jackpot13 falls under the same banner when it may seem a bit harsh to brand him a fraud. If you read the T&C's (Alan, I'm looking at you!) point 1.1 - right there at the top - deals with fraud traffic. The definition given for this also includes offering promotions without the express consent of mansion: "Fraud Traffic" means transactions, deposits, withdrawals, revenues or traffic generated on the Services through illegal means or any other action committed in bad faith to defraud us

Personally I think Jackpot13 tried to be cute or maybe he misunderstood the whole thing. Anyway, unlike Yoshii we did not close the account and recover funds but we informed him of our findings and the reasons for our decision and switched his account to 40% rev share. He will be able to request withdrawals when the rev share figure generated matches the value of those CPA's triggered by an unauthorised promotion. Essentially we are asking him to pay it back. I still think that, in the circumstances, 40% rev share was a generous offer.

And finally...., YES; if Alan has a change of heart we can switch his account to 'Rev Share Only'and two more players will get him across the finish line.

I appreciate your patience with the length of this post but a number of issues had been raised that I feel I simply had to address.

Anthony

 

[RobWin]

@ Anthony @ Mansion, I've been keeping up with this thread and reading it since inception and if all you have posted so far is the best you can come up with as to the reasons not to pay the aforementioned affiliates then you have a very very weak case which would never stand up in a court of law within the US borders if it could actually go to small claims court here...

It definitely sounds to me in all that I have read so far that Mansion is really stretching here for reasons to get out of paying their affiliates...JMO

 

[uungy]

I think I will put my last comments and leave it for the rest.

Mansion always had this "get 5 and we'll pay" policy. Take it or leave it. Its unfair, but clear. They then dissallowed some players, but anyone can still get players internationally. So no terms broken yet.

In regards to accounts, that can only be left to Mansion to decide, or an intermediate to decise who is legit or not, so I am not even going to enter that debate.

i cant see where Mansion are delaying payment, as that is the Senior Departments decision, and has to be kept to.

As I said earlier, let AK get another two clients, and we shall see from that. This is a complaint in regards to AK, if there are any other affiliates who have problems, let them put their case down, having links to "other" users/affiliates is useless as they are not defedning themselves and not explaining what their problem is exactly or not.

So as far as I would go is to say, the case for AK, is get another 2, and they will pay. If they dont, come back with a real complaint.

Anyone else, if there is, tell them to join and post their complaint, but quoting from other forums, is just aimless

 

[MANSION Casino]

@ Robwin...

So you're saying to me that a proven case of fraud and deception is no reason not to pay Yoshii?

That a case of Jackpot13, in effect, getting Mansion to pay for the priviledge of giving him massive amounts of CPA is no reason not to pay him

and that Alan not adhering to T&C's that he agreed to and which have remained unchanged - depsite bending over backwards to offer him a quick route to 5 players - is no reason not to pay him?

 

[winbig]

and that Alan not adhering to T&C's that he agreed to and which have remained unchanged - depsite bending over backwards to offer him a quick route to 5 players - is no reason not to pay him?

The main point here that you have forgotten is that you guys stopped allowing USA players. I'm getting the impression that AK's audience was mostly USA players, so why should he continue to spend the time and resources to promote your casino anymore if he couldn't provide any more players?

The fact of the matter is that he DID send you players, and should be paid accordingly. It's not his fault that you guys banned USA players.

 

[MANSION Casino]

It's not his fault that you guys banned USA players.

And it's not Mansion's fault that the US passed this draconian legislation either, is it?

I think that the Main Point, as you put it, is that Alan decided he didn't want to go to the trouble of promoting outside the US.

 

[winbig]

And it's not Mansion's fault that the US passed this draconian legislation either, is it?

No, it's not your fault either, but you're getting off the point at hand.

Also, are you listening to yourself? By saying that, you're basically making it sound like you're punishing affiliates that only marketed to USA players for the actions of their government. Just because we live here doesn't mean we agree with what's happening.

I think that the Main Point, as you put it, is that Alan decided he didn't want to go to the trouble of promoting outside the US.

So this affiliate should totally change their business plan so they can send you 2 players?

Were they legitimate players? If so, then pay this guy already. You're not out any money, and there were partial "services" rendered, and any court will see it the same way.

 

[RobWin]

@ Robwin...

So you're saying to me that a proven case of fraud and deception is no reason not to pay Yoshii?

That a case of Jackpot13, in effect, getting Mansion to pay for the priviledge of giving him massive amounts of CPA is no reason not to pay him

and that Alan not adhering to T&C's that he agreed to and which have remained unchanged - depsite bending over backwards to offer him a quick route to 5 players - is no reason not to pay him?

For clarification: Mansion has not broken any agreement or terms with Alan. The Affiliate T&Cs that he agreed to make no mention of any restricted countries in any way.

Since Mansion pulled out of the US market voluntarily because it became a Restricted Country would obviously make your previous agreement with Alan Null & Void since you state above that the T & C's he agreed to make no mention of any restricted countries in any way...that's why I stated previously that your case would not stand up before small claims court in the US and judgment would be awarded to Alan...

And another reason I can clearly see for Alan not wanting to participate in delivering two more players to Mansion would be along the same lines that Winbig stated above that he would most likely have to spend at least the $360.00 that he has already earned by being able to get a high ranked listing on some foreign server and maybe even having to redo SEO tags...etc., etc...

Why not just make the entire issue simple and pay the guy the measly $360.00 and make the issue go away man...you sure are putting in a hell of a lot of effort over just $360.00 ??? The guy brought you three customers, show him your decency and appreciation and pay the man !!

 

[winbig]

How did I miss that? Mansion, you guys just shot yourself in the foot by posting this:

The Affiliate T&C’s that he agreed to make no mention of any restricted countries in any way.

You're fully admitting that the PREVIOUS T&C didn't have any restricted countries. But now they do, correct?

If so, did this affiliate sign a NEW agreement under the NEW T&C that did have restricted countries listed? It not, then there's no NEW contract, and further enforces the fact that the affiliate should be paid.

 

[MANSION Casino]

Well I think it's fair to say that the entire industry had to radically change it's business plan after the advent of the US legislation.

I'm not suggesting that it has been easy to do or that it doesn't take effort but every other active mansion affiliate has had to do so.... as has every Poker Room that wants to succeed in the long term.

I agree that a court may take note of 'services rendered' but I also believe they would place at least equal weight on Terms and Conditions agreed on by all parties that remain unchanged from before the landscape changed with the legislation.... but then again I'm no lawyer!

If Alan steps up to the mark that we asked every other affiliate to do then he can get his money. His account hasn't been frozen or closed.

In the months immediately after the legislation the whole inductry was in shakedown. Rooms everywhere were taking advice on what they could and could not do.

Mansion did not immediately barr US players over-night. Eventually, like so many of our peers we retricted access to casino and sports book as these were 'bet against the house' products. US players continued to be welcome on Poker and the Exchange as they are peer-to-peer products. Through out all this time US players could still access the cashier of their account.

The US is without a doubt the single biggest market for online poker and other products so any room would be crazy not to do anything it legally could to continue to offer services to this market. In the end the business made a decision to totally restrict these players but 1,000's of withdrawals were made via the cashier as well as many manual transactions after emailed requests.

By the time US players were totally restricted from Mansion several weeks if not months had passed since the advent of the legislation so I think it's unfair if people suggest that we slammed the door over-night and simply walked away from our US affiliates.

 

[winbig]

nvm, I give up.

All of this over a lousy $360.

Do you realize how much more bad publicity costs you because of this? Quite a bit more than $360. But, I forgot, it's all about the bottom line.

By the way, sure, you gave advance notice, but what good is that in the case of affiliates? Why would they continue to send USA players your way when they knew full well their time was limited?

 

[jas2587]

Boy if I lived outside the USA
i'll be damned if I would deposit
or join Mansion as they all ready
show their true colors


Cindy

 

[MANSION Casino]

How did I miss that? Mansion, you guys just shot yourself in the foot by posting this:




You're fully admitting that the PREVIOUS T&C didn't have any restricted countries. But now they do, correct?

Not correct, sorry. The affiliate T&C's remain unchanged since before the legislation.


and my foot is fine, thanks

 

[winbig]

Not correct, sorry. The affiliate T&C's remain unchanged since before the legislation.


and my foot is fine, thanks

 

[RobWin]

Not correct, sorry. The affiliate T&C's remain unchanged since before the legislation.


and my foot is fine, thanks

 

[RobWin]

Another reason that the Original Agreement that Alan signed would become Null & Void is the simple fact that when he signed up to be an affiliate the US was a Marketable Country of which his base revenues would have been generated from, and since Mansion voluntarily elected to pull out of his 100% target market this would cause what is deemed by the courts to be a "Hardship Clause", caused by Mansion and not Alan, which would make doing further business with Mansion damn near impossible since Mansion initiated the action causing the "Hardship" !!

 

[MANSION Casino]

well, we're straying into the language of legal-ese; who knows.

couldn't we say that Dubya caused the hardship?