Casinos
Casinos By Status
Popular Filters
By Banking Options
Games
All Games
Bonuses
Popular Bonus Filters
Forums
Popular Forums
Forum User Features
Complaints
Submit A Complaint (PAB)
PAB Rules and Guidelines
Browse PABs
Gambling News
Popular News Sections
Rogued Playtech Casinos with predatory progessive terms
- Thread starter Casinomeister
- Start date
Man, that SylviaP-Joyland scandal still has the ability to raise my blood pressure...it was so unfair, and no one in authority at software, casino or regulatory level seemed to give a damn about it.
Casino operators would argue that the issue turns on whether the player knows that the progressive pays out in one tranche or over time. However remote the chances are of hitting a big-money progressive, the player should be aware of the conditions attached to it if they are lucky enough to crack the big one. If they are not happy with T&Cs that spell it out, then it is their choice not to play at that particular venue.
We then get into the old argument about whether the T&Cs are sufficient warning on the one payment vs. instalments thing, and here I would suggest that the impression created so far by some operators is that they actively seek to conceal the fact that they only pay out on progressives in instalments by burying the information in their T&Cs, knowing that many players do not thoroughly read these.
One can frequently see from the way company editorials, adverts and website statements are worded that there is often an ulterior motive in not explaining exactly and upfront how big wins are paid.
My perception on the specific issue regarding Playtech is that it clearly knows what the risks for the player are in handing the money and the responsibility to pay over to the operator...that implies that it is complicit in what the operator does, imo.
And in the SylviaP case, the relationships between the software provider and the company concerned certainly flags important questions, as Zanzibar has pointed out.
The GRA's lack of interest in responding to Zanzibar's polite and factual enquiry again speaks volumes about that jurisdiction's attitude to consumer protection...but that is no longer surprising following the responses from the man in charge in recent threads here.
Regarding potential methods for securing and segregating player funds, there has been a lot of discussion on the use of trusts. I would see that as a more acceptable, independent and possibly cheaper alternative than going to insurance companies and their usually high "administrative" fees, but it's a course that is open to debate.
Casino operators would argue that the issue turns on whether the player knows that the progressive pays out in one tranche or over time. However remote the chances are of hitting a big-money progressive, the player should be aware of the conditions attached to it if they are lucky enough to crack the big one. If they are not happy with T&Cs that spell it out, then it is their choice not to play at that particular venue.
We then get into the old argument about whether the T&Cs are sufficient warning on the one payment vs. instalments thing, and here I would suggest that the impression created so far by some operators is that they actively seek to conceal the fact that they only pay out on progressives in instalments by burying the information in their T&Cs, knowing that many players do not thoroughly read these.
One can frequently see from the way company editorials, adverts and website statements are worded that there is often an ulterior motive in not explaining exactly and upfront how big wins are paid.
My perception on the specific issue regarding Playtech is that it clearly knows what the risks for the player are in handing the money and the responsibility to pay over to the operator...that implies that it is complicit in what the operator does, imo.
And in the SylviaP case, the relationships between the software provider and the company concerned certainly flags important questions, as Zanzibar has pointed out.
The GRA's lack of interest in responding to Zanzibar's polite and factual enquiry again speaks volumes about that jurisdiction's attitude to consumer protection...but that is no longer surprising following the responses from the man in charge in recent threads here.
Regarding potential methods for securing and segregating player funds, there has been a lot of discussion on the use of trusts. I would see that as a more acceptable, independent and possibly cheaper alternative than going to insurance companies and their usually high "administrative" fees, but it's a course that is open to debate.
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
The problem with the Playtech instalment plan is that the money is used by the casino for operational purposes, and if it goes under, the payment plan sinks with the company. A 39 year payment plan is unlikely to have run to completion in any case. Joyland remained in business for a further 6 months before being bought out by Will Hill, who could see no sign of the remaining progressive money.
Even if a player agrees to a part payment up front, the rest of the money STILL doesn't belong to the casino, it belongs to the network, and should be put back in the pool.
The difference with IGT is that payment plans are underwritten so that they will be paid in full no matter what misfortune befalls the operator. The option to take a reduced sum up front is also properly constructed so that the reduced sum is broadly in line with what it costs the operator to purchase the payment plan.
If Playtech progressives were paid by instalment via an annuity purchase or other mechanism that secured the payout no matter what happened to the operator or Playtech, it would probably be as acceptable as the IGT mechanism.
Even odder is the inconsistency where some Playtech casinos DO pay a progressive in full, which proves that those operators that don't are "up to something" with money that doesn't belong to them. If I got "up to something" with money not belonging to me I would probably go to jail.
Even if a player agrees to a part payment up front, the rest of the money STILL doesn't belong to the casino, it belongs to the network, and should be put back in the pool.
The difference with IGT is that payment plans are underwritten so that they will be paid in full no matter what misfortune befalls the operator. The option to take a reduced sum up front is also properly constructed so that the reduced sum is broadly in line with what it costs the operator to purchase the payment plan.
If Playtech progressives were paid by instalment via an annuity purchase or other mechanism that secured the payout no matter what happened to the operator or Playtech, it would probably be as acceptable as the IGT mechanism.
Even odder is the inconsistency where some Playtech casinos DO pay a progressive in full, which proves that those operators that don't are "up to something" with money that doesn't belong to them. If I got "up to something" with money not belonging to me I would probably go to jail.
With the pooled major progressive jackpots, Arabian Nights, Mega Fortune and Hall of Gods Netent pay the funds directly to the operator after verification of the win, then it is up to the operator to organize payment to the player.
Cheers,
Ben
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Sorry, but I still think that stinks. There is absolutely NO reason under any circumstances that, if paid in one go by the software provider, that the verified player cannot get it in ONE hit.
Either the LGA's should stipulate this or the software provider pays it direct to the player. The PLAYER has won the jackpot, not the bloody casino.
Be honest folks - now many casinos (if you won a 1m+ jackpot) would you trust to pay it all at once in good faith, or stay in business long enough to make say 10-20 instalments?? And I include accredited ones in that.
In reality, you have offshore convenience companies with convoluted trails operating many casinos, even if accredited. I wonder, after receiving 4 million from Playtech, how many would suddenly face 'trading difficulties' or 'takeovers'??
Sorry, but I still think that stinks. There is absolutely NO reason under any circumstances that, if paid in one go by the software provider, that the verified player cannot get it in ONE hit.
Either the LGA's should stipulate this or the software provider pays it direct to the player. The PLAYER has won the jackpot, not the bloody casino.
Be honest folks - now many casinos (if you won a 1m+ jackpot) would you trust to pay it all at once in good faith, or stay in business long enough to make say 10-20 instalments?? And I include accredited ones in that.
In reality, you have offshore convenience companies with convoluted trails operating many casinos, even if accredited. I wonder, after receiving 4 million from Playtech, how many would suddenly face 'trading difficulties' or 'takeovers'??
Yes, I agree that there is room for improvement and I hope with the UKGC coming in along with new regulated markets they put more stringent rules in place. We would of course pay it to the player all in one hit, there is no reason for us to hold the funds that someone had won from a progressive jackpot. I believe that casinos are accredited for a reason and I have seen many of the accredited casinos listed on casinomeister have players win millions and there has never been a question about the player getting the winnings right away.
Aside from progressive jackpots there also needs to be improvements over the whole industry on how players funds are handled and the guarantee of player funds especially with the high betting limits on certain games and the potential for very large wins. I am under the firm belief that if you offer the games and the odds you must have the funds available to pay the winnings in a quick time frame.
I also heard back from MGS and they operate in the same way as Netent.
Thanks,
Ben
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Sorry, but I still think that stinks. There is absolutely NO reason under any circumstances that, if paid in one go by the software provider, that the verified player cannot get it in ONE hit.
Either the LGA's should stipulate this or the software provider pays it direct to the player. The PLAYER has won the jackpot, not the bloody casino.
Be honest folks - now many casinos (if you won a 1m+ jackpot) would you trust to pay it all at once in good faith, or stay in business long enough to make say 10-20 instalments?? And I include accredited ones in that.
In reality, you have offshore convenience companies with convoluted trails operating many casinos, even if accredited. I wonder, after receiving 4 million from Playtech, how many would suddenly face 'trading difficulties' or 'takeovers'??
Joyland for one. received over 4 million, paid about half to player, and then had to be rescued via a takeover 6 months later. They had $2 million from Playtech to flatter their reserves, yet the group couldn't survive more than 6 months.
I don't see a reason why a player should not be paid in one go. Very unreasonable approach in any situation seeing as its not the operator wallet being affected. Joined progressives are fed by any operator in the provider class so there should be an imposition by the network itself to enforce this. Every PT casino will suffer as a result of such an act by one PT casino (or any provider for that matter).
A players win should never be used to feed the casino liquidity and I would imagine that this player in the thread or any other player would hold pretty strong legal ground to demand the winnings to be paid on simply premise that such winnings are not paid by the casino - they are paid by the games provider.
If a casino has liquidity problems, they will have difficulties offering withdrawals far before something this drastic comes about. For casinos which due to liquidity do impose a monthly cap - then simply it must be forced to stipulate payment of jackpots are instant.
Moreover - above line can be made fully unnecessary in its essence as the operator liquidity itself has no influence on this, its not at all important. Look at the Provider/operator relationship - in the same light, should a white label have it's own T&C's which don't inherit Operator T&C's, or are forced to, which in turn don't inherit Provider T&C's???
ludicrous.. who do you sue in this case? bunch of half-knows running wild without any one party being forced to moderate and be held responsible for their "sub-licences".
I'm surprised providers don't enforce a direct payment protocols themselves - simply never give the money to the operator, but demand player information (if they do not hold it already). It would be far easier to condition legal boundaries and responsibilities in a B2B forum limited to a few parties, than impose these limitation on a much wider B2C business model audience. It's harder to control, mange and has a much wider impact as margin for error is left to run wild.
On that note - the player should really look into EU directive on unfair consumer contracts law (B2C) (
After all, this act reflects terribly on the game provider as much as on an operator, if not more, seeing as operators start and close at the frequency of ping pong match these days, which isn't the case with game providers.
ANY progressive is ultimately a relationship between the owner of the progressive pot (Playtech, MGS, NetEt, etc.) and the player - the business in the middle is nothing but the middle man in this case especially seeing that the pot it self is not "fed" by that business alone.
Any regulator will do well to impose such contractual obligations on their provider licence class, when reviewing and approving it's sub-licences.
A players win should never be used to feed the casino liquidity and I would imagine that this player in the thread or any other player would hold pretty strong legal ground to demand the winnings to be paid on simply premise that such winnings are not paid by the casino - they are paid by the games provider.
If a casino has liquidity problems, they will have difficulties offering withdrawals far before something this drastic comes about. For casinos which due to liquidity do impose a monthly cap - then simply it must be forced to stipulate payment of jackpots are instant.
Moreover - above line can be made fully unnecessary in its essence as the operator liquidity itself has no influence on this, its not at all important. Look at the Provider/operator relationship - in the same light, should a white label have it's own T&C's which don't inherit Operator T&C's, or are forced to, which in turn don't inherit Provider T&C's???
ludicrous.. who do you sue in this case? bunch of half-knows running wild without any one party being forced to moderate and be held responsible for their "sub-licences". I'm surprised providers don't enforce a direct payment protocols themselves - simply never give the money to the operator, but demand player information (if they do not hold it already). It would be far easier to condition legal boundaries and responsibilities in a B2B forum limited to a few parties, than impose these limitation on a much wider B2C business model audience. It's harder to control, mange and has a much wider impact as margin for error is left to run wild.
On that note - the player should really look into EU directive on unfair consumer contracts law (B2C) (
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
) as they are pretty protective over unfair contracts and the T&C's fall into that category.After all, this act reflects terribly on the game provider as much as on an operator, if not more, seeing as operators start and close at the frequency of ping pong match these days, which isn't the case with game providers.
ANY progressive is ultimately a relationship between the owner of the progressive pot (Playtech, MGS, NetEt, etc.) and the player - the business in the middle is nothing but the middle man in this case especially seeing that the pot it self is not "fed" by that business alone.
Any regulator will do well to impose such contractual obligations on their provider licence class, when reviewing and approving it's sub-licences.
Just a copy of the first line of the EU law:
"Contract terms define the rights and duties of the parties who are bound to them. In consumer contracts, sellers and suppliers possess a considerable advantage by defining the terms in advance that are not individually negotiated. "
then think of a vast host of T&C's running about
"Contract terms define the rights and duties of the parties who are bound to them. In consumer contracts, sellers and suppliers possess a considerable advantage by defining the terms in advance that are not individually negotiated. "
then think of a vast host of T&C's running about
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Yes, that was exactly what I meant; how many others would be tempted to go down the Joyland fr**d route?
What I'm wondering is how many other people have won Playtech jackpots and either been stiffed by taking a reduced lump sum or are currently on "lifetime" payment plans from a casino that is unlikely to exist in 5 years? And no doubt asked to keep quiet.
Someone won Beach life for over 5 million pounds last year - luckily for them it was at Betfred which doesn't have this clause.
It was won 2 weeks ago for almost 2 million pounds, but I can't work out where.
Someone won Beach life for over 5 million pounds last year - luckily for them it was at Betfred which doesn't have this clause.
It was won 2 weeks ago for almost 2 million pounds, but I can't work out where.
Or account for the missing millions that were not paid to the player or were in the kitty when Will Hill took over, apparently!
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Location
- SOMEWHERE IN ASIA
If I recall correctly at least half of the casinos in the list had problems with paying out players. It really is a shame as Playtech games, especially the graphics are great.
Of more significance is the apparent cashflow problems plaguing casinos in this industry. I believe we shall be seeing more of these predatory terms from casinos related with other software in the near future. Needless to say, those at Topgame and Rival will be first and foremost followed by RTG. I may be overworrying a bit but the widely respected MG brand is not what it used to be and some casinos are also starting along the same route. Hopefully Netent doesn't follow suit. So, sooner or later, even non-US players may have no choice other than the '3's ie 3Dice and 32RED.
Of more significance is the apparent cashflow problems plaguing casinos in this industry. I believe we shall be seeing more of these predatory terms from casinos related with other software in the near future. Needless to say, those at Topgame and Rival will be first and foremost followed by RTG. I may be overworrying a bit but the widely respected MG brand is not what it used to be and some casinos are also starting along the same route. Hopefully Netent doesn't follow suit. So, sooner or later, even non-US players may have no choice other than the '3's ie 3Dice and 32RED.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Yes, I see too a pattern here including slower and slower payouts, more predatory terms etc. I wouldn't be quite as pessimistic as you are in the last sentence though; one can add all the big UK bookmaker-owned sites and probably VPL plus the bigger Scandinavian Netent sites there too. So the players outside the US can still have a few safe casinos for all major softwares with payouts in minutes or hours for the foreseeable future.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
They own Eurogrand/Joyland etc. which do have the term I believe?
These casinos are like a 'budget' range you find in supermarkets - not the same quality as the premium brands, but nevertheless providing more pro-rata profits per pound than the premium brands on account of the bad ingredients and low product quality. Like 96 hours pending when WH casino themselves pay quicker. If you catch my drift.
vinny187666
Dormant Account
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Location
- Is irrelevant
This is madness, they basically steal your money if you win a jackpot. Thank god for you guys keepin em honest/letting people know who to avoid.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1998
- Location
- Bierland
William Hill doesn't, but the batch of casinos they purchased from Cpays still has this term. But, I was contacted today by WH stating that that term should not be there and they are in the process of removing it from Joyluck, Nova21, etc. Once it's removed, then those casinos are off of the list.
There should be zero casinos on this list. I'm surprised that Playtech allows this to happen.
BTW - a Top Game list is in the works. So far I've only identified three of their casinos. More here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/top-game-progressive-withdrawal-limits/
Top Game discussion here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/top-game-casinos-with-predatory-progessive-terms.57663/
Andy Walker
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Location
- UK
This still begs the question of when such a big and reputable business takes over these concerns that they seemed to have forgotten to get their legal team sifting through terms and conditions that may have and seem to have pointed fingers at them?
A new broom should sweep clean but then again new ventures always hit the ground running with a few hiccups, but for me I think they could have done so much better in this respect.
Przecinek
Dormant account
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Location
- Respect-land
Of all the casinos mentioned the only ones I play at are Winner.com and Skykings. I'll just make sure that I never play progressives there. Thanks for the heads up CM 
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
We have been here before, as when Will Hill first took over they said such a term was unacceptable and would be removed. As far as I knew, they did this at the time. This suddenly coming up a few years later looks like they did remove the offending term, but quietly slipped it back in again, and managed to run for a while until Bryan spotted it was there, either still there or put back after the old COO left and a new one came in.
They don't seem to be in much of a hurry to remove it and get themselves off Bryan's list. There should be nothing to discuss, as unless they have been lying all along, the presence of this term is nothing more than a "typo" created when the websites were rebranded. Nothing to discuss means no board meeting needed, just tell the web designers to get on with it "now".
I sent a PM to Bryan on Tuesday with some additions to his list, never heard back and i see that the list has not been updated. Maybe your inbox is full?.
Anyway here are some more that can be added to the list.
http://www.cscasino.com/common/terms.asp
http://www.plazawin.com/english/gbp/terms.html
http://goldengalaxy.com/terms_conditions.html The most disgusting terms i have ever seen, not only do they limit withdrawals they even steal some of your winnings through a «handling fee».
I also went through over 200 MG casinos, to see if they had similar terms.
http://www.primecasino.com/terms.asp
i see that you have this on your Playtech list but it is actually a MGS casino. And the only one i could find that has withdrawal limits on progressives(maybe you can report this to MGS).
Out of all the MGS casinos that i checked i found two that has another type of progressive clause, how bad this term is depends on whether the money is pending/reversible for the 30 days or if it just means that progressive winnings may take longer to get to you.
https://www.videoslots.com/terms-and-conditions/
https://www.emucasino.com/au/help/terms-and-conditions/
I hope it is ok to post this here.
Anyway here are some more that can be added to the list.
http://www.cscasino.com/common/terms.asp
http://www.plazawin.com/english/gbp/terms.html
http://goldengalaxy.com/terms_conditions.html The most disgusting terms i have ever seen, not only do they limit withdrawals they even steal some of your winnings through a «handling fee».
I also went through over 200 MG casinos, to see if they had similar terms.
http://www.primecasino.com/terms.asp
i see that you have this on your Playtech list but it is actually a MGS casino. And the only one i could find that has withdrawal limits on progressives(maybe you can report this to MGS).
Out of all the MGS casinos that i checked i found two that has another type of progressive clause, how bad this term is depends on whether the money is pending/reversible for the 30 days or if it just means that progressive winnings may take longer to get to you.
https://www.videoslots.com/terms-and-conditions/
https://www.emucasino.com/au/help/terms-and-conditions/
I hope it is ok to post this here.
vinylweatherman
You type well loads
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
Just double checked.
We DO have a clear case of a Microgaming casino drip feeding progressives at the rate of 10,000 per month in the players' currency.
If Microgaming do not allow this, how come Prime are allowed to do it, or even have a term specifying that they can.
The problem is that if a player wins Mega Moolah and gets drip fed the payout, the LGA will find in favour of the casino as this is specified in the terms.
It would need direct action from Microgaming to "slap them down" over this, the LGA won't.
All we can do is avoid Prime, and Bryan should add Prime casino to the "not recommended" list for drip feeding progressives.
We DO have a clear case of a Microgaming casino drip feeding progressives at the rate of 10,000 per month in the players' currency.
If Microgaming do not allow this, how come Prime are allowed to do it, or even have a term specifying that they can.
The problem is that if a player wins Mega Moolah and gets drip fed the payout, the LGA will find in favour of the casino as this is specified in the terms.
It would need direct action from Microgaming to "slap them down" over this, the LGA won't.
All we can do is avoid Prime, and Bryan should add Prime casino to the "not recommended" list for drip feeding progressives.
Thanks, to be fair i did not read through all of their T&C's . I only did a simple search for "Progressive" and "Jackpot" in the T&C of every site i looked at. Still it did take a few hours.
Similar threads
Rogue Announcement
Lucky Dino - Affmore Affiliates brain cell challenge
Users who are viewing this thread
-
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!
At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!