PR: 32Red acquires Go Wild Casino's UK customers

chayton

aka LooHoo
webmeister
PABnonaccred
CAG
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Location
Edmonton Canada
EDIT: Sorry I didn't finish reading the thread before posting, everyone already said this. Sorry 'bout that.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Admin Note: Title Change

Added the thing about UK players to avoid confusion (thanks Rainmaker).
 

dusky

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Location
England
Sorry to repeat myself but again isn't this a violation of the data protection act?

My information at GoWild isn't a commodity that can be bought, if anyone is buying it I want the money! :D
 

P.V.

Senior Member
webmeister
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Location
Turn around...
if anyone is buying it I want the money! :D


Whenever you signed up at company A you agreed to the T&C's. When any company A sells to company B everything is transferred and they are in control now.

Businesses by businesses everyday to gain new customers and take over the extending business for one reason or another.

No money for you that's absurd, delete your account if you don't like buyouts.

Example; If Google purchased Yahoo do you really think they'd owe you money? Nope G would be in control of what they purchased, period. :rolleyes:
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
Whenever you signed up at company A you agreed to the T&C's. When any company A sells to company B everything is transferred and they are in control now.

Businesses by businesses everyday to gain new customers and take over the extending business for one reason or another.

No money for you that's absurd, delete your account if you don't like buyouts.

Example; If Google purchased Yahoo do you really think they'd owe you money? Nope G would be in control of what they purchased, period. :rolleyes:

If there were a company takeover or sale then I would agree but that has not happened here. it is explicitly the sale of the UK player database. I am sure that they have taken legal advice and seem OK with it but it is not clear that this is legal, it seems likely that they should have asked permission from the UK players for transferring the data. See this link:

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


Is it ever acceptable to disclose personal data to other organisations for them to use for their own purposes?

It depends. You may be approached by a third party seeking personal data about one of your employees or customers. For example, the police may want information in connection with an investigation, or an individual may want information to pursue legal action. In such cases, you may choose to disclose the information if the conditions of a relevant exemption are satisfied.

Unless one of these specific exemptions applies, individuals should generally be able to choose whether or not their personal data is disclosed to another organisation. If your intention to disclose information in this way was not made absolutely clear at the outset, at a time when the individual had the option not to proceed in their business relationship with you, then you will usually have to get the individual’s consent before making such disclosures.

A decision to share personal data with another organisation does not take away your duty to treat individuals fairly. So before sharing personal data, you should consider carefully what the recipient will do with it, and what the effect on individuals is likely to be. It is good practice to obtain an assurance about this, for example in the form of a written contract.
 

P.V.

Senior Member
webmeister
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Location
Turn around...
Well I stand corrected until I have time to read the entire thread. I thought they bought them out and took over the casino and customer base.

Sure data sales happen all the time but it's unethical IMO to sell player information, or personal info. in general with details to a third party for personal gain.

I should have waited before posting as I thought this was a casino buyout, my bad. :thumbsup:
 

P.V.

Senior Member
webmeister
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Location
Turn around...
OK I've glanced over this and it's cut and dry. GW is out of the UK market therefore they sold their customer base to 32.

Is that legal, not sure and not for me to post about but I do know 32 R is a respectable company handling any data. JMO
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
The legality will only be tested if one of the players who's data is sold makes a complaint to the ICO, and the ruling goes in their favour. If this does happen, it will produce guidance for the industry in how to conduct such sales in a regulated environment within the EU.

It's the requirement for "explicit permission" that might cause problems. The ICO is aware of the sneaky tricks used by many companies to gain "implicit permission", such as pre filled tick boxes, or confusing wording that makes people unsure whether it's ticking the box or not ticking the box that leads to them giving permission.

To stay within the rules, GoWild would just have to offer players the opportunity to opt out of the sale and have their accounts closed instead. Some casinos have done this when transferring data to other operators.

The problem here is that so little notice has been given. On the 8th, UK players were invited to a promotion on their GoWild account. On the 9th, the email was sent out, and today the deal is done. The email didn't even offer players the chance to opt out, let alone give them time to do so.

There may well be players who try to log on today unaware of what has happened, and getting worried that their money is gone.

These emails are also finding their way into spam. My GoWild one got through, but the Ruby Fortune one was flagged as spam, and I found it yesterday in the spam folder.
 

dusky

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Location
England
I was only making a joke of it P.V. really. I'm not too fussed, I don't even think I have a GoWild account but we see complaints about the selling of personal data to third parties most days of the week in the non casino World so I don't see how they can just buy a database of customers details.

Hopefully 32Red can give us more information anyway seeing as they've been active on this thread.
 

Tirilej

Still a Lady
CAG
MM
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Location
Sweden
My thought is -Great that it was 32Red and not Digimedia that bought the data:eek2:

..or casino rewards.
Someone would have bought it and at least it's the ''good ones''.
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
OK I've glanced over this and it's cut and dry. GW is out of the UK market therefore they sold their customer base to 32.

Is that legal, not sure and not for me to post about but I do know 32 R is a respectable company handling any data. JMO

Yes, I would also add thatit looks like both are acting in good faith so as not to inconvenience players following an external, unpredicted, event. I prefer smooth transition and continuation of service for the customer, adding an opt in might be just extra hassle but there is value in the dormant account data so an opt in would reduce the price paid.
 
Last edited:

zebedy

No!!!! Im Spartacus
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Location
Up a Tree
I was only making a joke of it P.V. really. I'm not too fussed, I don't even think I have a GoWild account but we see complaints about the selling of personal data to third parties most days of the week in the non casino World so I don't see how they can just buy a database of customers details.

Hopefully 32Red can give us more information anyway seeing as they've been active on this thread.

It probably works something like this and unless you have opted out it seems any one can buy this information about you.

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


Its bad really, you have to fill in these forms by law and unless you do opt out the local councils can make a fortune selling these databases
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Yes, I would also add thatit looks like both are acting in good faith so as not to inconvenience players following an external, unpredicted, event. I prefer smooth transition and continuation of service for the customer, adding an opt in might be just extra hassle but there is value in the dormant account data so an opt in would reduce the price paid.

Hardly unpredicted. They had several weeks to act, plenty of time to get the consent or otherwise from players.

It suggests that this was a deliberate attempt to retain the value of the data being sold by making sure it was not diminished by players choosing to opt out ahead of any sale. If the sale was about protecting players' interests, then there would be no need to worry about players deciding to opt out and closing their accounts prior to migration.
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
Hardly unpredicted. They had several weeks to act, plenty of time to get the consent or otherwise from players.

It suggests that this was a deliberate attempt to retain the value of the data being sold by making sure it was not diminished by players choosing to opt out ahead of any sale. If the sale was about protecting players' interests, then there would be no need to worry about players deciding to opt out and closing their accounts prior to migration.

True. I meant not allowed for adequately in their Ts and Cs and Privacy Policy.

Of course it was about maximising the value of the data to both parties, hence why I think they have broken the data protection rules even if not through being evil monsters, just wanting £££.
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
True. I meant not allowed for adequately in their Ts and Cs and Privacy Policy.

Of course it was about maximising the value of the data to both parties, hence why I think they have broken the data protection rules even if not through being evil monsters, just wanting £££.


This is EXACTLY what these rules are designed to prevent, so this may be a more serious matter than the industry thinks. Having gotten used to selling on players' accounts under the old regime, and there being no repercussions other than discontent among some players, they may not be ready for complaints that are made under the new rules, where the UK licence at least is governed by English law, rather than "the laws of <insert licencing jurisdiction here>" as often stated in the general terms.
 

Richas

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Location
UK
This is EXACTLY what these rules are designed to prevent, so this may be a more serious matter than the industry thinks. Having gotten used to selling on players' accounts under the old regime, and there being no repercussions other than discontent among some players, they may not be ready for complaints that are made under the new rules, where the UK licence at least is governed by English law, rather than "the laws of <insert licencing jurisdiction here>" as often stated in the general terms.

Again, I agree, but it needs someone whose data was sold to take the complaint to the ICO.
 
J

Jory

Guest
According to Matt Booth they acquired 60,000 new players. That's a lot more than I was expecting. I'm assuming only a small percentage of those players would be active though.

Would be interesting to know how much they paid for the database, maybe it will be mentioned in their 2014 accounts report.

I feel if there's one company you can trust to conduct their business operations legitimately, then it's 32red.
 

GrandMaster

Dormant account
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Hardly unpredicted. They had several weeks to act, plenty of time to get the consent or otherwise from players.

It suggests that this was a deliberate attempt to retain the value of the data being sold by making sure it was not diminished by players choosing to opt out ahead of any sale. If the sale was about protecting players' interests, then there would be no need to worry about players deciding to opt out and closing their accounts prior to migration.
Players probably gave consent when they signed up. GoWild redirects me to 32Red, so I cannot access its privacy policy, but 32Red's includes "In the event of a merger or consolidation of 32Red, or the sale of all or substantially all of its stock or assets, or the transfer of the operation and distribution of certain products or Services to a third-party, or bankruptcy of 32Red, your personal information may be transferred to 32Red' successor or assign resulting from such events."
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Players probably gave consent when they signed up. GoWild redirects me to 32Red, so I cannot access its privacy policy, but 32Red's includes "In the event of a merger or consolidation of 32Red, or the sale of all or substantially all of its stock or assets, or the transfer of the operation and distribution of certain products or Services to a third-party, or bankruptcy of 32Red, your personal information may be transferred to 32Red' successor or assign resulting from such events."

This would be implicit consent, not explicit. It's also not a choice, it's made compulsory from the start. The regulations are stricter when it comes to a compulsory consent needed in order to access the service. It's going to be a question as to whether it is "necessary" to share the data, or whether it was done for the company's gain.

This won't be tested unless someone affected lodges a complaint or makes an enquiry with the ICO.
 
Top