Should I PaB? (blacklisted by Rushmore)

[KasinoKing]

RTG is merely the software supplier, so how come they can forcibly overrule an operator in respect of which players they accept deposits from?

RTG seems FAR more involved than they would have us believed. Apparently, RTG don't even license the software to operators, they license the whole thing to a third party (Hastings) who in turn deal with the operators. The whole POINT was to distance RTG as far as possible from the actual running of the casinos. If RTG are calling the shots over the blacklist, processors, and operators, then they cannot claim to be "just a developer of gaming software", and are thus more directly involved with the act of supplying an "illegal" service to the US. They are also involved in the "processing" side, which is what UIGEA is REALLY aimed at.

It has been obvious to me for many years that it IS the software supplier (or at least, an operator under their control) who can blanket-block individual players.
Rival have been proved to be doing this for years, and their is significant evidence to show RTG run a very similar system. To be honest, I don't blame them - it makes an awful lot of sense to try to stop all fraudsters in their tracks. The only big problem is when an innocent player gets caught in the net, which seems to be the case here.

KK

 

[Nifty29]

The ONLY thing about this issue that bothers me is that it is not the usual Rushmore MO to do this kind of thing. Usually, they just don't pay and ignore all correspondence. If it WAS simply a case of not wanting to pay for no valid reason, why would they go to such extreme lengths?

It's not like them at all in my experience.

IMO we would need to see ALL the evidence before making a call on this one, as some things just don't add up e.g. the OP could have threatened to chargeback....who knows? I doubt they would reveal that here given Rushmore won't respond.

If the CB is REAL, then CWC should be able to get the details from the processor/database/both surely? I don't have an issue with fraudster databases, however there should be precise details available for other operators to view should a dispute like this arise.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The ONLY thing about this issue that bothers me is that it is not the usual Rushmore MO to do this kind of thing. Usually, they just don't pay and ignore all correspondence. If it WAS simply a case of not wanting to pay for no valid reason, why would they go to such extreme lengths?

It's not like them at all in my experience.

IMO we would need to see ALL the evidence before making a call on this one, as some things just don't add up e.g. the OP could have threatened to chargeback....who knows? I doubt they would reveal that here given Rushmore won't respond.

If the CB is REAL, then CWC should be able to get the details from the processor/database/both surely? I don't have an issue with fraudster databases, however there should be precise details available for other operators to view should a dispute like this arise.

If not, an operator should be able to make their own decision as to whether or not to believe their player or the database. Even the notorious Rival database could be overruled by an operator, and many of the better Rival casinos regularly did this on appeal from one of their players.

What is more damning in this case is that the usually lame CDS found AGAINST Rushmore in this case, and Rushmore paid up, even though CDS cannot actually force them to. Despite this, neither CDS nor RTG have the power to correct the database, and it seems Club World have no management discretion in overriding the block to enable their loyal player to carry on playing.

On the one hand, RTG are "fully involved" when it comes to applying the blocks, yet suddenly it's "out of our hands" when it comes to an operator having been found to have made an error in wrongly adding a player to the block list, and refusing to take it down. It just seems a case of "sour grapes" on Rushmore's part, they were found to be in the wrong, but certainly don't want the player back, and neither does the player want to go back. Correcting the database entry would not mean that Rushmore lost the right to refuse re-entry to the player. Pure sour grapes "revenge" on the player for daring to challenge them via CDS and winning, and making sure that the player cannot even play elsewhere.

Of course, it shows another aspect of the danger of playing at a rogue. You don't have to risk your own money, they could take the same "revenge" on a player who thinks they are in the clear just playing the free chips and free tournaments whilst having no intention of placing their own money in a casino with obvious difficulties paying out. They could get their "revenge" on such free chip/tournament only players by adding an accusation of "fraud" to the central database to ensure that they can't risk their money at ANY RTG casino just because Rushmore isn't getting to see any of it.

Surely if Rushmore really felt that CDS had got it wrong, they would have done what any other rogue would do and simply ignore the CDS decision and not pay.

 

[Nifty29]

If not, an operator should be able to make their own decision as to whether or not to believe their player or the database. Even the notorious Rival database could be overruled by an operator, and many of the better Rival casinos regularly did this on appeal from one of their players.

What is more damning in this case is that the usually lame CDS found AGAINST Rushmore in this case, and Rushmore paid up, even though CDS cannot actually force them to. Despite this, neither CDS nor RTG have the power to correct the database, and it seems Club World have no management discretion in overriding the block to enable their loyal player to carry on playing.

On the one hand, RTG are "fully involved" when it comes to applying the blocks, yet suddenly it's "out of our hands" when it comes to an operator having been found to have made an error in wrongly adding a player to the block list, and refusing to take it down. It just seems a case of "sour grapes" on Rushmore's part, they were found to be in the wrong, but certainly don't want the player back, and neither does the player want to go back. Correcting the database entry would not mean that Rushmore lost the right to refuse re-entry to the player. Pure sour grapes "revenge" on the player for daring to challenge them via CDS and winning, and making sure that the player cannot even play elsewhere.

Of course, it shows another aspect of the danger of playing at a rogue. You don't have to risk your own money, they could take the same "revenge" on a player who thinks they are in the clear just playing the free chips and free tournaments whilst having no intention of placing their own money in a casino with obvious difficulties paying out. They could get their "revenge" on such free chip/tournament only players by adding an accusation of "fraud" to the central database to ensure that they can't risk their money at ANY RTG casino just because Rushmore isn't getting to see any of it.

Surely if Rushmore really felt that CDS had got it wrong, they would have done what any other rogue would do and simply ignore the CDS decision and not pay.

Yes, except that only depositors can play free tournaments.

 

[chuchu59]

It seems the OP was able to deposit at Rushmore but for some reason was denied his winnings. If Rushmore stated that they wont pay the OP because he was on the blacklist it does seem Rushmore has broken their tradition of simply delaying payments and use the blacklisting to not pay at all. Previously, they only delay payments and pay some of the players once they get a fresh injection of funds. Perhaps it wasn't good enough for them and they simply wanted to get rid of their creditors once and for all.

 

[MisterBJ]

This is what most online casinos are using for fraud database... EVIDENCE. Tap into millions of verified fraud and abuse
events such as chargebacks, identify theft and account takeovers. Catch more fraud through data sharing. As an iovation customer, you’ll benefit from all the information obtained from the billions of device reputation checks in iovation’s database,the Device Reputation Authority (DRA). The DRA is the world’s largest database of its kind and helps our customers catch 25% more fraud based on shared information.

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

Watch this Video - CEO EXPLAINS IT and YES MOST CASINO SOFTWARE IS USING THIS

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

 

[MisterBJ]

It seems the OP was able to deposit at Rushmore but for some reason was denied his winnings. If Rushmore stated that they wont pay the OP because he was on the blacklist it does seem Rushmore has broken their tradition of simply delaying payments and use the blacklisting to not pay at all. Previously, they only delay payments and pay some of the players once they get a fresh injection of funds. Perhaps it wasn't good enough for them and they simply wanted to get rid of their creditors once and for all.

No telling with this group. As you said he was able at deposit with no problems before Rushmore. After Rushmore he is not able to deposit. Maybe Rushmore is mad he went to CDS and decided to put him there. Rogues will do the unthinkable!!!

 

[jetset]

This is what most online casinos are using for fraud database

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

Watch this Video - CEO EXPLAINS IT and YES MOST CASINO SOFTWARE IS USING THIS

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

And there are allegations on the internet that one of the founders of the disgraced Absolute Poker and Ultimate Poker is associated with this enterprise! I seem to recall that was unearthed on one of the top notch digging expeditions on the UB/AP scandal conducted by investigative journalist Haley Hintze.

I think one of Iovation's specialities is being able to blacklist to its e-commerce clients the actual online device used by a fraudster.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is what most online casinos are using for fraud database... EVIDENCE. Tap into millions of verified fraud and abuse
events such as chargebacks, identify theft and account takeovers. Catch more fraud through data sharing. As an iovation customer, you’ll benefit from all the information obtained from the billions of device reputation checks in iovation’s database,the Device Reputation Authority (DRA). The DRA is the world’s largest database of its kind and helps our customers catch 25% more fraud based on shared information.

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

Watch this Video - CEO EXPLAINS IT and YES MOST CASINO SOFTWARE IS USING THIS

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

With not one single mistake in all that data, so no need for an appeals process, nor adherence to any data protection laws

If they are so damn confident, why not have themselves held to account by being under the jurisdiction of data protection laws.

Device reputation checks are accurate only so long as the device is born and dies with a single owner. This does not happen in real life. Just as they assume identities, fraudsters will simply change devices in order to circumvent the checks, so by the time a device has had it's reputation blackened, the actual fraudsters will be using a different one, probably a brand new one which will yield a completely fresh and untarnished device identity, indistinguishable from a device that has never been used for anything dodgy. Depending on how a devices' ID is "fingerprinted", the tech savvy scammers have probably found a way to create fresh device IDs without the expense of having to buy a whole new device. PCs in particular can be built from parts by the average teenager in the bedroom, a pirated OS completes the setup (or a non Windows open source OS like Linux).

Now, if I was denied a mobile phone because a previous provider had made a claim in error that I still owed money on a previous contract, they would be required by law to tell me which datasource they got this from, and in turn I would have a legal right to approach the controller of this datasource and require them to remove any inaccurate data they were distributing, in addition to which I would have the right to submit a "notice of correction" which by law they would have to send to anyone who requests access to my data during the time it takes to complete the process of having the data corrected. The company that initially uploaded the inaccurate data could also face either legal or regulatory action if it could not show proof of accuracy, or refused to act to correct the inaccuracy.

None of this is possible with Iovation, it is in effect a "secret blacklist", although not so secret now that we know that the company and it's database exists, although secret in the sense that casinos can refuse to say whether or not Iovation is the source of the inaccurate data.

In this case, this is not an individual business denying service, but a third party TELLING all individual businesses it deals with they MUST NOT supply a service to a given individual, and having the means to enforce this despite what the individual businesses may feel about it. In terms of data protection laws, this is far more serious.

 

[MisterBJ]

With not one single mistake in all that data, so no need for an appeals process, nor adherence to any data protection laws

If they are so damn confident, why not have themselves held to account by being under the jurisdiction of data protection laws.

Device reputation checks are accurate only so long as the device is born and dies with a single owner. This does not happen in real life. Just as they assume identities, fraudsters will simply change devices in order to circumvent the checks, so by the time a device has had it's reputation blackened, the actual fraudsters will be using a different one, probably a brand new one which will yield a completely fresh and untarnished device identity, indistinguishable from a device that has never been used for anything dodgy. Depending on how a devices' ID is "fingerprinted", the tech savvy scammers have probably found a way to create fresh device IDs without the expense of having to buy a whole new device. PCs in particular can be built from parts by the average teenager in the bedroom, a pirated OS completes the setup (or a non Windows open source OS like Linux).

Now, if I was denied a mobile phone because a previous provider had made a claim in error that I still owed money on a previous contract, they would be required by law to tell me which datasource they got this from, and in turn I would have a legal right to approach the controller of this datasource and require them to remove any inaccurate data they were distributing, in addition to which I would have the right to submit a "notice of correction" which by law they would have to send to anyone who requests access to my data during the time it takes to complete the process of having the data corrected. The company that initially uploaded the inaccurate data could also face either legal or regulatory action if it could not show proof of accuracy, or refused to act to correct the inaccuracy.

None of this is possible with Iovation, it is in effect a "secret blacklist", although not so secret now that we know that the company and it's database exists, although secret in the sense that casinos can refuse to say whether or not Iovation is the source of the inaccurate data.

In this case, this is not an individual business denying service, but a third party TELLING all individual businesses it deals with they MUST NOT supply a service to a given individual, and having the means to enforce this despite what the individual businesses may feel about it. In terms of data protection laws, this is far more serious.

And now we know why some US facing casinos wants your last 4 digits of Social Security # before making 1st deposit.

 

[vinylweatherman]

And now we know why some US facing casinos wants your last 4 digits of Social Security # before making 1st deposit.

That won't really help as many people share the last 4 digits. Given that there is no means for an offshore casino to access (legally) this data for checking purposes, there should be no reason for casinos to ask for ANY digits of this number.

If a player just made up 4 digits, how on earth could an offshore casino check. If it claims to have checked and found the digits given to be invalid, then they have committed a serious breach of US law by accessing the social security database of American citizens. Maybe it's Iovation that is having access to this database on behalf of the casinos, they are an American company, but they are using the data to check customers of a business considered to be acting illegally under US laws.

 

[P.V.]

And there are allegations on the internet that one of the founders of the disgraced Absolute Poker and Ultimate Poker is associated with this enterprise! I seem to recall that was unearthed on one of the top notch digging expeditions on the UB/AP scandal conducted by investigative journalist Haley Hintze.

I think one of Iovation's specialities is being able to blacklist to its e-commerce clients the actual online device used by a fraudster.

I think jetset is refering to this, link:

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

For the OP as legal U.S. IGaming regulates you will always have the option to find out where this information is coming from.

1. The Privacy Act of 1974

Allow individuals to access data pertaining to them, request correction of wrong or incomplete data, and make an appeal for denials of requests for access and correction

2. The Fair Information Practices

There must be no personal data record-keeping systems whose very existence is secret

 

[Casinomeister]

Just want to chime in here real quick - iovation and Maxmind are used by most operators. If you are listed there wrongly, you need to contact them. These are bonafide third parties that have nothing to do with the casino. Casinos use these tools as a guide and are not obligated to abide by their warnings. At the end of the day, it is up to the casino to take the risk of accepting players that have chargeback histories chronicled at these fraud prevention companies.

Just to add - Rushmore Casinos are really bad news. You should run - not walk away from these guys. Kudos to the OP to have CDS step in and actually get something done for the player.

 

[bigsmile]

Thank you so much for the advice. I had contact with maxmind and they don't have me in any database of any kind or are aware of any issue associated with me whatsoever. They told me to have the casino contact them if they had questions. So........ does this mean that it is definitely RTG's own list? If so how can I get them to fix what rushmore wrongfully did? thanks so much.

 

[bowlingbob]

Just want to chime in here real quick - iovation and Maxmind are used by most operators. If you are listed there wrongly, you need to contact them. These are bonafide third parties that have nothing to do with the casino. Casinos use these tools as a guide and are not obligated to abide by their warnings. At the end of the day, it is up to the casino to take the risk of accepting players that have chargeback histories chronicled at these fraud prevention companies.

Just to add - Rushmore Casinos are really bad news. You should run - not walk away from these guys. Kudos to the OP to have CDS step in and actually get something done for the player.

Isn't it ironic that the casinos use Iovation to catch fraudulent players however the company itself is run and owned by one of the biggest online cheaters, Greg Pierson, in the history of online gaming.

 

[Casinomeister]

... So........ does this mean that it is definitely RTG's own list? ...

As far as I know, there is no RTG list. You are probably listed at iovation. Have you tried contacting them?

Isn't it ironic that the casinos use Iovation to catch fraudulent players however the company itself is run and owned by one of the biggest online cheaters, Greg Pierson, in the history of online gaming.

I for one can appreciate the irony

 

[rockycatt]

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

 

[skiny]

Just want to chime in here real quick - iovation and Maxmind are used by most operators. If you are listed there wrongly, you need to contact them. These are bonafide third parties that have nothing to do with the casino. Casinos use these tools as a guide and are not obligated to abide by their warnings. At the end of the day, it is up to the casino to take the risk of accepting players that have chargeback histories chronicled at these fraud prevention companies.

Just to add - Rushmore Casinos are really bad news. You should run - not walk away from these guys. Kudos to the OP to have CDS step in and actually get something done for the player.

The problem is there's no way to know you're on these lists. The casinos obviously aren't giving out the information. The lists may not be top secret but they might as well be if the average player finds himself blacklisted without any way to find out where or why.

 

[bigsmile]

As far as I know, there is no RTG list. You are probably listed at iovation. Have you tried contacting them?

Yes, iovation has not responded in any way. I have contacted multiple times. Maxmind was extremely responsive but nothing from iovation.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes, iovation has not responded in any way. I have contacted multiple times. Maxmind was extremely responsive but nothing from iovation.

As it seems Iovation is US based, you should be able to make an official complaint under your data laws, just don't mention WHY you had the issue. You could be general and just say the blacklisting is causing merchants to block your cards when trying to purchase goods, and are telling you that it is because your name is on some kind of credit card blacklist.

In the UK, we would escalate a complaint about refusal to comply with a data disclosure request to our Information Commissioners' office, who could then fine the company and/or force them to comply with the request. As in the UK, there may be a number of weeks you have to give them before taking the matter further. For us I believe it's 8 weeks before we can assume that the company does not intend to comply.

 

[bigsmile]

As it seems Iovation is US based, you should be able to make an official complaint under your data laws, just don't mention WHY you had the issue. You could be general and just say the blacklisting is causing merchants to block your cards when trying to purchase goods, and are telling you that it is because your name is on some kind of credit card blacklist.

In the UK, we would escalate a complaint about refusal to comply with a data disclosure request to our Information Commissioners' office, who could then fine the company and/or force them to comply with the request. As in the UK, there may be a number of weeks you have to give them before taking the matter further. For us I believe it's 8 weeks before we can assume that the company does not intend to comply.

So that I understand correctly... even though I don't have any issue using my cc except at casinos, I should still act like I do with them if I can ever get them to contact me back? Not sure I understood completely.

 

[vinylweatherman]

So that I understand correctly... even though I don't have any issue using my cc except at casinos, I should still act like I do with them if I can ever get them to contact me back? Not sure I understood completely.

What you have is a US based company operating a credit card blacklist that is refusing to disclose the data they hold on you as an individual. You do not need to specify WHY you want to see the data, you can merely say that you have been told by a merchant that your business was refused as your name was on a credit card blacklist, and you believe the data to be inaccurate and need to exercise your right to have the data corrected as it is distributed to third parties.

In your favour is the fact that casino deposits are always cloaked as non gambling purchases, so even if they dig deeper, it will back up your claim that "regular retail shopping" is being affected, not your ability to make illegal transactions at casinos.

I would think that if Iovation heard that you were going to make a formal complaint about their refusal to respond, they would respond in order to remain "off the radar", as legally they should, if they have the ability, be blocking ALL gambling credit card transactions originating from US cards under UIGEA. By servicing casinos in terms of checking which US cards are safe to accept, they are complicit in circumventing UIGEA, and could be in trouble as they state their main HQ is on US soil. If the DoJ raided Iovation's US offices, they may find plenty of evidence that they are working with an "illegal offshore industry" in helping them to "launder money" through US banking institutions by vetting which "illegal transactions" are safe to let through, and which are TOO high a risk.

You may need to obtain proof that they actually received and ignored your request, so a written letter sent "recorded delivered post" to their HQ should back up the initial request. It will provide proof that they received it on a given date, from which you can argue a non response after xx weeks of said date. You also keep a copy of the letter so that you can show that it was a clear disclosure request, so that they can't argue that they didn't think a response was necessary.

In the UK an escalation via recorded delivery letter is normally needed to prove deliberate non response, rather than leaving them able to argue "didn't receive your email/letter". The relevant US laws were posted earlier:-

For the OP as legal U.S. IGaming regulates you will always have the option to find out where this information is coming from.

1. The Privacy Act of 1974

Allow individuals to access data pertaining to them, request correction of wrong or incomplete data, and make an appeal for denials of requests for access and correction

2. The Fair Information Practices

There must be no personal data record-keeping systems whose very existence is secret

 

[bigsmile]

Thanks so much!

I have actually also had recent success speaking with Slots Jungle specifically. They stopped and listened and looked into it themselves. They said they couldn't fix my entire problem but that they could override this deposit block associated with me at RTG. They did so and have been allowing me to play. I am going to attempt this at clubworld also again and hope for the best.
Im not positive but I assume that slots jungle double checked with maxmind to see if I was telling the truth then decided to allow me to deposit again.

 

[chuchu59]

Slots Jungle of all places! I guess they deserve Sigh!

 

[bigsmile]

yes, I have read some bad remarks about them on here ( I was already a member there)... but I have to admit that they pay every single week like clockwork if I win, they didn't hassle me about my documents and approved my faxform quickly and they were at least good enough to look into this themselves and fix it. I have to say that I have had a very pleasant experience with them the entire time I have been a member.

of course, I have never won 100,000 like the other thread about them. So my wins are small enough that if I was getting $500 every week I would be smiling big time.