Bonus Complaint Spinson 20,000 win not paying out on technicality

[Jadie999]

Hey guys,

I'm totally new to this forum but have been told it's the best place to get some advice. I'll give you the low down - I have deposited hundreds previous to this win on spinson but never won big, I played with some free spins two days ago and won a large sum something like 5k from one spin! So I checked the wagering left and it was only £80 so went onto a slot and bet £10 8 times to get through the wagering. I played for hours and hours and ended up with 20k in the kitty, yay for me. When I went to withdraw they came back and said that the maximum bet while playing with bonus funds was £5 now I must have read this at some point but had forgotten and excitement took over.

The clause however states that if you want to play with more, to contact the customer service team and they may make an exception.

Now I pleaded with them as of course that's a life changing sum of money for me! They've agreed to give me £500 of the winnings which is still a bit of a burn but kind nonetheless.

It made me wonder though are they paying that out of genuine kindness or in the hope that I won't pester them any more because perhaps the fact they've made exceptions to the terms before might mean I am entitled to all my winnings? I'm just pretty upset and hoping there's some kind of loop hole here but I get it if not. I welcome any advice and I have definitely learnt a valuable lesson

 

[hedgehok]

Oh wow. So you where up like 5k with 80£ left to wager and you decided to overbet. That's almost like throwing cash into the fire.

It's somewhat kind of them to pay you £500. Usually the casinos return the deposit (if at all) so if your deposit was lower than £500 you where quite lucky but I feel with you. That whole scenario truly sucks.

Most casinos have a maximum bet restriction when playing with bonuses (in many cases £5/spin). You have to be extra cautious whenever you take bonuses.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Second thread within 1 hour from players over betting and not playing according to the rules.

And then they come to CM in the hope that somebody with a magical wand will make their forfeited winnings reappear.

Jadie, sit down with Jim (thread is here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/big-win-on-redbet-for-nothing.75816/ ) for the next session and maybe together you find the time to read and learn how to adhere to the rules.

Secondly, maybe both of you can read the complaints procedure here at CM. IT IS CLEARLY DISPLAYED on top of your post.

Spinson has a rep here, contact him by PM to have your case reviewed: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

Sorry, but no sympathy from me, just like i do not for Jim.

 

[goatwack]

Another reason why casinos have safeguards in place, from their perspective it's like a bonus hit-and-run from ridiculous bets. What happened to the getting a bonus and playing sub-60p bets on games??

Of course the familiar pattern of greed takes over and as a casino I'd be celebrating Christmas early. Wouldn't have even paid the £500 to be fair.

 

[mimi26]

you will have to put it down to lesson learned, you made a really really silly mistake, with ONLY £80 left to wager!! why?

 

[vinylweatherman]

As the OP is in London, there may be another way, the Consumer protection laws. Although there clearly has been a breach of the terms, consumer protection laws also have the concept that "the consumer must be treated fairly" when a company deals with them, including when dealing with a breach of contract. Another part of the law, contract law, only allows one party to recover it's reasonable costs and losses in remedying the breach, a company can't levy an arbitrary "fine" unrelated to such costs.

In the UK, online casino gambling now falls under Consumer Contract laws, and EveryMatrix has just learned this lesson the hard way after picking up a CCJ from being sued by a player over it's Self Exclusion policy, even though this player DID actually break the term (played at another EM casino having self excluded from a different one earlier).

However, it's early days, and many of these situations are unique to online casinos where the player in many cases has far more money at stake than the amount "paid for the service" (the deposit). In a case such as this, the player would have to set a point at which they had a legitimate balance that did not result from any breaches of the terms, and then argue from that point that the casinos actual losses and costs of remedying that breach are nowhere near the entire balance.

I am not aware of such a case ever having gone before a judge, so there are no guarantees. However, there are a number of "no win, no fee" firms that are now showing an interest in taking on such player vs online casino cases for around 30% of what they are able to get if successful.

With no prior cases to refer to, it's hard to predict what the outcome would be, but someone has to launch the first one, just like someone had to be the first to take the EM self exclusion farce to court.

A victory would force casinos to implement software blocks to prevent such terms from being breached, which is what is good for players as a whole (especially newbies), albeit an unwelcome software development cost to casinos.

If not in the UK, players have to rely on their own consumer laws, but they would be left having to take the case to court in the casino's licensing jurisdiction, which in the past has been a major deterrent to players taking casinos on in the courts.

 

[chiya]

Seems kinda unfair to forfeit all winnings because you played 8x10 bets to finish wagering, when there was just £80 left. You'd have completed the wagering either way, so it wasn't a case of "hit and run" to complete bonus with big bets quickly and then withdraw. If they really wanted to be fair, they'd take away the winnings those 8 spins netted you I guess, because any bets you made after the fact were not on bonus funds so the max bet shouldn't apply anyway.

But rules are rules .. they could not pay you anything if they wanted.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Seems kinda unfair to forfeit all winnings because you played 8x10 bets to finish wagering, when there was just £80 left. You'd have completed the wagering either way, so it wasn't a case of "hit and run" to complete bonus with big bets quickly and then withdraw. If they really wanted to be fair, they'd take away the winnings those 8 spins netted you I guess, because any bets you made after the fact were not on bonus funds so the max bet shouldn't apply anyway.

But rules are rules .. they could not pay you anything if they wanted.

...or they could repent at leisure when the courts remind them that they are not above consumer protection laws.

Until this week, we felt pretty powerless to do anything about the Everymatrix BS self exclusion policy because the UKGC were not taking decisive action even though they had known that it was a serious issue for players who were being unfairly treated because of it.

... and then this happens.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...scam-update-non-payment-of-court-order.75766/

 

[SlotGrinder]

As the OP is in London, there may be another way, the Consumer protection laws. Although there clearly has been a breach of the terms, consumer protection laws also have the concept that "the consumer must be treated fairly" when a company deals with them, including when dealing with a breach of contract. Another part of the law, contract law, only allows one party to recover it's reasonable costs and losses in remedying the breach, a company can't levy an arbitrary "fine" unrelated to such costs.

In the UK, online casino gambling now falls under Consumer Contract laws, and EveryMatrix has just learned this lesson the hard way after picking up a CCJ from being sued by a player over it's Self Exclusion policy, even though this player DID actually break the term (played at another EM casino having self excluded from a different one earlier).

However, it's early days, and many of these situations are unique to online casinos where the player in many cases has far more money at stake than the amount "paid for the service" (the deposit). In a case such as this, the player would have to set a point at which they had a legitimate balance that did not result from any breaches of the terms, and then argue from that point that the casinos actual losses and costs of remedying that breach are nowhere near the entire balance.

I am not aware of such a case ever having gone before a judge, so there are no guarantees. However, there are a number of "no win, no fee" firms that are now showing an interest in taking on such player vs online casino cases for around 30% of what they are able to get if successful.

With no prior cases to refer to, it's hard to predict what the outcome would be, but someone has to launch the first one, just like someone had to be the first to take the EM self exclusion farce to court.

A victory would force casinos to implement software blocks to prevent such terms from being breached, which is what is good for players as a whole (especially newbies), albeit an unwelcome software development cost to casinos.

If not in the UK, players have to rely on their own consumer laws, but they would be left having to take the case to court in the casino's licensing jurisdiction, which in the past has been a major deterrent to players taking casinos on in the courts.

Yes , they really shouldn't be allowed to have "rules" like this. Imo money in your casino account should be YOUR money the same as if it was a bank or ewallet (not sure how well regulated ewallets are though either) . If I go overdrawn at my bank then I have to pay a fee . They don't take my whole month's wages ! Right now the casino's attitude seems to be that funds held in your casino account may or may not be paid to you at the casino's discretion . It's insane but they seemingly get away with it and the main deterrent to them simply stealing all money is the risk of getting a bad reputation

 

[vinylweatherman]

Yes , they really shouldn't be allowed to have "rules" like this. Imo money in your casino account should be YOUR money the same as if it was a bank or ewallet (not sure how well regulated ewallets are though either) . If I go overdrawn at my bank then I have to pay a fee . They don't take my whole month's wages ! Right now the casino's attitude seems to be that funds held in your casino account may or may not be paid to you at the casino's discretion . It's insane but they seemingly get away with it and the main deterrent to them simply stealing all money is the risk of getting a bad reputation

The casino industry have been like this since it all started. They feel they are in the right over how they interpret the money in your account as not truly being yours until it's paid out. However, when the new UK gambling regulations were brought in, there was an important change, gambling debts became legally enforceable debts just like any other, whereas they used to be "honour" debts, where there was nothing in law to protect punters from the arbitrary voiding of their winning bets just because the bookie didn't want to pay out. Oddly enough, it was the OPERATORS who lobbied for this, they wanted the right to sue punters for THEIR winnings when they granted betting credit to punters who subsequently made losing wagers, and then decided they just weren't going to pay up. If it wasn't for this critical change, there would still be no mechanism for taking casinos or bookies to court in the UK to recover disputed winnings.

The weakness in the casinos' case is that they issue an arbitrary charge of the entire balance for a breach of the terms of the contract, no matter how minor. This means that one customer can be charged £100, whereas another can be charged £200,000 for exactly the same breach of contract. If it is accepted that money in a casino account belongs to the player, and is merely held by the casino for the purpose of placing bets, then once winnings are added, they become the property of the player, so if a breach of contract is detected the casino would have to levy a proportionate charge to cover their identifiable losses and costs in remedying the breach, just like the banks.

Although the banks won the right to make these charges, they lost the right to make them arbitrary amounts, they had to be amounts designed to reflect the reasonable costs to them of dealing with the breach. This is why we now have the £12 charge, rather than the £50 arbitrary charge, for dealing with a bounced payment. Of course, banks are still trying it on, they charge as many of these small charges as they can get away with, and have come up with new chargeable incidents by charging separately for incidents that are really just consequences of the initial incident, so they can still make a single bounced payment into a £100 fee by the end of the month.

Of course, until someone takes such a case through the courts, there is no precedent, or even set of court transcripts, that can help to produce the best case arguments to use. The worry for casinos is that it's very high risk, if they win the first case, they can breath a sigh of relief, but if they lose it, then they will have to accept that their current business model is seriously flawed, and there is a risk of "opening the floodgates" to similar claims.

 

[Mouche12]

I just would like to add that fraudulent players would never bring a case against a casino before a court of law.

Honest punters who feel that the T&Cs are interpreted in a way that infringes on consumer protection laws and decide to sue the casino should imo have a reasonable chance of winning their case when winnings have been confiscated due to a breach of the T&Cs, for example in this case. There are also the principles of fairness and reasonableness that courts will consider in assessing all the circumstances of such a breach.

 

[SlotGrinder]

When you have to look to the banking industry as an example of how fees/charges are being handled more reasonably then you know you're in a bad place
Imagine banks confiscating whole bank accounts because someone wrote a cheque higher than their cheque guarantee card limit

 

[vinylweatherman]

I just would like to add that fraudulent players would never bring a case against a casino before a court of law.

Honest punters who feel that the T&Cs are interpreted in a way that infringes on consumer protection laws and decide to sue the casino should imo have a reasonable chance of winning their case when winnings have been confiscated due to a breach of the T&Cs, for example in this case. There are also the principles of fairness and reasonableness that courts will consider in assessing all the circumstances of such a breach.

This should ensure that casinos are not a "sitting duck" for fraudsters because of consumer protection laws. If a fraudster lies in court to con their way to a payment, they could find themselves in SERIOUS trouble. However, it would not be a fair test of honesty to presume that in order to protest their innocence a player needs to take legal action before the casino is prepared to reconsider the matter.

It certainly is poor that when comparing some of the things that happen as standard in the online casino industry to other industries, it's possible to use the banks as an example of dealing with customers more fairly.

 

[Harry_BKK]

With all due respect VWM but this is plain BS!

You know that EveryMatrix lost the case on a technicality, not on grounds that the claimant had a case! So please stop insinuating that this OP might have a case too.

As for this OP there was a clear clause in the terms & conditions and just as clear consequences when somebody did not follow them. There is no such thing as "unfair treatment" in legal terms in this case.

She accepted the very clear T&C's, even admitted that she read and understood them and still did not adhere to them!! Show me one judge/court or a paragraph in the consumer protection laws who/which would rule in favor of this OP in this case.

As the OP is in London, there may be another way, the Consumer protection laws. Although there clearly has been a breach of the terms, consumer protection laws also have the concept that "the consumer must be treated fairly" when a company deals with them, including when dealing with a breach of contract. Another part of the law, contract law, only allows one party to recover it's reasonable costs and losses in remedying the breach, a company can't levy an arbitrary "fine" unrelated to such costs.

In the UK, online casino gambling now falls under Consumer Contract laws, and EveryMatrix has just learned this lesson the hard way after picking up a CCJ from being sued by a player over it's Self Exclusion policy, even though this player DID actually break the term (played at another EM casino having self excluded from a different one earlier).

However, it's early days, and many of these situations are unique to online casinos where the player in many cases has far more money at stake than the amount "paid for the service" (the deposit). In a case such as this, the player would have to set a point at which they had a legitimate balance that did not result from any breaches of the terms, and then argue from that point that the casinos actual losses and costs of remedying that breach are nowhere near the entire balance.

I am not aware of such a case ever having gone before a judge, so there are no guarantees. However, there are a number of "no win, no fee" firms that are now showing an interest in taking on such player vs online casino cases for around 30% of what they are able to get if successful.

With no prior cases to refer to, it's hard to predict what the outcome would be, but someone has to launch the first one, just like someone had to be the first to take the EM self exclusion farce to court.

A victory would force casinos to implement software blocks to prevent such terms from being breached, which is what is good for players as a whole (especially newbies), albeit an unwelcome software development cost to casinos.

If not in the UK, players have to rely on their own consumer laws, but they would be left having to take the case to court in the casino's licensing jurisdiction, which in the past has been a major deterrent to players taking casinos on in the courts.

...or they could repent at leisure when the courts remind them that they are not above consumer protection laws.

Until this week, we felt pretty powerless to do anything about the Everymatrix BS self exclusion policy because the UKGC were not taking decisive action even though they had known that it was a serious issue for players who were being unfairly treated because of it.

... and then this happens.

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...scam-update-non-payment-of-court-order.75766/

 

[vinylweatherman]

With all due respect VWM but this is plain BS!

You know that EveryMatrix lost the case on a technicality, not on grounds that the claimant had a case! So please stop insinuating that this OP might have a case too.

As for this OP there was a clear clause in the terms & conditions and just as clear consequences when somebody did not follow them. There is no such thing as "unfair treatment" in legal terms in this case.

She accepted the very clear T&C's, even admitted that she read and understood them and still did not adhere to them!! Show me one judge/court or a paragraph in the consumer protection laws who/which would rule in favor of this OP in this case.

They may well have lost on a technicality, but the fact that they were going to defend on the basis that they were not "a legal entity therefore could not be sued" was doomed to failure anyway.


The "unfair treatment" IS a legal matter, although it may be unique to the UK, perhaps the EU, and ONLY applies to business to consumer contracts, not business to business. Anything can become a "legal matter", no matter how much BS it is, if the lawmakers of a country so decide.

We have many examples of BS enshrined in law throughout the world, and it would be laughable were it not actually true.

One way to know whether or not a case exists is to construct one and get one of those "no win no fee" firms to look at whether it's worth them risking 30% of nothing for working on it. It's also the one way the ordinary person can bring a case without having to worry about a costly failure. These no win no fee firms vet the cases brought to them, and only take those they feel would have a reasonable chance of success. They would not touch a case doomed to fail, or where there is only a slim chance of success.

The "treated unfairly" concept is real in the UK, and has stung a number of very big companies who thought it wasn't. The banks are by far the biggest victims of this consumer fightback, but they get little sympathy because they brought it all upon themselves by treating their customers unfairly in the first place, and relying on them being duped into agreeing to one sided terms that made them fat profits with little risk.

 

[Harry_BKK]

They may well have lost on a technicality, but the fact that they were going to defend on the basis that they were not "a legal entity therefore could not be sued" was doomed to failure anyway.


The "unfair treatment" IS a legal matter, although it may be unique to the UK, perhaps the EU, and ONLY applies to business to consumer contracts, not business to business. Anything can become a "legal matter", no matter how much BS it is, if the lawmakers of a country so decide.

We have many examples of BS enshrined in law throughout the world, and it would be laughable were it not actually true.

One way to know whether or not a case exists is to construct one and get one of those "no win no fee" firms to look at whether it's worth them risking 30% of nothing for working on it. It's also the one way the ordinary person can bring a case without having to worry about a costly failure. These no win no fee firms vet the cases brought to them, and only take those they feel would have a reasonable chance of success. They would not touch a case doomed to fail, or where there is only a slim chance of success.

The "treated unfairly" concept is real in the UK, and has stung a number of very big companies who thought it wasn't. The banks are by far the biggest victims of this consumer fightback, but they get little sympathy because they brought it all upon themselves by treating their customers unfairly in the first place, and relying on them being duped into agreeing to one sided terms that made them fat profits with little risk.

Again VWM, with all due respect. Read what the OP in the Everymatrix case said:

"1. The Everymatrix defence was struck out for want of compliance in that the Defendant did not serve its witness statement on the Claimant.

2. So in effect, I won on a technicality, so we can't say this is a 100% precedent. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Everymatrix or lack of professionalism is open to debate"

That was the technicality, not the legal entity issue.

I understand your point on consumer protection law and even agree. But in this Spinson case the OP admitted she read the rules, understood and accepted them and the consequences for failure to follow them yet still went ahead and broke the rules! There is NO legal case, no matter how tight those protection laws are.

There was no hidden clause, the term itself was neither hidden nor written in lawyer language that a normal reader wouldn't understand, no singling out of just one case, the OP understood the terms etc. etc.- at which point would here the "consumer protection law" give grounds to the OP for a legal case???

 

[vinylweatherman]

Again VWM, with all due respect. Read what the OP in the Everymatrix case said:

"1. The Everymatrix defence was struck out for want of compliance in that the Defendant did not serve its witness statement on the Claimant.

2. So in effect, I won on a technicality, so we can't say this is a 100% precedent. Whether this was a deliberate ploy by Everymatrix or lack of professionalism is open to debate"

That was the technicality, not the legal entity issue.

I understand your point on consumer protection law and even agree. But in this Spinson case the OP admitted she read the rules, understood and accepted them and the consequences for failure to follow them yet still went ahead and broke the rules! There is NO legal case, no matter how tight those protection laws are.

There was no hidden clause, the term itself was neither hidden nor written in lawyer language that a normal reader wouldn't understand, no singling out of just one case, the OP understood the terms etc. etc.- at which point would here the "consumer protection law" give grounds to the OP for a legal case???

You are still missing the point, they were still going to use this lame defence, they were saved from even further embarrassment by making this technical error. The fact that they lost on the technicality, rather than the lame defence, does not change the fact that the defence they were going to try was laughable. One can only wonder what even lamer defence it replaced.

The only downside of winning on a technicality is that it is less likely to "open the floodgates", and if another player brings a similar action, EM just have to make sure that they hire a lawyer who actually knows what they are doing, and with support staff who are organised enough to adhere to the technical requirements of sending their defence, and any amended defence, to the claimant in due timeframes.

It is even more surprising that for such a small amount EM even let it get this far, the norm is to settle out of court with a "gagging order" such that the aggrieved player is satisfied enough to drop proceedings, but also such that no precedent is set and no floodgates opened because the gagging clause makes it hard for other players to find out about the settlement.

Having let it get this far, and then losing, EM then made matters even worse by ignoring the court order, with the result that even greater publicity of the case has made many others who may have felt aggrieved but helpless at the EM SE farce feel that there might be a way forward after all.

You really don't understand the UK consumer protection framework, it allows for the clearest of terms to be deemed "unfair" and struck out of a consumer contract. It stems from the idea that a consumer contract is a very one sided affair. It is not negotiated between equal parties, it is a unilateral contract specified solely by the major party in the deal in order to bind the minor party. This is not a level playing field in terms of securing a mutually agreed and binding contract, so the consumer protection laws seek to level things out by providing consumers additional rights regardless of whatever terms have been signed up to.

Whilst customers still need to read the terms, businesses also have to read the consumer protection laws before producing a set of terms for a consumer contract to ensure that all it's proposed terms are actually compliant.

The law also has a list of certain business practices that are deemed unfair by definition, and no amount of even the clearest terms will allow a consumer to legally sign away these basic legal protections.

The situation would be far worse for businesses if more than a handful of consumers actually knew they had these rights, as opposed to accepting defeat at the first hurdle thinking they have no real chance of beating a business in a fight.

 

[lockinlove]

One of the worst mistakes ever. My god.

Given the circumstances, the casino should honor the payout without question. There was 80 left to wager and the player was already in the clear, they ended up losing alot more money betting this way.

This is a clear cut case of a casino using their term to rip a player off.

Im also a little concerned to see some regs here actually ok with this. This is not okay.

Was it stupid? Oh hell yes. But worthy of taking almost all the players money? Absolutely not.

The terms are put in place so the casino doesnt lose too much by a player betting $25 and get lucky and winning $200,000. Not put in place to screw a player over.

 

[ladyhawke]

I feel desperately sorry for the OP - to lose such a life-changing sum of money, when there was only 80gbp left to wager. Heartbreaking.

However having said that, I'm not sure the title of this thread is entirely accurate.

A technicality? Or rather a clear breach of the T&C's?

A technicality tends to imply a decision that could/should be challenged.

T&C's, if clearly stated, cannot really be disputed or challenged.

 

[hhhelllo]

One of the worst mistakes ever. My god.

Given the circumstances, the casino should honor the payout without question. There was 80 left to wager and the player was already in the clear, they ended up losing alot more money betting this way.

This is a clear cut case of a casino using their term to rip a player off.

Im also a little concerned to see some regs here actually ok with this. This is not okay.

Was it stupid? Oh hell yes. But worthy of taking almost all the players money? Absolutely not.

The terms are put in place so the casino doesnt lose too much by a player betting $25 and get lucky and winning $200,000. Not put in place to screw a player over.

I totally agree with you. Total BS. We all know that 80 dollars left to wager... Theres no way you can loose more than 80 right? It's a stupid mistake and that's all. The op had nearly 5k!!! F off with your terms.

 

[ladyhawke]

One of the worst mistakes ever. My god.

Given the circumstances, the casino should honor the payout without question. There was 80 left to wager and the player was already in the clear, they ended up losing alot more money betting this way.

This is a clear cut case of a casino using their term to rip a player off.
Im also a little concerned to see some regs here actually ok with this. This is not okay.

Was it stupid? Oh hell yes. But worthy of taking almost all the players money? Absolutely not.

The terms are put in place so the casino doesnt lose too much by a player betting $25 and get lucky and winning $200,000. Not put in place to screw a player over.

Do I think the casino is being very hardline over this issue? Yes, I do. But if you read the T&C's, understand them, and then agree to them, are you not then bound by them? And in this instance, however much I wish I didn't have to say this, the casino is legally in the right.

Or are T&C's meant to be adhered to, but then tossed aside as inconsequential when it doesn't suit the player to follow the contract they have agreed with the casino?

In fact, what is the point in even having T&C's if players feel they should be broken/overridden so easily?

 

[Jasminebed]

Some casinos adhere strictly to terms at all times, no exceptions. They cannot be faulted for this.

Some casinos do make exceptions in some cases, and I know they are appreciated and should be praised.

I want to weep for the OP in this case.

Bad enough to learn a $200 or $600 lesson.

But I do think Spinion values the customer by offering $500.

Since the wins were from a free spins, many casinos limit the amount to you can win on a free to chip to something like 10x bonus amount or such, and a few I play limit free spins winnings, but not necessarily what you can win from the amount you win from free spins.

I bet when the OP started to play, they would have been happy to win $500.

Hopefully the rep can appeal to management and see they receive something a little more fair.

I know that what I would consider fair and well done on the part of the casino would be the $5K plus a bit they had, minus the $80 remaining wagering they had when they began to break terms. It's not ideal for either party, but given the clear breach of terms, I think it would be a much more equitable resolution.

 

[lockinlove]

Do I think the casino is being very hardline over this issue? Yes, I do. But if you read the T&C's, understand them, and then agree to them, are you not then bound by them? And in this instance, however much I wish I didn't have to say this, the casino is legally in the right.

Or are T&C's meant to be adhered to, but then tossed aside as inconsequential when it doesn't suit the player to follow the contract they have agreed with the casino?

In fact, what is the point in even having T&C's if players feel they should be broken/overridden so easily?

So you are saying if someone accidentally breaches the max bet rule by hitting max bet, too bad so sad?

T&C's are put in place to protect the casino from fraud or losses. They are put there so a player cannot bet $100 per spin and win and raise them to $1000 per spin and win a million dollars and bust the casino. It is not supposed to be put in place to wiggle out of paying a player. If the player won with the bets, obviously dont pay the winnings. But when it is a special case such as this, exceptions should be made.

After reading their terms I believe even more so, the player should now be paid. It states that if a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it.

So yes, its obvious this casino makes exceptions.

 

[ladyhawke]

So you are saying if someone accidentally breaches the max bet rule by hitting max bet, too bad so sad?

T&C's are put in place to protect the casino from fraud or losses. They are put there so a player cannot bet $100 per spin and win and raise them to $1000 per spin and win a million dollars and bust the casino. It is not supposed to be put in place to wiggle out of paying a player. If the player won with the bets, obviously dont pay the winnings. But when it is a special case such as this, exceptions should be made.

After reading their terms I believe even more so, the player should now be paid. It states that if a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it.
So yes, its obvious this casino makes exceptions.

It's really complicated, isn't it? When to allow a T&C breach, and when not to.

Of course, if someone accidentally breaches the max bet rule, sometimes that accidental breach won't necessarily be accidental, and sometimes it really is. How is a casino to decide which is what? Could be why casinos are now strictly enforcing their T&Cs.

Re...'their terms state...that if a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it..." How many times have I read on here that Support cannot be trusted, and that what they say...or allow...is not necessarily the Casino line?

As I said, it's really complicated, isn't it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Is it a "material breach" though, in that the casino suffered a significant loss. In this case, 8 spins of £10 just so that the final £80 of WR could be got rid of in order to withdraw is hardly a "material breach". It could just as easily have been 16 spins at £5.

Casinos make these kinds of inconsequential mistakes all the time, and are often resistant when all the player wants is for them to say "sorry". Front line CS make the most mistakes, but for the most part they are minor, much like the player who makes 8 spins at £10 instead of 16 spins at £5. No casino would accept that being dumped in the rogue pit was a proportionate response to an error made by front line CS, yet it seems many people, not just casino reps, think it OK to strip an ordinary player of £5000 for a similarly minor mistake that should be dealt with by something more in line with the severity of the mistake, say deduct £100 from the account as a "charge", and ask the player to admit they made a mistake, say sorry, and learn lessons from the experience. In effect, how casinos ask to be treated by the player community when they screw up.

 

[Jasminebed]

I think a key point a lot of members are missing is the player had about 5K when they breached the rule. They continued to break the rule, resulting in in a 20K withdrawal.

Some, but not all casinos, I play at, allow you to play however you want once a bonus is satisfied. Others a bonus is considered active until you cashout, and you are bound by those terms.

I do not play Spinions, and I am not about to go read their terms.

I don't think the OP has a leg to stand on myself, and must depend on the goodwill of the casino. I am hoping it's more than $500 worth of goodwill, that does not strike me as fair in this case. This is a long time player, not a SUB.

I think there is little relation to a SE case.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Read the whole thread again, all pro's and con's but sorry, still no sympathy for the OP.

1. You don't go blaring your case in a forum straight away. You try first to find a compromise by contacting the casino rep or submit a PAB. A casino will much more likely listen and compromise if it is done on the quiet

2. OP does not care for forum etiquette and/or rules. How one can miss that big banner at the top with the complaints instructions is a complete mystery to me.

3. Thread title totally misleading and hence belittling the cause for the confiscation. Calling spins at double the allowed value a technicality shows the OP is not really sorry for the over betting, nor accepts that it can/is the reason for the confiscation

4. We don't know the OP, she might have done this a few times in the past, hence Everymatrix/Spinson decided to stay firm on its decision. She certainly is not new to online gambling.

5. She read, understood and accepted the rules. On winning such a big amount the first thought of any normal player is to make sure that you don't lose it again. She even checked how much wagering was left, hence it wasn't an impulse decision to spin at GBP10. She calculated exactly before increasing the bet size.

6. Taking a bonus/free spins means that you are playing with the casinos "virtual" money, hence they can put rules in place as they seem fit for their business, not for the player.

7. Stating that you can bet higher by contacting support is also wrong. Well, they may allow it but you ask BEFORE you bet higher. The clause clearly states "may" which in clear words means they 'may' or 'may not' agree.

If you feel like betting higher please contact our lovely customer support and you may get an written exception from this rule.

....list not complete.

Expensive lesson, still.

 

[lockinlove]

It's really complicated, isn't it? When to allow a T&C breach, and when not to.

Of course, if someone accidentally breaches the max bet rule, sometimes that accidental breach won't necessarily be accidental, and sometimes it really is. How is a casino to decide which is what? Could be why casinos are now strictly enforcing their T&Cs.

Re...'their terms state...that if a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it..." How many times have I read on here that Support cannot be trusted, and that what they say...or allow...is not necessarily the Casino line?

As I said, it's really complicated, isn't it.

I think its only complicated because the casino makes it that way lol.

Look at some of these sites out there who dont allow their customers to place a bet over the max bet rule. I would love to see this rule implemented on becoming accredited

Way too many casinos fall back on this term to take back winnings.

The player got caught up in the excitement as they were only a little away from a big score and rushed the last little bit of wagering. Is that really a reason to take $20,000 from them? Absolutely not.

I have extreme sympathy and empathy for the OP. Especially given they even realized their mistake, agreed to take a huge cut in winnings due to it and even suggested it to the casino.

In return the casino decided to award them a measily $500.

They fell back on their term to save themselves $20,000

 

[ladyhawke]

In the OP's post, she states:

So I checked the wagering left and it was only £80 so went onto a slot and bet £10 8 times to get through the wagering. I played for hours and hours and ended up with 20k in the kitty, yay for me. When I went to withdraw they came back and said that the maximum bet while playing with bonus funds was £5 now I must have read this at some point but had forgotten and excitement took over.

This raises some interesting points:

1: How much did the 8x10 spins win her as at this point her balance was 5k. The OP did not make this clear.

- If those 8 spins netted her a major win, then the majority of that 20k came from a breach of the T&C's.

- If those 8 spins netted her nothing, then there may be a definite argument for the casino to be more accommodating.


2: The OP played for hours and hours and ended up with 20k in the kitty. How much of this playing time was after she made the 8x10 bets? The OP did not make this clear.

- If the majority of that 20k balance came after the completion of the WR, what are the T&C's regarding continuing to play before a withdrawal of funds? As is noted above, some casinos will allow it, and some won't. If Spinson is one that doesn't, then again it is another breach of the T&Cs.

- If the majority of that 20k balance came after the completion of the WR, and assuming that Spinson allows further playing, then there may be an argument for the casino to be more accommodating. However this is dependent on how much those 8x10 spins won.

 

[lockinlove]

Too many threads like these. I thought I read she only won $14 from those spins however that was the other thread created today.

But yes, if she did win anything worthy with those spins, that is a breach and there is no helping her. If not, then I feel she should get paid.

Im assuming the hours and hours was after she did those 8 bets and cleared wagering

I read their terms and doesnt state a player must cashout and cannot continue to play

 

[SlotGrinder]

Once bonus wagering is complete then the bonus is gone surely ? How can a casino demand you cashout before you are allowed to play higher limits etc ? More to the point WHY would they want to do this ? Have you ever known a casino who encourages you to cashout and wants you to lower your bet lol... The ONLY reason for this stupid rule (if it exists) would be so they could catch out more unwary customers

What I hate about this situation and many others is that the casino have a house edge on the games and that's fair enough . But they also try to freeroll us in so many other unnecessary ways . Like VWM pointed out , if the casino makes a mistake somehow then good luck even getting a sorry let alone financial compensation

How many of these true bonus abusers are out there ? How can they possibly be abusing a bonus to make it +EV without making it blatantly obvious what they are doing ?
Like , making 8 x £10 bets from £1000s in wagering is not going to turn this bonus into a +EV proposition . To make a 35xwagering bonus +EV you would have to break the rules constantly and considerably , right ? So I don't think it can be very difficult to spot the bonus abusers tbh . It's just an excuse

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think a key point a lot of members are missing is the player had about 5K when they breached the rule. They continued to break the rule, resulting in in a 20K withdrawal.

Some, but not all casinos, I play at, allow you to play however you want once a bonus is satisfied. Others a bonus is considered active until you cashout, and you are bound by those terms.

I do not play Spinions, and I am not about to go read their terms.

I don't think the OP has a leg to stand on myself, and must depend on the goodwill of the casino. I am hoping it's more than $500 worth of goodwill, that does not strike me as fair in this case. This is a long time player, not a SUB.

I think there is little relation to a SE case.

If the 5K was won within the terms, then this would fall outside the scope of the breach, and thus outside of the scope of the casino claiming it's reasonable costs and losses in remedying the breach. Taking an arbitrary amount, such as the whole balance, that bears no relation to the actual loss is a "fine", and isn't something a company can legally levy in terms of consumer contract law. If it did go to court, the casino could be asked to provide evidence that the full 20K they have taken is a reasonable sum to cover them for the losses and costs of remedying the breach of contract.

This leaves a good chance of winning a settlement for 5K, as this did not arise from any breach. The other 15K may be more tricky, as if the casino could demonstrate that it was breaching the terms that lead to this additional 15K being won, and it would not have been won otherwise, then this 15K could be said to be their loss arising from the breach.

However, in terms of the CMA investigation, this is pretty much the type of scenario they are looking into, a failure to receive "expected winnings" due to "smallprint" having over complicated what should be a simple matter of clicking spin.

If anything, the CMA investigation seems to be going even further, questioning the concept of WR itself, regardless of the amount, seeing it as "players being forced to play longer than they want to" in order to receive winnings. If they rule the concept of a minimum betting requirement before withdrawal is itself unfair, it would most likely mean the end of deposit related bonuses for UK players, which would be a mixed blessing. Casinos would have to use a lure that did not depend on tying players into a minimum turnover, so we would probably see up front lures disappear, and loyalty benefits awarded in arrears based on activity already undertaken.

 

[danchop]

I feel desperately sorry for the OP - to lose such a life-changing sum of money, when there was only 80gbp left to wager. Heartbreaking.

However having said that, I'm not sure the title of this thread is entirely accurate.

A technicality? Or rather a clear breach of the T&C's?

A technicality tends to imply a decision that could/should be challenged.

T&C's, if clearly stated, cannot really be disputed or challenged.

How has she breached the terms when this is there?>>>>>>>" If a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it."
This sentence designed by the casino for the softening of potential customers that may not join,should in a courtroom backfire on the casino.
It translates that the rules can be breached by the customer upon agreement and it does not state it has to be PRIOR to playing.
It translates that the casino allows live support that option upon discretion.
Only 1.6% of the current balance is left to wager,so if asked PRIOR for higher bet allowance, it would be fair and reasonable to expect an approval.
It is fair and reasonable to assume the customer had not intended breaching the terms to make financial gain,as the gain had already been won($5000)
If big money was won on the 8 final spins then the customers owed $5000 if not give him the full amount

 

[ladyhawke]

How has she breached the terms when this is there?>>>>>>>" If a player would like to exceed the max bet rule, ask support they may allow it."This sentence designed by the casino for the softening of potential customers that may not join,should in a courtroom backfire on the casino.
It translates that the rules can be breached by the customer upon agreement and it does not state it has to be PRIOR to playing.
It translates that the casino allows live support that option upon discretion.
Only 1.6% of the current balance is left to wager,so if asked PRIOR for higher bet allowance, it would be fair and reasonable to expect an approval.
It is fair and reasonable to assume the customer had not intended breaching the terms to make financial gain,as the gain had already been won($5000)
If big money was won on the 8 final spins then the customers owed $5000 if not give him the full amount

How has she breached the terms? To quote that wretched meercat..."Simples!" She has breached the terms because she did not ask before placing the bets.

And as for being "fair and reasonable to expect an approval" - that is nothing more than speculation on your part. You are assuming that the 1.6% left to wager gives the OP some sort of special status regarding completion of the T&C's.

I do agree though that being so close to completion, paying the OP 5k would be a great move by the casino.

However, where is the OP? One post raising a contentious issue then nothing more?

 

[vinylweatherman]

How has she breached the terms? To quote that wretched meercat..."Simples!" She has breached the terms because she did not ask before placing the bets.

And as for being "fair and reasonable to expect an approval" - that is nothing more than speculation on your part. You are assuming that the 1.6% left to wager gives the OP some sort of special status regarding completion of the T&C's.

I do agree though that being so close to completion, paying the OP 5k would be a great move by the casino.

However, where is the OP? One post raising a contentious issue then nothing more?

I too wonder what happened to the OP.

She may well have breached the term, but was the term itself fair? It certainly was not "prominent", it was merely "in the smallprint", yet it is a critically important term that can make the difference between being paid a fortune or nothing at all.

This is the kind of situation now being put in the spotlight by the CMA investigation, because it is certainly not "proportionate" to charge £20,000 for such a minor breach of the terms that did not cause any loss to the casino.

As for "special status", it seems some are assuming that online casinos have some kind of "special status" that exempts them from the consumer contract laws that govern other businesses. The CMA investigation should tell the industry that as far as the UK is concerned, no such "special status" exists, as if it did, the CMA would not be carrying out this investigation into the fairness of the terms and conditions casinos are currently using.

 

[ladyhawke]

I too wonder what happened to the OP.

She may well have breached the term, but was the term itself fair? It certainly was not "prominent", it was merely "in the smallprint", yet it is a critically important term that can make the difference between being paid a fortune or nothing at all.

This is the kind of situation now being put in the spotlight by the CMA investigation, because it is certainly not "proportionate" to charge £20,000 for such a minor breach of the terms that did not cause any loss to the casino.

As for "special status", it seems some are assuming that online casinos have some kind of "special status" that exempts them from the consumer contract laws that govern other businesses. The CMA investigation should tell the industry that as far as the UK is concerned, no such "special status" exists, as if it did, the CMA would not be carrying out this investigation into the fairness of the terms and conditions casinos are currently using.

I'm really confused as to the points being made regarding this situation.

In the past, as far as I am aware, in situations like this both CM and Max have always stated that as long as the terms are stated in the T&C's, then when they are broken, there is little they can do. (Apologies to CM and Max if I have that wrong). Why is this situation so different?

So casinos believe they are exempt from contract laws that govern other businesses? That is your interpretation, but would not casino lawyers be very familiar with contract law?

You also mention that "it is certainly not proportionate to charge £20,000 for such a minor breach of the terms that did not cause any loss to the casino." So where does this "proportionate" argument stop? When a player has completed 20% of the bonus? 50%? 75%? This tends to imply that bonuses should be effectively free cash, with few, if any, restrictions. Why would casinos even offer bonuses if this is the way "contract law" is going to be interpreted?

As for "no loss to the casino" - what about the 20k? Is that not a loss for the casino, or is this all just 'funny money?'

There has been a lot of anger in this thread, directed both towards the casino, and to all the dissenters who believe the T&C's were broken (ok, not all - just me in particular), hence a very harsh lesson for the OP to learn. Is that because there was only 1.6% left of the WRs to play? Or because the term was not fair, a term that not only is in most casino's T&C's, but also one the OP agreed to when she took the bonus. As far as I can see, the underlying message of this thread is: T&C's are not a contract between the player and the casino, they are merely a nuisance and should...and can...be set aside as and when we choose. So yah! boo! sucks! to the casino.

And yes, I know many casinos have a yah! boo! sucks! attitude to players, which is disgraceful, but the issue here is: Does a casino have the right to enforce its T&C's, irrespective of circumstances? (In this case, when a player is nearly at the end of meeting the WRs, before then placing a series of over-the-limit bets, the outcome of those bets being unknown as the OP has not responded to a question asking for this information.)

 

[Harry_BKK]

I am totally on your side! As I said in one of my previous posts:

- OP read, understood and accepted the T&C's
- OP first checked the remaining wagering before increasing the bet size; hence, the over betting was not some rash decision in the heat of the moment. She calculated exactly how much she would have to bet to clear the WR in 8 spins.
- She is not new to online gambling, hence i think she was trying to put some pressure on the casino by making her case public.

- A breach of terms is a breach, no matter at what point it happens
- Consumer contract law is not "save all unwary players, fraudsters etc" cure. If that would be the case you would see the courts flooded with similar cases. In fact you would have fraudsters galore taking advantage of it.

The CMA investigation, which is being talked about so much lately, will yield nothing or next to nothing, and that will take years and a ton of tax payers money to complete. Companies are within their rights to publish T&C's and as long as they are clear, fair and not hidden there is very little one can legally do.

The CMA is also focusing more on the SE issues, not on bonus play or T&C's.

Whatever the CMA will do they will have the gambling industry lobbyists breathing down their necks at all times to make sure the results of this inquiry/investigation won't 'harm' the industry too much.

I'm really confused as to the points being made regarding this situation.

In the past, as far as I am aware, in situations like this both CM and Max have always stated that as long as the terms are stated in the T&C's, then when they are broken, there is little they can do. (Apologies to CM and Max if I have that wrong). Why is this situation so different?

So casinos believe they are exempt from contract laws that govern other businesses? That is your interpretation, but would not casino lawyers be very familiar with contract law?

You also mention that "it is certainly not proportionate to charge £20,000 for such a minor breach of the terms that did not cause any loss to the casino." So where does this "proportionate" argument stop? When a player has completed 20% of the bonus? 50%? 75%? This tends to imply that bonuses should be effectively free cash, with few, if any, restrictions. Why would casinos even offer bonuses if this is the way "contract law" is going to be interpreted?

As for "no loss to the casino" - what about the 20k? Is that not a loss for the casino, or is this all just 'funny money?'

There has been a lot of anger in this thread, directed both towards the casino, and to all the dissenters who believe the T&C's were broken (ok, not all - just me in particular), hence a very harsh lesson for the OP to learn. Is that because there was only 1.6% left of the WRs to play? Or because the term was not fair, a term that not only is in most casino's T&C's, but also one the OP agreed to when she took the bonus. As far as I can see, the underlying message of this thread is: T&C's are not a contract between the player and the casino, they are merely a nuisance and should...and can...be set aside as and when we choose. So yah! boo! sucks! to the casino.

And yes, I know many casinos have a yah! boo! sucks! attitude to players, which is disgraceful, but the issue here is: Does a casino have the right to enforce its T&C's, irrespective of circumstances? (In this case, when a player is nearly at the end of meeting the WRs, before then placing a series of over-the-limit bets, the outcome of those bets being unknown as the OP has not responded to a question asking for this information.)

 

[ladyhawke]

Thank Harry - your support is really appreciated.

I have reported my post to the mods - just to clear up how they feel about T&C's being breached in general, and if the OP has a case in particuar.

 

[The Dude]

When you sign up at a casino, it's your choice to take a bonus. Once you take a bonus, you accept the terms that go along with it. If you breach those terms, expect the bonus play to be voided.

If a player breaches a term the onus is on the casino to decide whether or not they will enforce it or rule in the player's favor. There have been many cases where a casino operator goes ahead and pays a player - perhaps the player has been a long time patron, or whatever. This is up to the casino.

In this situation, we only know the player's side of things. So in other words, you only have half the story. I'm a little surprised that a number of senior folk here have taken that ball and ran with that. You should know better.

It would be nice if the OP could come back and explain what exactly happened, and maybe even a rep from the casino itself. But this is only talk - a discussion about terms. If the player really wants to have any action taken on this, then I would suggest taking it to an arbitrator like ourselves. But on the surface, there is no case since the terms were breached by the player.

Another reason why you should not play with bonuses.

 

[dunover]

When you sign up at a casino, it's your choice to take a bonus. Once you take a bonus, you accept the terms that go along with it. If you breach those terms, expect the bonus play to be voided.

If a player breaches a term the onus is on the casino to decide whether or not they will enforce it or rule in the player's favor. There have been many cases where a casino operator goes ahead and pays a player - perhaps the player has been a long time patron, or whatever. This is up to the casino.

In this situation, we only know the player's side of things. So in other words, you only have half the story. I'm a little surprised that a number of senior folk here have taken that ball and ran with that. You should know better.

It would be nice if the OP could come back and explain what exactly happened, and maybe even a rep from the casino itself. But this is only talk - a discussion about terms. If the player really wants to have any action taken on this, then I would suggest taking it to an arbitrator like ourselves. But on the surface, there is no case since the terms were breached by the player.

Another reason why you should not play with bonuses.

Bryan, what Vinyl's getting at here in his reams of spiel is that the term is present and he accepts but that the cost to the player is grossly disproportionate to the 'offence' committed.

He is referring indirectly to the UK Bank Charges Scandal where the terms and fees were clearly displayed to the customer but were deemed in court cases to be 'unfair' as they were hugely in excess of the costs to the banks themselves and as such were being used as a punitive fine to customers in debt or temporary debt.

So in all probability if the player contested them in a court it is likely they would agree with him terms or no terms.

But we have to be realistic here. Not all CM members are in countries with a highly developed system of consumer laws and have easy access to small claims courts etc. so have to be diligent when signing-up and reading/understanding the terms then adhering to them. Then we have the caveat of 'bonus' whereby the player has been the beneficiary of funds granted by the casino and as such we need to accept on that basis that the casino can pretty much decide the terms and their interpretation arbitrarily.

So yes I suppose it comes down to whether you want the bonus and its potential pitfalls or a stress-free all-cash session....

 

[ladyhawke]

Bryan, what Vinyl's getting at here in his reams of spiel is that the term is present and he accepts but that the cost to the player is grossly disproportionate to the 'offence' committed.

He is referring indirectly to the UK Bank Charges Scandal where the terms and fees were clearly displayed to the customer but were deemed in court cases to be 'unfair' as they were hugely in excess of the costs to the banks themselves and as such were being used as a punitive fine to customers in debt or temporary debt.

So in all probability if the player contested them in a court it is likely they would agree with him terms or no terms.

Perhaps not the best example, as the courts eventually ruled in favour of the banks (although there is now of course the PPI scandal, Packaged Accounts scandal, and god knows what else).

But we have to be realistic here. Not all CM members are in countries with a highly developed system of consumer laws and have easy access to small claims courts etc. so have to be diligent when signing-up and reading/understanding the terms then adhering to them. Then we have the caveat of 'bonus' whereby the player has been the beneficiary of funds granted by the casino and as such we need to accept on that basis that the casino can pretty much decide the terms and their interpretation arbitrarily.

And isn't this the crux of the matter? Bonus money actually belongs to the casino, and what players are trying to do is win it from them, unlike the bank situation where a customer was actually "illegally borrowing money". And as it is the casino's money in the first instance, do they not have the right to "decide the terms and their interpretation arbitrarily??" Love that phrasing, by the way..

So yes I suppose it comes down to whether you want the bonus and its potential pitfalls or a stress-free all-cash session....

A very good summary, Dunover.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The UK situation is somewhat unique, and only affects the casino industry because for the UK they have to operate with a separate UK license and under UK law. Before this, regular contract law applied, where is was a caveat emptor situation where the terms were what governed the contract. UK consumer law is a little different, and this difference is unique to contracts between a business and a consumer. Business to business contracts are still a caveat emptor situation, where both parties need to have their legal teams read and understand the terms to protect them from signing up to a disastrous one sided deal.

Business to consumer contracts are governed by a principle of fairness towards the "little man" with little access to expensive corporate lawyers to read, understand, and advise as to the meaning of the terms they are about to sign up to; whereas the business would have (presumably) used a well qualified legal team to produce a non negotiable contract designed to make a profit for the company at the expense of playing fair with the consumer.

It has come about because of a long history of one consumer rip off after another over many decades, and these laws have been designed to make things fairer for the consumer. These laws also evolve as dodgy businesses come up with new ways to rip off the consumer in the pursuit of profit that are not covered by an earlier set of consumer protection laws.

Bait & switch was one well used rip off tactic, until it was specifically outlawed in a list of specific types of consumer contract that were deemed unfair from the outset. Misleading advertising is another area where the online casino industry is getting itself into trouble with the ASA, but if the CMA gets hold of this, it's going to hurt far more than the "slap on the wrist, don't do it again" response normally seen from the ASA.

Under "Editors notes", some background is explained as to the scope of this investigation:-

The key pieces of consumer protection legislation relevant to the CMA’s investigation are the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). The CPRs contain a general prohibition against unfair commercial practices and specific prohibitions against misleading actions, misleading omissions and aggressive commercial practices. Part 2 of the CRA aims to protect consumers against unfair contract terms and notices, and requires contract terms to be fair and transparent.

The CMA also states:-

The CMA has not at this stage made any finding on whether online gambling firms’ terms or practices have breached consumer protection law.

Currently, they are looking for specific instances where players, ADRs, and the UKGC feel there MIGHT be a breach of the law in the way a casino operator has dealt with a player.

As with the bank charges case, the outcome may well not be what many consumer groups expect. The CMA may well (quite sensibly) accept that it's necessary for "free bets" including bonus chips to be tied to the player having to play a certain amount, even if this means the player can't withdraw when they want to stop playing. They may just rule that the complexity of current terms needs to be wound back to something much simpler as was the case a decade ago where it was often a simple "all slots count, WR nn X bankroll", as opposed to todays convoluted lists of prohibited games, games that count less than 100%, games that can be played in some situations but not others, and additional terms limiting min, max bets, and having prohibited configurations such as must play max lines or must not place bonus side bet.

Under the law, it's unlawful for a business to "fine" a customer for a breach, they must levy a charge that has some connection to the actual loss suffered and the costs of detecting and dealing with the breach. Confiscating an arbitrary sum from the player's account is a "fine", not a remedy of a breach, which is where the "winnings are confiscated" term might be in trouble. The fact that casinos can "charge" one player £100 and another £20,000 for the same contract breach simply because this is the balance of their account is going to make it very hard indeed for the casinos to argue that this is not an arbitrary fine, but a retrieval of reasonable costs and losses due to the breach.

Ultimately, they say:-

As an enforcer under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (EA02), the CMA can enforce the above legislation through the courts. Ultimately, only a court can decide whether a particular term or practice infringes the law.

So, in the end, it will be down to the courts, no matter what the result of the CMA investigation or it's recommendations. This would also be a remedy for the industry if they believe the CMA have gone too far and more or less made it impossible to offer online gambling to UK customers.