Stipulations on Playtech progressive win

[jetset]

And as Jasminebed points out in post #71, if the player had settled on a half payment, this would not be reflected as a debt on the company books at the time of the sale.

But that still leaves a question mark over what happened to the remainder of the jackpot.

This still smells bad in a moral sense - it could be perceived that the player, faced with the prospect of a dodgy 39 year instalment plan eek was pressured into an agreement for only half of her winnings.

And to see William Hill insisting on the same $9 000 K maximum withdrawal plan in its T&Cs at Joyland is worrying....or is that a case of simply rubber stamping the existing T&Cs without considering the implications?

Perhaps something the Will Hill spokesman could be questioned on, too.....?

I can just imagine what a meal the aggressive UK mainstream press would make of this issue involving two London-listed public companies.

 

[Jasminebed]

Well Jetset, the wording of the term is not identical, and specifically includes the progressive wins, something the former Joyland terms did not.

As far as acquiring the debts of the company, are not all player accounts with balances debts? I don't know, but I expect existing Joyland customers got email's notifying of the switch-over. I doubt they sent cheques to all players with balances and asked them to make fresh deposits for the new operator.

 

[The Dude]

...And to see William Hill insisting on the same $9 000 K maximum withdrawal plan in its T&Cs at Joyland is worrying....

I've been told that this is going to be changed to something more acceptable.

 

[deucebag]

I can just imagine what a meal the aggressive UK mainstream press would make of this issue involving two London-listed public companies.

I've been looking through the documentation on the William Hill PLC website regarding this transaction with Playtech. None of the assets or brands they have bought are actually named anywhere. They seem to go out of their way not to name them.

I've even looked through the webcast regarding the Playtech transactions, which can be downloaded here (just register a made up name):

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

In the Q&A section at the end (click on the Q&A slide) they are asked a couple of times to name the assets that they have bought, but they dodge the questions.

It is funny that they try so hard to hide the fact that they are the owners of these brands...

 

[jetset]

They sure do use the general description " the Purchased Assets" a lot!

 

[Jasminebed]

I've been told that this is going to be changed to something more acceptable.

That's good to hear Bryan. Perhaps you can speak with the CM Accredited Bettercasino about their Terms:

8.4.4 You are aware of and agree that players are allowed to withdraw not more than $5,000/5,000/5,000 per month. If the amount to be withdrawn is greater than $5,000/5,000/5,000, the remaining amount will be placed back to the player's account, allowing the player to withdraw additional funds the following month in accordance with this term. The foregoing applies also to Withdrawals of progressive jackpots. Withdrawals depend on all conditions specified above and the verification of all required documents as set forth in clause 9.4 below.

That would mean over 70 years to pay a jackpot the size of the progressive hit by SylviaP.

 

[The Dude]

That's good to hear Bryan. Perhaps you can speak with the CM Accredited Bettercasino about their Terms:



That would mean over 70 years to pay a jackpot the size of the progressive hit by SylviaP.

Actually, I've been querying the Accredited Playtech casinos. Both Betfred and Bet365 have replied stating that this would never happen on their watch. They are probably as disgusted as I am over this whole ordeal.

Thanks for pointing these terms out. Better Casino has been removed from the Accredited section until these terms are revised. Progressive jackpots should be exempt from any payment stipulations.

 

[The Dude]

Here's a preliminary list of casinos that have this predatory term:


Please note that:
While there is NO LIMIT to the amount a Player can cash out in the casino, there is a maximum amount that can be Withdrawn in one time. For receiving any Withdrawal which is higher than $9,000, an amount of $9,000 (or the corresponding amount in the currency of payment) will be paid to you once a month..... The foregoing applies also to Withdrawals of progressive jackpots. Withdrawals depend on verification of all required documents as set in clause 9.4

Doing a Google search on "The foregoing applies also to Withdrawals of progressive jackpots." came up with these:

32Vegas
Goldenpalace
WilliamHillcasino
playgate
carnavalcasino.com
eurogrand
casinotropez
zodiacbingo
majesticcomet.com
grandplaycasino.com
rubybingo.com
bettercasino

If someone would like to make a complete list, please do so and start another thread with it - muchus gracious

 

[Jasminebed]

Wow Bryan, I by no means expected such a speedy boot of BetterCasino. I hope that they step up to the plate and modify this term.

I've started a new thread asking for player input into compiling such a list...think it is too daunting a task for a single member https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/predatory-terms-and-conditions-non-promotional.31169/

It is not just Playtech that have questionable casino policies. And I'd like to remind members to go back and re-read Terms and Conditions from time to time...every one I've ever read required that the player take responsibility for this, and that they do not require giving the player notice to change the terms.

I've started saving the Terms and Conditions I agree to when I join a new casino, and I'm slowly adding the Terms and Conditions from those I have existing accounts.

 

[arash]

congratulate

I want gladly congratulate Sylvia and its brother Hank on the winning part. Wish you happines and health.

 

[vinylweatherman]

It seems that faced with the ambiguity over whether the limits applied to progressives, some casinos amended their terms to make it clear they DID!

If it is true that Playtech forwards the ENTIRE amount in one lump to the casino, this must surely be nothing less than THEFT of the accrued interest that rightly belongs to the winning player. To see companies like William Hill involved with this beggars belief (or perhaps not, given some of the other things big UK household names have been caught doing by the relevant regulators).

If William Hill realise this was a big cock-up, they had better act fast, and before the mainstream media thinks this a story worth chasing. Since Will Hill is being unusually secretive about the deal, the media will see this as an indication that Will Hill are attempting to cover something up, and any respectable journalist reporting on this sector will be on this like a Rottweiller UNTIL they have uncovered this "secret".

As to the SylviaP case, there was no agreement that had legal standing anyway, since the casino's former owners made sure nothing was put in writing, and all email was hotmail. This leaves it relatively easy for Sylvia to prove she won over 4Mill, with the casino itself providing a high standard of proof through all the official publicity material. Sylvia can also prove she only RECEIVED half of this, and therefore, in the absence of an agreement to legal standards of her accepting this "in full and final settlement", the debt for the outstanding 2Mill still stands in legal terms (if she could find where the money is, she could go to court), even if not on the accounts for the companies involved.

 

[justred]

If it is true that Playtech forwards the ENTIRE amount in one lump to the casino, this must surely be nothing less than THEFT of the accrued interest that rightly belongs to the winning player. To see companies like William Hill involved with this beggars belief (or perhaps not, given some of the other things big UK household names have been caught doing by the relevant regulators).

This is they key point, but why do I get the feeling Playtech and Will Hill are going to remain mum over this for as long as they can?

As for proving the jackpot was won, that should not be too hard. It was reported all over the show and Will Hill would have to prove that the previous owners disputed all the press releases, blog posts etc.

 

[Nobunaga]

Jackpot winnings

Hank P.Has your sister talked to the federal or provincial government about this gambling issue? Has your sister talked to a lawyer that handles international and corporate law?

Has your sister contacted your provincial police or R.C.M.P to handle this case of fraud against her and the fine lines in Joyland's Terms and Conditions list?

Not only should the Canadian government and her province need to know about these online casinos and how the ethics of online casinos varies from casino to casino, but this also affects Europe, which would affect the European Union too.

The government would want its taxes from winnings that qualify under its cyber laws on online gambling.

This situation could affect thousands of other Canadian or E.U players playing on progressive slot machines.

There may be a time in the future, where European Union countries, have slots connected to American and Canadian progressive machines, and this case would help to provide a legal footprint for the future.

I hope it all works out for you and your sister.

Nobunaga

 

[Jasminebed]

Hank P.Has your sister talked to the federal or provincial government about this gambling issue? Has your sister talked to a lawyer that handles international and corporate law?

Has your sister contacted your provincial police or R.C.M.P to handle this case of fraud against her and the fine lines in Joyland's Terms and Conditions list?

Not only should the Canadian government and her province need to know about these online casinos and how the ethics of online casinos varies from casino to casino, but this also affects Europe, which would affect the European Union too.

The government would want its taxes from winnings that qualify under its cyber laws on online gambling.

This situation could affect thousands of other Canadian or E.U players playing on progressive slot machines.

There may be a time in the future, where European Union countries, have slots connected to American and Canadian progressive machines, and this case would help to provide a legal footprint for the future.

I hope it all works out for you and your sister.

Nobunaga

I am not a lawyer, nor a tax accountant, but to the best of my knowledge there are no taxes on any gambling related winnings in Canada.

I believe that gambling debts are also not enforceable in Canadian courts, even if the case could be heard in this jurisdiction.

Online gambling is not illegal for Canadians, but we must proceed with caution in which casinos we choose to do business with.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I am not a lawyer, nor a tax accountant, but to the best of my knowledge there are no taxes on any gambling related winnings in Canada.

I believe that gambling debts are also not enforceable in Canadian courts, even if the case could be heard in this jurisdiction.

Online gambling is not illegal for Canadians, but we must proceed with caution in which casinos we choose to do business with.

This WAS also the case here in the UK, but along with the NEW gambling laws, provision was made to make gambling debts ENFORSEABLE in the courts.

CASINOS, as well as Players were quite happy with this as it would protect casinos from players who charged back losses, or failed to repay lines of credit, who previously could not be pursued by gaming companies.

Since BOTH William Hill and Playtech are listed here, they must also have a registered address here, which means they can be pursued under English law.

It just needs a good lawyer to see if there is sufficient possibilty of proving liabilty against companies who NOW have the cash to pay. It is no good winning a case, but finding the company has no cash left to pay the judgement.
If any individual company directors are found to have acted improperly, they could theoretically be found PERSONALLY liable, although again it may be hard to find the cash.

 

[RobWin]

This WAS also the case here in the UK, but along with the NEW gambling laws, provision was made to make gambling debts ENFORSEABLE in the courts.

CASINOS, as well as Players were quite happy with this as it would protect casinos from players who charged back losses, or failed to repay lines of credit, who previously could not be pursued by gaming companies.

Since BOTH William Hill and Playtech are listed here, they must also have a registered address here, which means they can be pursued under English law.

It just needs a good lawyer to see if there is sufficient possibilty of proving liabilty against companies who NOW have the cash to pay. It is no good winning a case, but finding the company has no cash left to pay the judgement.
If any individual company directors are found to have acted improperly, they could theoretically be found PERSONALLY liable, although again it may be hard to find the cash.

And they have also recently been proved to be enforceable here in the states as well. I will see if I can dig up those articles that I just read recently regarding this. Nash probably knows the one's I am talking about here. You out there Nash?

 

[GrandMaster]

Today's Link Removed (invalid URL) reminded me of this saga.

 

[jod5413]

Cracked me up, Grandmaster!!!!

 

[Pinababy69]

Today's Link Removed (invalid URL) reminded me of this saga.

Oh GM....that is too rich to not post direct....lmaoo.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

And they have also recently been proved to be enforceable here in the states as well. I will see if I can dig up those articles that I just read recently regarding this. Nash probably knows the one's I am talking about here. You out there Nash?

Here!!!....Not an area that I stay familiar with for a couple reasons: one is because it so damn confusing and doesn't it vary by State (I know Cali's is uneforceable and other states have had some real test cases). I just remembered I have the laws for each state on my box. I will try to find.

Two, you owe, you pay. That's just me. I do remember when I first started building, a deal fell thru (when underwriting guidelines required more than to be able to breathe, thus my current dislike of online gambling's political hero) when a Buyer could not qualify because TRUMP CASTLE had reported $10K as unsatisfactory to his credit bureau. No FICO or similiar scoring at that time. For all I know it was unenforceable but he could not qualify for a mortgage regardless on account of.

Are you maybe referring to the 2 different cases in Nevada including the one on Frye (sp-no stores here) where the Feds. raided the Venetian a few months ago and then the other putz (aka/as again some newspaper writer called a known con man a philanthropist) from the Midwest that ran up millions in markers but refused to pay (still pending)?????

 

[RobWin]

Here!!!....Not an area that I stay familiar with for a couple reasons: one is because it so damn confusing and doesn't it vary by State (I know Cali's is uneforceable and other states have had some real test cases). I just remembered I have the laws for each state on my box. I will try to find.

Two, you owe, you pay. That's just me. I do remember when I first started building, a deal fell thru (when underwriting guidelines required more than to be able to breathe, thus my current dislike of online gambling's political hero) when a Buyer could not qualify because TRUMP CASTLE had reported $10K as unsatisfactory to his credit bureau. No FICO or similiar scoring at that time. For all I know it was unenforceable but he could not qualify for a mortgage regardless on account of.

Are you maybe referring to the 2 different cases in Nevada including the one on Frye (sp-no stores here) where the Feds. raided the Venetian a few months ago and then the other putz (aka/as again some newspaper writer called a known con man a philanthropist) from the Midwest that ran up millions in markers but refused to pay (still pending)?????

Yea, I think that is the case's or at least one of them I was thinking of. I'm still trying to find my articles I had saved that I recently read about a casino suing a patron for a gambling marker (debt) and won the case. I will eventually dig it up here.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Yea, I think that is the case's or at least one of them I was thinking of. I'm still trying to find my articles I had saved that I recently read about a casino suing a patron for a gambling marker (debt) and won the case. I will eventually dig it up here.

Rob....check Jet's news section here and archives as he often includes this type of news of interest in a briefer synopsis.....no idea though if on site but as mentioned the genre is a subject he does cover

 

[NASHVEGAS]

Arrgh, I should clarify a signed marker is a negoiatable instrument so the casino will eventually deposit if it is not paid......The legal issue occurs when one stops payment or a NSF or similar.....IIRC, this is exactly what the Midwest putz did (or bounced checks w/o the markers being deposited) and then the LV DA files charges.....Frye was pulling fraud all over Vegas (kinda like kiting checks) and CA. where I still believe gambling debts are unenforceable , fraud a different story and is also applicable to the NET (oops, silly me, of course I have read about Player fraud somewhere )

 

[hobbithumper]

Disgusted

Been lurking & reading for many months, takes something like this to stir me from my slumber and post something...

In a way, Sylvia both won and lost $2m - laugh or cry?

I really wish a major news organisation would pick up on this, would make very uncomfortable reading for some. If people were to vote with their wallets, that may make a difference - hard cash seems to be the only language understood these days. Of course, 3Dice and 32Red, to name but two, are clear exceptions to this - they do have clear terms & conditions, but also do apply common sense to any situation. There is a reason why people can gamble and trust the accredited casinos and I'm sure they've profited (quite rightly) from more people playing there due to good publicity. It's not rocket science, is it?

Should the terms & conditions remain on monthly withdrawals for progressive wins, the casino should be made to change the display on the prize money - rather than a box showing $x,xxx,xxx as the jackpot, ever increasing, they should be forced to show a box with $9,000 as the jackpot amount with "over xxx months" ever increasing - at least that'd be honest.

As ever, kudos to CM and the other mainline contributors who continue to research and enlighten us to the inner workings of the gambling world. It's only by bringing cases like this to the public attention that stop the rogues from getting away with it.

 

[jetset]

Another Playtech progressive problem

This surfaced today in SA media reports; it's the notorious African Palace apparently reneging on the instalments which it agreed to pay a player who hit a $1 million jackpot playing Playtech's Beach Life progressive:


ONLINE CASINO DEFAULTS ON PROGRESSIVE JACKPOT PAYMENT

African Palace Casino fails to meet instalment payment

When a 66 year-old South African grandmother in the city of Kimberley, South Africa hit a large progressive slot jackpot at African Palace Casino.com on November 7th last year she thought her financial worries were over, but this week reports in the South African Sunday Times newspaper indicated that they may have only just begun.

Marie Van Wyk was playing the Beach Life progressive slot when she made a Rands 80 (about $10) and won a jackpot worth Rands 8.5 million ($1,054 million). She was feted by African Palace, who exploited the win widely in a publicity sense (see Old / Expired Link).

Apparently some arrangement was made with the Playtech-powered online casino to pay the lucky winner in six monthly instalments rather than one cash tranche. Van Wyk trusted the casino owners because she had previously been successfully paid out on a Rands 64 000 jackpot at the same casino.

Unfortunately, the arrangement only worked for two payments, with Van Wyk receiving only Rands 2.8 million in total, before payments dried up and the April instalment did not arrive.

Van Wyk fears that the May payment has also been withheld, and this prompted her to tell her story to the local newspapers.

"I have won several times before and never have my winnings been paid out in instalments," said the Kimberley grandmother, who is a regular online player.

When she told the company that she was going to expose their failure to pay her, she received a lawyer's letter assuring her that a "workable solution can be found without the need to air grievances in public."

Approached by the newspaper, African Palace finance manager Tagore Dhanraj refused to comment beyond saying that the company was trying to resolve the matter.

African Palace has been the subject of player complaints regarding payments in the past, whilst the progressives payouts of its software provider, Playtech, have recently been criticised for being effected in instalments instead of in a single payment as is the case with more established software providers like Microgaming and Cryptologic.

Van Wyk's big win features prominently on the African Palace website landing page and in its news section, where photographs of the presentation of a mock R8.5 million cheque abound.

In related news, Gaming VC Corporation's CasinoClub.com announced over the weekend that player 'sunshine-muc' overcame the odds to win the Boss Media-powered Fortunes of Egypt jackpot. His Euro 2.50 wager saw him win a substantial jackpot of Euro 393 043.31.