the main problem with the PAB process

[maxd]

This is the main problem with the PAB process, you can lose "unfairly" if the casino has covered their ass properly when implementing an unfair policy.

No, it's not a problem with the PAB process, it's a problem with any complaints-processing service that deals with internet gambling. If you disagree please feel free to elaborate -- under a new subject heading SVP -- and provide details to substantiate your accusation. Otherwise I think we can all write this of as more bombast from the Master Of Soapboxes.

 

[vinylweatherman]

No, it's not a problem with the PAB process, it's a problem with any complaints-processing service that deals with internet gambling. If you disagree please feel free to elaborate -- under a new subject heading SVP -- and provide details to substantiate your accusation. Otherwise I think we can all write this of as more bombast from the Master Of Soapboxes.

Simple, The unfair business practices act in the UK. It can be used to challenge and nullify terms in a consumer contract even where the customer has read, understood, and agreed to them. It SHOULD apply to ALL consumer products and services, but the internet is a "wild west", and in practice it doesn't usually apply there. This act itself stems from EU directives, so all EU countries have had to put similar levels of protection into local law.

The PAB process, along with the other options, does not allow for the removal of terms, no matter how unfair to the consumer. This is why bsilva lost the other PAB even though the ridiculous 100x WR was patently unfair on the consumer. It wouldn't wash in the UK, for example, a company saying that Welsh customers had to pay £100 for some service that the rest of us could get for £40. This regional based pricing is already getting the energy companies into a bit of trouble with the regulators as it is considered unfair practice, in addition to which energy is defined as an essential service, like water. Portugal, an EU member also, would have it's own equivalent consumer protection laws, but again, companies operating offshore would be able to dodge the rules.

Internet based business is currently getting an easy ride when it comes to laws designed to protect consumers. It's still very much "buyer beware". It's only in the last couple of years that our trading standards and advertising regulator have been actively policing the internet as well as the high street.

A quick look at the ASA website shows that numerous online casinos have fallen foul of the UK regulations over bog standard casino ads that casino marketing sees nothing wrong with.

 

[Nifty29]

Simple, The unfair business practices act in the UK. It can be used to challenge and nullify terms in a consumer contract even where the customer has read, understood, and agreed to them. It SHOULD apply to ALL consumer products and services, but the internet is a "wild west", and in practice it doesn't usually apply there. This act itself stems from EU directives, so all EU countries have had to put similar levels of protection into local law.

The PAB process, along with the other options, does not allow for the removal of terms, no matter how unfair to the consumer. This is why bsilva lost the other PAB even though the ridiculous 100x WR was patently unfair on the consumer. It wouldn't wash in the UK, for example, a company saying that Welsh customers had to pay £100 for some service that the rest of us could get for £40. This regional based pricing is already getting the energy companies into a bit of trouble with the regulators as it is considered unfair practice, in addition to which energy is defined as an essential service, like water. Portugal, an EU member also, would have it's own equivalent consumer protection laws, but again, companies operating offshore would be able to dodge the rules.

Internet based business is currently getting an easy ride when it comes to laws designed to protect consumers. It's still very much "buyer beware". It's only in the last couple of years that our trading standards and advertising regulator have been actively policing the internet as well as the high street.

A quick look at the ASA website shows that numerous online casinos have fallen foul of the UK regulations over bog standard casino ads that casino marketing sees nothing wrong with.

Great example. Not. You go on about this being an example of a "online gaming complaints process" in answer to Max....only to say it does NOT apply to online gaming because it's the wild west. Lol. Make up your mind!

It's probably about time you realized that the UK is but one country, and it's laws have very little to do with the vast majority of operators who are offshore.

I also think you're kidding yourself if you think the upcoming UK gambling laws are going to dictate to operators how much WR they put on bonuses. Bsilva lost their PAB because they accepted the terms, but didn't read them. The time to decide you don't want a 100xWR is BEFORE you play.

You can relate situations with Costa Rican operators to UK regulations til the cows come home, but it doesn't mean jack.

 

[maxd]

Simple, The unfair business practices act in the UK. ....

Which has exactly nothing to do with the majority of PABers since they are not from the UK and the majority of the casinos they play are are not under UK jurisdiction. In other words UK laws and practices are of little or no relevance.

Of course anyone from the UK with a complaint to which such business laws are applicable should pursue the legal avenues open to them. I do not forsee that the PAB process is in any danger of being made redundant by the legislation you refer to since it applies to 1% or less -- at a guess -- of the cases we see and process.

But this is largely beside the point, IMO. Your claim is that the PAB process is flawed because too many players "can lose 'unfairly' if the casino has covered their ass properly when implementing an unfair policy". The problem with such a statement is that (a) it entirely ignores all the good work that the PAB process does accomplish and (b) phrases like "unfair policy" are entirely subjective. For instance the casino may have very good reasons for excluding certain countries from this or that bonus, or increasing the WR to discourage participation of players from a given region. And they have every right to adjust their rules of play accordingly, especially when it comes to bonuses.

You or anyone else may say "it's unfair" but in truth that doesn't mean very much. It's like saying the Queen wears too much blue: it's hopelessly subjective and so far from your sphere of influence that you're basically wasting your breath.

 

[Balthazar]

Which has exactly nothing to do with the majority of PABers since they are not from the UK and the majority of the casinos they play are are not under UK jurisdiction. In other words UK laws and practices are of little or no relevance.

It's not a UK thing though, there are laws that prevent customer abuse in every civilized country. For example, here you cannot loan money at "criminal rates" (like 50% monthly interest) even if both parties sign the contract. Or in the US scammers have lost court cases where they were selling empty boxes of electronic goods on eBay, even if in the fine prints it clearly said that the buyers were bidding on the box only. In the real world fine prints won't always save your ass.

 

[Googobucs]

Most of you know a whole lot more about this than me, but Max is making a very strong point for me with this statement.
No process is ever going to 100 % perfect, and it's real easy for folks to just sit back and point fingers saying "oh that's not fair, the process does not work"
I don't see anyone offering Max any solutions or ideas that would be helpful to solve those issues.

Sorry, I don't have any ideas to fix this, but I know when people come to me just complaining, I usually just turn a deaf ear. When they come offering help and solutions ( good or bad) that usually gets my attention.

 

[jetset]

The PAB service is a privately operated - free of charge - process designed to give players a channel for disputes where very little in that line practically existed before and many operators merely paid lip service to the concept.

Even today, many so-called regulators in individual nations have shown repeatedly that giving players a fair hearing is not among their primary objectives despite all their waffle on the subject.

The PAB is not a bureaucratic governmental machine with the capability to force operators to amend their more questionable T&Cs, although it has shown that it can certainly influence outcomes and educate operators and players alike in many cases.

I believe in taking responsibility for your own decisions, not abrogating that right retrospectively to someone else; in other words read the T&Cs and walk away from them and the operator if you don't like the WR or anything else in them. If enough punters did that it could be practically influential.

Consumer protection laws are only as good as the ability of individual nations to enforce them...and the preparedness of consumers to take the time and trouble to invoke and use them. In the case of the internet that presents cross-border application issues, but that's a fact of life that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Why do gamblers use the PAB system, often with satisfactory results? I suggest that it is because the integrity of Max and Bryan has been shown time and again to be worthy of trust; the system is easy to use and practical; and it gets results - in most cases quicker than any process run by bureaucrats.

But it's not a lobbying organisation with the power to force changes on operators or a law enforcement agency...it's a free-of-charge aid for players with a legit case, and most importantly a means of educating players and giving them a heads up on operators who's behaviour and business ethics are flawed.

Like T&Cs, the decision to take those warnings on board or continue to give dodgy operators your business is an individual decision...for which you should take responsibility.

The same applies to the PAB - if you don't like it make constructive suggestions on how it might be improved or don't use it at all.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Which has exactly nothing to do with the majority of PABers since they are not from the UK and the majority of the casinos they play are are not under UK jurisdiction. In other words UK laws and practices are of little or no relevance.

Of course anyone from the UK with a complaint to which such business laws are applicable should pursue the legal avenues open to them. I do not forsee that the PAB process is in any danger of being made redundant by the legislation you refer to since it applies to 1% or less -- at a guess -- of the cases we see and process.

But this is largely beside the point, IMO. Your claim is that the PAB process is flawed because too many players "can lose 'unfairly' if the casino has covered their ass properly when implementing an unfair policy". The problem with such a statement is that (a) it entirely ignores all the good work that the PAB process does accomplish and (b) phrases like "unfair policy" are entirely subjective. For instance the casino may have very good reasons for excluding certain countries from this or that bonus, or increasing the WR to discourage participation of players from a given region. And they have every right to adjust their rules of play accordingly, especially when it comes to bonuses.

You or anyone else may say "it's unfair" but in truth that doesn't mean very much. It's like saying the Queen wears too much blue: it's hopelessly subjective and so far from your sphere of influence that you're basically wasting your breath.

This is a good explanation of WHY it is unfair. Consumers do NOT get the protection they should have, and many are unaware of this fact. It is immoral to just sit back and accept that the unfairness will continue, instead, efforts should be made to make the situation fairer.

The internet is what it is because the explosion in commercial activity caught governments napping, and they are trying to play catch up and finding that the borderless concept of the internet is making this a tough challenge.

The US have struggled for years to enforce it's own laws on it's own citizens with regard to online gambling, yet they have won only partial success. The UK's initial attempt was botched, they made the error of trusting the offshore regulatory regimes to be genuinely interested in consumer protection. Their second attempt is hoped to improve matters. In terms of obtaining legal redress, it makes things easier by forcing the companies to have a direct UK license and submit directly to the authority of the UKGC. They are also required to lodge tangible assets in the UK so that if they are deemed to owe money, it can be seized by the courts or HMRC from these UK hosted assets.

The situation will be less unfair in 2015, but if consumers are fooled into playing at "illegal" unlicensed operators, the new regime will not help them.

This is NOT "just the UK", it's an EU wide directive, and every EU country has to implement a similar level of consumer protection.

If internet companies continue to misbehave, the governments will tighten the screw even further.

It seems galling for consumers that copyright protection on the internet is years ahead of consumer protection, so it CAN be done if the will (and powerful lobby) is there.

 

[Jasminebed]

PAB gap

I believe the PAB process works fairly well. Terms and conditions for bonuses are at the discretion of the casino, as long as they are made available to the player. Terms and conditions for non-bonus play should not be more onerous than 1x playthrough IMO.

Where I see a crack in this system, and the rogue list, is those casinos that won't engage in the PAB process, and therefore may end up with a warning, but not a trip to the pit.

It's like a reward for not cooperating.

 

[jetset]

Now that's what I call a constructive comment and a good point!

 

[chuchu59]

It's not a UK thing though, there are laws that prevent customer abuse in every civilized country. For example, here you cannot loan money at "criminal rates" (like 50% monthly interest) even if both parties sign the contract. Or in the US scammers have lost court cases where they were selling empty boxes of electronic goods on eBay, even if in the fine prints it clearly said that the buyers were bidding on the box only. In the real world fine prints won't always save your ass.

Hong Kong is also civilized LOL.Our criminal rates of interest is much lower ie 60% per annum. A 10% monthly interest rate will kill you let alone a 50% one. We also have loansharks handing out loans at 'loan 9 return 13'.

Frankly, I am more than satisfied with the PAB process. Quite simple to follow even for newbies and normally darn effective. Nothing will ever be foolproof and it has helped a lot of players retrieve their rightful winnings. I must praise Max for his perseverance in arm twisting the semi-rogue casinos into paying out while at the same time ensuring the process is not abused by rogue players. I believe Max must continue with it though maybe there could be some fine-tuning as we go along.

 

[maxd]

Consumers do NOT get the protection they should have .... It is immoral to just sit back and accept that the unfairness will continue, instead, efforts should be made to make the situation fairer.

And that is precisely where you and I part company, philosphically speaking. You say working with the situation as we find it is "immoral", I say it is not. IMO trying to make the best of the situation as we find it is simply pragmatic: the online gambling scene is basically the Wild West of the internet, dangerous and chaotic where most of the participants operate well beyond the reach of real laws and real courts. No doubt civilising forces will someday make themselves felt -- indeed they already are -- and eventually what we do with the PAB process will likely become redundant. Great, happy days! But that is then and this is now. All this talk of how things should be doesn't help Joe or Jane Gambler caught in a crisis NOW. They need help with the difficulties they have TODAY, telling them to wait for a happy, orderly future is not going to impress them much and it will help them not at all.

IMO I am basically a fire-fighter: I help people caught in the middle of a variety of crisis to find their way out while trying to minimize the damage they take on the way. Theoretical discussions about justice and fairness are basically useless to me and my "clients" because the framework required for those concepts to be meaningful simply doesn't exist, yet. To use the Wild West analogy I would say the wagons are burning and the natives are more or less hostile: I can either help as best I can or I can get up on a soapbox and start preaching about justice and the evils of unfairness. I think it's clear that the PAB process is the "help as best we can" route and judging from the number of people that come to us every year, year after year, I'd say they've more or less voted that we keep doing exactly that.

You have a habit of saying "the problem with the PAB process is this" or "PAB's don't work because of that" or whatever. No offense but you're barking up the wrong tree at the wrong guy on the wrong day in the wrong way. In other words you are missing the point by a country mile. Of course the PAB process is imperfect! Hello, we're fighting fires here not debating constitutions. If your idea of perfect is the fair and balanced legal process you keep referring to then turning on the PAB process and wagging your finger at us is a collosal waste of your time and ours. We are not and never will be a court nor the creators of any legal process. Wrong, wrong, wrong! We're just a couple guys trying to make the best of a difficult situation for people who need some help. Harranging us for not being champions of fairness and codified procedure is like trying to teach the proverbial pig to sing: the pig will never learn to sing and you'll only annoy him by trying.

And if you think your offhand "this is what's wrong with PABs" comments are no big deal then think again. First of all by posting such things you create doubt about us and what we do in the minds of readers who either don't know better or who are in the habit of banging whatever drum you happen to hold up as being bangable. That in turn forces us to divert our attention away from the real work we have to do in order to write posts like this one right here: in other words spend time to minimize and/or deflect the pointless damage you've done. Whether you realise it or not you are vandalising our site and our efforts when you post this stuff, not to mention the other people you've inconvenienced because we've had to take time away from their issues in order to deal with yours. And for what? I respectfully put it to you that your goals are seriously misguided and your methods are far more destructive than they are helpful. And yet you won't listen to reason and you won't stop. Thanks for nothing.

But back to the main point here: someday people will have better options than they do today and by all means they should use them as they become available but that day isn't today and there are issues than need dealing with right now. So I'll fight today's fires and you can have the soapbox. All that I ask is that you recognize that shitting on what we do and how we do it isn't really helping anybody with anything. Stay out of my way while I do my job and I'll stay out of your way while you do what you do. That's when we'll both be doing some good instead of getting in each other's way and wasting precious resources.

Where I see a crack in this system, and the rogue list, is those casinos that won't engage in the PAB process, and therefore may end up with a warning, but not a trip to the pit. It's like a reward for not cooperating.

Quite right, there's not doubt (in my mind at least) that some of the NCD sites probably do belong in the Pit. Unfortunately that word "probably" is a rather larger hurdle than you might think. IMO there needs to be proof, or at least HUGELY convincing circumstancial evidence, that an operator is well and truly rogue before a Pit listing is justified. To turn the Pit into a "we think these guys deserve it" list isn't a good thing because it will start undermining the meaningfulness of the Pit itself. Better, imo, to let a few rogues escape the Pit and preserve the gravitas of what being in the Pit means than to throw a bunch of "maybe" cases in and start diluting the punch of a good and proper rogue listing. I know I'm oversimplifying here but I hope you'll see what I'm driving at.

In the end though Bryan is the man who does each and every Rogue Pit listing. As ever the final decision is his and his alone. If you think someone in particular needs to be bumped from NCD to the Pit then he's the man you need to address your thoughts and concerns to. Knowing him as I do I'd say that if you build a case, provide some good evidence for it, and present it to him in a concise and focused form the chances are he'll give it serious consideration. You all know he's a good and reasonable guy and has a habit of doing the right thing. But he is exceptionally busy and has little time to spare. If you can work within those parameters then your chances of success with your proposal are very good indeed.

PS. This post has been fairly heavily edited over the past few hours and I realise that those who Thanked an earlier version may not feel that way about it now. If I could send the Thanks back I think I would because I don't want to be putting people in a position of appearing to have approved something they didn't intend to. Unfortunately I don't know of such a feature so I'll simply have to footnote this with the caution that those who've Thanked may not have intended to. Apologies to all for any inconvenience caused.

 

[dionysus]

My 2 cents (for what they're worth) at how I see Max, CM and the pabs -

They're like the buddies who are handy with cars, they grew up around them, they got a solid grip on them, they know guys in the car industry - trades shows, conventions, own shops. They aren't mechanics or car dealers or car manufacturers themselves - but they know cars.

Me, I couldn't fix a flat with a spare set of hands and a book of instructions. Maybe I can poke around under the hood, know a few tricks, but really, I've in over my head when it breaks down. So if my minor tinkering can't fix it, I phone up Max and say, 'hey buddy, can you look at my car for me?'
And he says 'sure, no problem, lemmie have a look'.

Vroom, vroom car fixed, or maybe, it's some ridiculous foreign model, parts aren't made these days, or it's a piece of crap and he's gotta say 'sorry dude, I did my best, but it's a no can do, I tried my best and did everything I know'.

So, maybe it's just a bugger and won't work. Or MAYBE because he came over, he saved me a Hell of a lot of headache and paying out my ass.

That to me is Max and the PAB. He does what he can, can't make any promises, but I know he went to bat for me, when really, he really doesn't have to. But he did. Because he's a good guy, didn't mind helping out. He's not a mechanic (read: lawyer or the casino-police) but he knows his shit and did what he could....for free!

Peace

 

[dunover]

Right, here's my opinion.
Yes, some casino policies are unfair. Yes, some operate outside of jurisdictions that we would consider advanced and well protected in consumer terms like the UK/Aus/N.America and the EU etc.

So, players (whom in many cases have not read the terms properly and join this forum with no intention of contributing but simply use it for Max's pro bono services) arrive here screaming 'UNFAIR' or 'SCAMMED BY SCHEISS SLOTS.COM'.
Then Max has to use his connections to try and sort the issues out in his own time, connections which the player doesn't have and is taking advantage of.

So if anybody is complaining, then go to your own lawyer (who wouldn't have a clue when it comes to the gaming industry) or go to ECOGRA or the Local Licensing Authority for that casino, and see how convoluted and complicated it is and will then invariably be futile.

Then also check out the instances (which Vinyl has conveniently missed) of Max getting people redress even when the PAB'er could have justifiably got nothing. The mutual respect between the casinos here and CM often leads to discretion being used when the player has erred.
See if that would happen in the black-and-white world outside CM......

OK, the PAB process isn't perfect because Max cannot instruct the correct outcome, and yes the casinos may have terms that are 'unfair' but legal and may rigidly stick to them so the PAB fails from the player's perspective. But I tell you now, if and when we ever get an easily accessible one-stop player mediation service outside CM in all our respective countries, it will take years for them to establish the connections and experience you find here.

If the government ever does anything right, it's usually after they tried everything else. That will take years. If you use PAB to open doors that you can't, and don't like what's behind that door, then don't use it.

P.S. Vinyl, as Max is so busy with PABs usually, offer him your lawyer services as an assistant. I'm sure they'll be decisive when dealing with Curacao/Costa Rica or Timbuktu based operators.

 

[skiny]

I guess the problem VWM has with the PAB process is that Bryan or Max doesn't have the power to strike down a decision made by a casino because they don't like a condition that may have been unfair but was still initially agreed to by a player. It's true that some countries have consumer protection laws that allow courts to do this but this isn't a court. It's an arbitration.

Arbitrators don't normally have the authority to dictate what either party is allowed or not allowed to do. They can carry information back and forth between the parties involved and make suggestions but there are pretty obvious limitations as to what actual authority they do have. The only difference in this case is they also work for a forum where the results and their opinions will be publicly known. This may give reason for some casinos to accept suggestions to protect their own reputation.

But if arbitrators had the authority to write their own rules and force the parties to agree to them we wouldn't have public sector workers on strike for 8 to 12 months at a time. Some might feel this is better. They might feel when a dispute goes into arbitration the arbitrator should simply say "This is what I think is fair. Now everyone back to work." Others might agree that arbitrators were never meant to have that kind of authority. That is what we have courts for.

The problem is not all casinos operate in jurisdictions where the legal system offers players an adequate amount of protection. So when the arbitration process breaks down and both parties can't be satisfied there is no legal recourse. And just like any arbitration, this goes beyond the scope of the service that Bryan offers. It was never the arbitrator's right or job to make law. That's not a problem. That's just reality.

 

[maxd]

Thank you all! Seriously. I'm much pleased to see how well you guys actually do understand the PAB process, limitations and all. Normally I'd say something like "Christmas came early" but it is Christmas! Yay!

 

[bigjohn]

I've been lucky and have never needed the PAB service here, but it's a free service that seems to get pretty darn good results. I don't see how anyone can knock it.

 

[klauskunterbunt]

Without Guys like Maxd and Bryan who keeps CM an the PAB Service running i would have quit only gambling after my first Expiriencies. Casinomeister is a kind of save harbour for me in the rough Sea of online Casinos .I am reletiv new in gambling and i learned here so much. If i hadnt found this Site i would have lost more then i can pay. They give the exclusiv possibilty to get help from some Veterans with a Heart who are giving help and demanding nothing!!!! Except Respect, and i think they earned a lot of it.

Last words guys: Its Christmas!! Be Kind ^^

Sry for my bad English

 

[klauskunterbunt]

I forgott to say thx to Nifty who brings everything and everyone back on the hard Floor of reality.

Merry Christmas!

 

[cash4all]

The PAB Service has helped me not once, but twice! I, for one, am grateful that it exists... Having to waste hours and hours and days and days fooling around with some of these places where the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing gets extremely exhausting and irritating. Max knows exactly where the buttons are and how to push them to get the desired results. If you are an honest player and have abided by all the terms that the casino has laid out, then there should be no reason for you to be afraid to use this service if you seriously need it. The fact that Max gives his time and effort to help people who otherwise would not even stand a chance, I feel is admirable. He doesn't have to do it, but he does .. he could just say, too bad, help yourself, but he doesn't. He works hard for everyone who asks for his help. If you are, however, someone who is trying to manipulate the system then you deserve what you get, but for the honest player who truly has no where else to turn, this is a godsend. Thanks Max! You are my hero!

 

[P.V.]

I've been lucky and have never needed the PAB service here, but it's a free service that seems to get pretty darn good results. I don't see how anyone can knock it.

That brings up a good question for Max. Can U.S. players such as bigjohn, if needed file a PAB on a U.S. licensed casino if he's failed with his attempts to resolve a problem? Of course if one arrises.

In N.J. it states the following: In accordance with N.J.A.C. 13:69O-1.2r, a DISPUTE is an "unresolvable complaint after all reasonable means have been exhausted by the casino license permit holder."

All Internet Dispute Forms filed with the Division must be accompanied with a copy of the original complaint filed with the casino license permit holder and the response which led to the filing of the dispute form.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement requires all operators to have effective systems in place for receiving, recording, managing and investigating Internet gaming customer complaints.

You must first file a complaint directly with the casino following the procedure identified on their website.

ALL complaints must be filed and a response received from the casino license permit holder BEFORE AN INTERNET DISPUTE FORM IS FILED WITH THE DIVISION.

Honestly I can see this being useful as the U.S. market emerges, IMO.

 

[maxd]

That brings up a good question for Max. Can U.S. players such as bigjohn, if needed file a PAB on a U.S. licensed casino if he's failed with his attempts to resolve a problem? Of course if one arrises.

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your question. Please rephrase and ask again.

 

[Igor82]

It wouldn't wash in the UK, for example, a company saying that Welsh customers had to pay £100 for some service that the rest of us could get for £40.

That isn't entirely true now, is it? Unless the product is classified as a necessity and regulated pricing, the business has a freedom to price it in accordance to their business model. In fact, as we are talking about WR here (i havent read the original thread, it was huge)

This regional based pricing is already getting the energy companies into a bit of trouble with the regulators as it is considered unfair practice

ENERGY isnt chewing gum. You cant mix the two and claim the same rules apply. Energy SHOULD be regulated as it is a living neccessity. I SHOULD be able to charge whatever i want for chewing gum and have the freedom to find the right buyer.

moreover, if i choose to sell a chewing gum and state that you get a box of them free if you run around my shop every other tuesday at precicely 1.14PM wearing your wifes night gown (so in my mind i could attract a crowd to buy more chewing gum) and you agree to it, then you are bound by the terms of our agreement. Should you fail, i am within my rights to take my box back.

If a business decides that they will offer anything free, or with purchase and adds conditions to it which are clear and prominent, then the buyer must carry some of the responsibility for their actions in relation to those terms. Without delivng into the other thread and just focusing on your comment regarding a WR of an amount being unfair, because you can get lower WR elsewhere (to follow on your welsh pricing example), does not mean that this business must meet the lowest price or else, or that they don't have other opportunities on offer that supplement their busines model.

That is the beuty of the world today - it gives YOU, THE BUYER, the choice of what works for you and what doesn't: as long as the information about the offering was presented to you in an honest, non-ambiguous format, YOU get to decide where your hard earned penny is best spent. However with that choice, also likes the burden of responsibility that you made it.

in addition to which energy is defined as an essential service, like water.

key sentence in your comparison, but you kind of skimmed over it.

I must say, coming back and seeing silva's name in red shocked me. i didnt read the thread as im horribly behind on things after my prolonged leave, but fact remains that the PAB process challenges operators to JUSTIFY their decisions to an un-bias third party and the very act of justification carries some burden of necessity for responsible behaviour.

The way i see it, PAB service simply puts the fullstop on blatantly wild-west behaviour on businesses that either 1) dont care to follow their own rules, or 2) create such rules that it gives them a window to not follow at their discretion them or claim the rules were broken due to lack of clarity. As i said, simply someone forcing businesses to justify themselves or be poorly labelled is a huge positive that has been felt throught the industry - and if you need proof of that, all you need to do is look around at how hard casinos try to meet these standards.

How can anyone say that such service is "wrong", or has something wrong with it, is not within my realm of understanding. It may not offer full consumer protection, but it's definitely a step (i'd call it a long jump personally) in the right direction. And as for complete consumer protection, i'd say myself as a consumer leave it up to me to do my out-most to protect myself.

 

[dunover]

That brings up a good question for Max. Can U.S. players such as bigjohn, if needed file a PAB on a U.S. licensed casino if he's failed with his attempts to resolve a problem? Of course if one arrises.

In N.J. it states the following: In accordance with N.J.A.C. 13:69O-1.2r, a DISPUTE is an "unresolvable complaint after all reasonable means have been exhausted by the casino license permit holder."

All Internet Dispute Forms filed with the Division must be accompanied with a copy of the original complaint filed with the casino license permit holder and the response which led to the filing of the dispute form.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement requires all operators to have effective systems in place for receiving, recording, managing and investigating Internet gaming customer complaints.

You must first file a complaint directly with the casino following the procedure identified on their website.

ALL complaints must be filed and a response received from the casino license permit holder BEFORE AN INTERNET DISPUTE FORM IS FILED WITH THE DIVISION.

Honestly I can see this being useful as the U.S. market emerges, IMO.

Max can try and file a PAB against ANY casino ANYWHERE - whether they will respond to him at all, or if they do then will discuss the case details openly and then actually act upon his interpretation of fairness is another matter.
Those who do respond and engage in dialogue are usually accredited here but quite a few aren't accredited. Some like 888 won't respond to the process at all.
It sounds like the process you are mentioning is a clearly defined one laid out as a condition of NJ's softening to allow online gaming, in which case you might not need the PAB service anyway.
IF what you are asking is 'could Max act on my behalf in the NJ online gaming dispute process' this would depend upon their rules about allowing 3rd. parties other than lawyers to enter the process, and what rules they have regarding disclosure of information to 3rd. parties such as Max by either the complainant or themselves.

This would apply either to the initial COMPLAINT stage which needs the individual casino's willingness to co-operate in a PAB or the secondary DISPUTE stage which means the NJ DoGE's willingness to co-operate in a PAB.

I would suggest the casino at complaint stage might co-operate but I doubt the NJ DoGE would at the dispute stage.

That's like asking Max to handle a British player's dispute with ECOGRA here - above his pay-grade so to speak.

 

[bigjohn]

That brings up a good question for Max. Can U.S. players such as bigjohn, if needed file a PAB on a U.S. licensed casino if he's failed with his attempts to resolve a problem? Of course if one arrises.

In N.J. it states the following: In accordance with N.J.A.C. 13:69O-1.2r, a DISPUTE is an "unresolvable complaint after all reasonable means have been exhausted by the casino license permit holder."

All Internet Dispute Forms filed with the Division must be accompanied with a copy of the original complaint filed with the casino license permit holder and the response which led to the filing of the dispute form.

The New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement requires all operators to have effective systems in place for receiving, recording, managing and investigating Internet gaming customer complaints.

You must first file a complaint directly with the casino following the procedure identified on their website.

ALL complaints must be filed and a response received from the casino license permit holder BEFORE AN INTERNET DISPUTE FORM IS FILED WITH THE DIVISION.

Honestly I can see this being useful as the U.S. market emerges, IMO.

I don't want to step on Max's toes here, but I'll take a shot at this.

As far as I know, the on-line Casinos in New Jersey are unique in the fact that they are the only casinos in which governmental law dictates how they operate and I can't see the State of NJ cooperating with the PAB process by sharing information with any non-government entity.

I imagine someone down the road will attempt to file a PAB against one of them which will inevitably result in all of them being placed in the no-can-do list.

The way that the US is re-introducing on-line gaming is just about opposite of how it went for the rest of the world. It started out as sort of a wild west where anything goes with no regulation and rogues were everywhere. Eventually regulatory bodies stepped in (IOM, Gibralter, KGC) but the only thing they could really do was pull someones license if they went bad. Casinomeister's PAB process filled that gap nicely by threatening bad publicity for casinos that went afoul, getting a bad reputation here cost them real money. Now we are seeing the UK up it with their new regulations. The US is starting with full regulation.

 

[P.V.]

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your question. Please rephrase and ask again.

Dunover's reply answered my question, thanks.

 

[maxd]

Yeah, I seriously doubt that the new state regulatory people are going to have much in the way of an "open door" policy when it comes to dispute settlement and 3rd party folks like us. I'd bet real money that their approach is going to be "my way or the highway", rather like we've seen from the re-tooled Gib (for example).

 

[jetset]

How New Jersey - and its licensees - handles the first complaints will obviously be the litmus test on this important element in the online gambling mix, and one can only hope that they have invested time in monitoring player forums to appreciate at first hand the risks, problems and needs of the player community.

I would hope that they have also taken the trouble to frequent major industry gathering events and consult with experienced industry mediators, and that a combination of these activities gives them an understanding of how vital a public and honest dispute channel really is to all concerned, and the positive influence it can wield if handled properly.

I'm sure most of us could suggest a formidable panel of highly experienced industry mediators more than capable of advising newbie regulators!

A lot will depend on the casinos themselves as the first line of contact with the player, but I would hope that the New Jersey regulator uses its powers to intervene when required, and does not effectively leave the power too much in licensees' hands.

The rise in popularity of national regulatory jurisdictions may take some of the pressure off third party dispute mediators like CM, but I don't see the need for the independent PAB systems here and elsewhere diminishing too far - there are still plenty of player traps out there, and operators that need to be straightened out on fairness in legitimate disputes imo.

 

[vinylweatherman]

That isn't entirely true now, is it? Unless the product is classified as a necessity and regulated pricing, the business has a freedom to price it in accordance to their business model. In fact, as we are talking about WR here (i havent read the original thread, it was huge)


ENERGY isnt chewing gum. You cant mix the two and claim the same rules apply. Energy SHOULD be regulated as it is a living neccessity. I SHOULD be able to charge whatever i want for chewing gum and have the freedom to find the right buyer.

moreover, if i choose to sell a chewing gum and state that you get a box of them free if you run around my shop every other tuesday at precicely 1.14PM wearing your wifes night gown (so in my mind i could attract a crowd to buy more chewing gum) and you agree to it, then you are bound by the terms of our agreement. Should you fail, i am within my rights to take my box back.

If a business decides that they will offer anything free, or with purchase and adds conditions to it which are clear and prominent, then the buyer must carry some of the responsibility for their actions in relation to those terms. Without delivng into the other thread and just focusing on your comment regarding a WR of an amount being unfair, because you can get lower WR elsewhere (to follow on your welsh pricing example), does not mean that this business must meet the lowest price or else, or that they don't have other opportunities on offer that supplement their busines model.

That is the beuty of the world today - it gives YOU, THE BUYER, the choice of what works for you and what doesn't: as long as the information about the offering was presented to you in an honest, non-ambiguous format, YOU get to decide where your hard earned penny is best spent. However with that choice, also likes the burden of responsibility that you made it.



key sentence in your comparison, but you kind of skimmed over it.

I must say, coming back and seeing silva's name in red shocked me. i didnt read the thread as im horribly behind on things after my prolonged leave, but fact remains that the PAB process challenges operators to JUSTIFY their decisions to an un-bias third party and the very act of justification carries some burden of necessity for responsible behaviour.

The way i see it, PAB service simply puts the fullstop on blatantly wild-west behaviour on businesses that either 1) dont care to follow their own rules, or 2) create such rules that it gives them a window to not follow at their discretion them or claim the rules were broken due to lack of clarity. As i said, simply someone forcing businesses to justify themselves or be poorly labelled is a huge positive that has been felt throught the industry - and if you need proof of that, all you need to do is look around at how hard casinos try to meet these standards.

How can anyone say that such service is "wrong", or has something wrong with it, is not within my realm of understanding. It may not offer full consumer protection, but it's definitely a step (i'd call it a long jump personally) in the right direction. And as for complete consumer protection, i'd say myself as a consumer leave it up to me to do my out-most to protect myself.

However, if I wanted to buy a particular brand of chewing gum, I would be free to shop around by going to a different town and buying it there. This is NOT the case with online casinos, as I MUST purchase at the specified store, which in terms of online casinos is my IP address/home address.

We already have cases where the terms were based on currency, not country, and some players "shopped around" by picking a currency that gave them better terms of "purchase". This was deemed invalid.

There is another comparison, iTunes. Certainly not a necessity, but a while ago iTunes had dual pricing, one in Euros and the other in UK Pounds. They tried to prevent UK customers from paying in Euros (as it was significantly cheaper). It turns out they were NOT free to do this, even though what they sold was not a necessity. They were fined by the EU, and told to stop blocking UK customers from using the Euro based service.

Whether this will be the case with online casinos where different quality deals exist between the Euro site and the UK pound site has yet to be seen. Escaping such problems would require being based outside the EU.

Given that the games and odds are uniform, there is no justification for doubling the WR for specific countries, and I would expect the EU regulators to take a similar position if called upon to make a ruling.

It is a subset of the free trade rules that mean a citizen of any one EU country can buy goods or services from any other EU country as well as their own. The intent is that consumers have as much freedom as possible to shop around for the best deal, which in turn creates competition between the various providers. Laws are introduced to make this as easy as possible, as well as to scupper any attempts by businesses to ring fence specific EU countries into a high price "rip off" trade zone as Apple tried with UK iTunes users.

These laws do not prevent businesses charging whatever price they like, but they DO prevent businesses from blocking consumers from trying to get a better deal at a different outlet operated by the same business that offers a better deal.

It is most likely to affect online casinos that ban UK players from choosing to play in Euros instead of UK Pounds. There is even a chance that customers from elsewhere in the EU will gain the right to play in UK Pounds, or any other EU state currency where the Euro has not been adopted.

Remember, operators were caught on the hop in 2006 by the US finally succeeding in their quest to drive them out. In the run up to UIGEA, the consensus was that like the attempts before, this one would fail and it would be business as usual after a year or two of "talk and no action" from the US government. They soon found out they were wrong the expensive way, and almost all of the reputable operations have long since been driven out of the US market. They are even being scared out of the Canadian market, even though Canada has not adopted the draconian approach used by the US.

To get a taste of things to come, operators should look at the data on the ASA website regarding UPHELD complaints about UK ads, which now includes ANY ad seen by a potential UK customer, not just those shown on TV and appearing in UK media. Whilst the ASA is relatively toothless at present, regulators with teeth are likely to appear in 2015. Operators could again get caught out by dismissing the consumer protection frameworks in individual countries and carrying on as they have always done.

 

[Nifty29]

Nice to see you back Igor

Don't waste your time mate. I've learned the lesson now.

You will always get a "Yes, but...",or a "However...", followed by assumptions and hyperbole about laws that not only don't apply to online casinos yet, but haven't even been formulated.

I will say one thing. If the big operators in the UK have any say, and I reckon they do, they will not be a party to regulatory micro-management of every single term they implement. If there IS a clause in the new legislation that prevents currency restriction of players, I have no doubt that operators will find alternative methods to stop such activity I.e. refusing to offer bonuses etc to such players, introduce extra conversion fees on deposits and cashouts, etc.

Personally, I cannot see how the government can force ANY business to accept a particular customer, given gambling is not an essential service.

 

[maxd]

I would hope that they have also taken the trouble to frequent major industry gathering events and consult with experienced industry mediators, and that a combination of these activities gives them an understanding of how vital a public and honest dispute channel really is to all concerned, and the positive influence it can wield if handled properly.

I appreciate your optimism and in a fair-and-blanced world such hopes might be well placed. Unfortunately I don't think that is likely to apply in the case we're discussing or other similar state-side situations.

Bryan has attented all the significant US conferences the past couple years and what I hear from him is that this current wave of US operators and regulators are new blood and are perfectly happy in their ignorance: they have no clue about internet gambling beyond the revenue streams they believe are on offer and they couldn't care less about the established i-gaming community. Outsiders aren't even in the picture never mind being offered a place at the table.

I'd like to say that I forsee them coming to their senses but unless there is significant reason -- meaning the Benjamins -- for them to do so I rather doubt it's likely to happen. Again I'd say look at Gib: from my perspective the restuctured Gib regulatory office basically gutted the building, so to speak, and started from scratch with Gib interests being the only line on the horizon that they cared to acknowledge. Since the restructure they have pretty much been a black hole as far as anyone outside of Gib is concerned and given that they've got some of the biggest and most successful casino groups in the world as their clients they seem well-placed to keep it that way.

How does that affect the players? Well (a) they are playing at some of the biggest and most successful casino groups in the world and continue to do so in droves, and (b) they're pretty much screwed if they have a problem that the casinos won't deal with. Net result? Gib seems to be doing fine and there's no reason that I've seen to expect any significant changes soon, other than possible trickle-down from legislative stuff happening in the UK.

The point is that the move to nationalised regulation is working hand-in-hand with the industry-wide conglomeration: big groups can function very well under a nation's umbrella and there are more than enough players to feed the beast. I'm not seeing the pressures that are likely to force change on that basic model, which I believe is more-or-less a glacial shift happening across the industry. If a country has the will, resources and economic muscle to stand alone in terms of casino regulation then they probably will. Those that can't manage it are, I imagine, likely to be left with the status quo that we're all familiar with.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Nice to see you back Igor

Don't waste your time mate. I've learned the lesson now.

You will always get a "Yes, but...",or a "However...", followed by assumptions and hyperbole about laws that not only don't apply to online casinos yet, but haven't even been formulated.

I will say one thing. If the big operators in the UK have any say, and I reckon they do, they will not be a party to regulatory micro-management of every single term they implement. If there IS a clause in the new legislation that prevents currency restriction of players, I have no doubt that operators will find alternative methods to stop such activity I.e. refusing to offer bonuses etc to such players, introduce extra conversion fees on deposits and cashouts, etc.

Personally, I cannot see how the government can force ANY business to accept a particular customer, given gambling is not an essential service.

Business has always done this. A regulator imposes something, big business looks for the loopholes, regulator closes loophole, big business looks for another. Just look at the merry dance we have between the big banks, insurers, etc and the regulators. However, the regulators are now pretty determined to reign in the big banks and other financial firms, and they are rapidly pursuing and closing the loopholes as they appear, and also issuing big fines and compensation orders.

If similar determination is used to police online casinos, we could see regulators actively fighting for players interests. It is most likely that players' interests will be fought for where they coincide with the interests of the UK government, most probably in matters related to accounting and taxation.

Where casinos refuse to obey the UK laws, I would expect the same enforcement model to be used as has been used against sites like Pirate Bay, making them available only to the determined player, rather than the newbie. This model has already been tested, and it is clear that the government will need to obtain court orders to block casino websites before the ISPs will implement blocks. These court orders also appear to prohibit any discussion on how to circumvent the blocks, as has been seen on the Virgin Media customers' forum where any post that mentions circumvention is swiftly removed "due to the court order".

The UK could extend the measures to implement blocks on the transactions, but as can be seen in the US, determined casinos and players can easily circumvent them.

The norm under UK laws would be to treat players that play unlicensed casinos as victims of a scam, and in need of protection by the implementation of site blocks and transaction blocking. Criminalising victims would not go down well here, and voters might resent such draconian measures.

The UKGC may well be thinking that most sites will obey the new regime, and if so, may not be considering it to be a big problem in terms of a mass refusal to obey by large numbers of operators. 2015 will probably be a year where the new measures are really running on a trial basis, so players would probably not encounter problems playing at sites deemed illegal.

How players enforce their rights remains to be seen. It could be the UKGC with a compulsory mediation scheme, or it could be down to individual players having to pursue operators through the civil court system (much as it is now, but possibly simpler due to the requirement for operators to have UK based assets and a notional UK office).

One danger for operators is that it may be officially suggested that aggrieved players first approach their banks for help, much as it is for other transactions that go wrong where payment has been made by credit card or some types of debit card. Banks tend not to deal with such matters in a manner that is understanding of the unique problems faced by this industry, and may well treat a dispute in the same way they treat a dispute over a foreign purchase that fails to live up to expectations, or fails to arrive at all. It could be a field day for fraudsters unless the potential for such problems is dealt with in advance. Unlike other services and outlets, online casinos tend to ignore their rights to put their own side when there is such a dispute, and this can mean a customer wins by default, even if they are in the wrong - the situation that currently exists in much of the world, especially the US.