The RTG Montana "60 day" rule

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
The RTG Montana Disputes claim procedure has the following "60 day" rule:

All claims must be submitted within 60 days of the date of dispute, or within 60 days of the inception of this program, whichever is later.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


This is bollocks - what can the justification be? All it does is give carte blanche to the various ripoff RTG operators still out there to jerk players around just long enough to invalidate any possible Montana investigation. There is no justification I can see, and players have apparently already fallen foul of it.

What if one of the "payment plan" RTGs decides to pull the plug on a big winner after those two months? - or after one month, followed by a month's jerking around? - he cannot technically file a complaint!

There are a million other possible scenarios.

How does RTG justify this?
 

plonnin

Dormant account
60? Playtech only gives you 30 days!

caruso said:
What if one of the "payment plan" RTGs decides to pull the plug on a big winner after those two months?
Surely the dispute starts when the last non-payment occurred, and not when the player requests his first cashout.

I agree with you though. After 2 months of "your money is coming soon, please be patient", the player has no recourse (I think that's the right word, anyway).
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
plonnin said:
Surely the dispute starts when the last non-payment occurred, and not when the player requests his first cashout.
There is no way to verify or guarantee this, because defining the start of the "dispute" could be very subjective. The player might say it began when he emailed the casino with "I'm going to file a Montana complaint"; the casino can argue it began the moment he requested his "disputed" cashout. The casinos can use this tremendously to their advantage.

The timeframe should be AT LEAST six months, but there is no reason why a legitimate complaint shouldn't be looked at at ANY future point: Casino Sweetiepie takes over Casino Fleapit and finds itself with a few debts to sort out; if Casino Sweetiepie wants a clean slate, those debts must be honoured, whoever ends up doling out the cash. There is no logical reason why casinos should be protected by a "Statute Of Limitations" style get-out clause. At least, no creditable reasons. In fact, I would guess this is why they have this rule - so that when ripoff operators take over other ripoff casinos, they can't be saddled with the previous ripoff owners' debts because more than two months have elapsed.

Playtech is 60 days same as Montana, not 30. However, I didn't know this, and it's obviously no better.
 
Top