You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
.... as I was saying earlier, and kept getting shot down with "players must read the term and conditions.......", and ideas that the concept of unfairness was not a legal "thing", and that if the terms are broken, there is nothing that the player can do but learn a lesson the hard way.
Now of course, players who have suffered a loss of winnings that they feel was the result of a genuine "honest mistake", complex terms that would require a law degree to understand, or even outright misleading marketing where the terms are designed to render the advert a lie, need to give this enquiry their cases to look at.
Casinos need to really look at their terms, and compare them with UK law, and where they fall short, make changes now, not after any sh1t hits the fan post inquiry.
There are may cases where the terms are a mess, the result of too much "cut & paste" from other sites as opposed to properly thought out and well written bespoke terms for that one site and they way it does promotions.
There may be value in third party representation, but I expect they really want to hear from the players affected by losing winnings they expected to receive, rather than third parties suggesting hypothetical situations that may result from a messy or predatory set of terms.
Now of course, players who have suffered a loss of winnings that they feel was the result of a genuine "honest mistake", complex terms that would require a law degree to understand, or even outright misleading marketing where the terms are designed to render the advert a lie, need to give this enquiry their cases to look at.
Casinos need to really look at their terms, and compare them with UK law, and where they fall short, make changes now, not after any sh1t hits the fan post inquiry.
There are may cases where the terms are a mess, the result of too much "cut & paste" from other sites as opposed to properly thought out and well written bespoke terms for that one site and they way it does promotions.
There may be value in third party representation, but I expect they really want to hear from the players affected by losing winnings they expected to receive, rather than third parties suggesting hypothetical situations that may result from a messy or predatory set of terms.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2015
- Location
- Kent
All well and good reading the T&C's, except as we know, the casino operator can easily change the T&C's without informing the players and unless you have a printed dated version of the T&C's, once changed on the website the original version simply disappears!
I had an experience with Cosmik Casino and their 'irregular bets' scenario and wagers exceeding 30% of the last deposited amount. They simply stated that 'single bets' must not exceed 30% of the deposit. I done a boo boo after a nice winning spell and increased my bets on the slots to a total equivalent of about 35% of last deposit. All my winnings were confiscated (even the few £100 won prior to upping my stake). I argued that the 'single bet' stake is the amount wagered per line, basically because I had a win of 200x stake per line (as in a single bet). They argued that they deem a single bet to be the total wagered per spin, even though any win is based on each single line, not on the total amount wagered. Afterall, how can a single bit be made up of multiple bets?!?!? Likewise if you played 5 hands of BJ at once instead of 5 lines on a slot, they deemed the single bet to be made up of multiple individual bets each with their own payout and still confiscated winnings! If you have the option to bet on 1 line or 9 lines, then surely any single bet value is based on each line selected? Yes, I am being petty over this point, but I still see it as a valid point and they still accepted my bet knowing full well they will not pay out on it based on such a shitty and stupid rule ....
Once it was demonstrated to them that a single bet (per their own T&C's description) cannot be made up of multiple bets each with their own payout, they then changed the wording of their T&C's and still confiscated my winnings after they accepted my argument and the ambiguity of their T&C's being open to different interpretation.
Am I still bitter after 4 years or so have passed? Hell yes!
I think T&C should only be created if there is no other practicable solution to the problem.
For example; a T&C with a max bet restriction. Is there another solution? (Video Slots...)
Let's say if the casino can't afford the programming to implement an automatic max bet system.
OK, then they should open their account books to an independent third party and prove they can't afford it. (This is actually how it works in other areas such as wheel chair access. If small businesses cannot afford wheel chair acces, that's fine, but they have to prove it.)
If casinos can prove it, a question arises; if they are allowed that T&C will it cause more problems than it's worth?
I think there is a strong argument to think yes.
For example; a T&C with a max bet restriction. Is there another solution? (Video Slots...)
Let's say if the casino can't afford the programming to implement an automatic max bet system.
OK, then they should open their account books to an independent third party and prove they can't afford it. (This is actually how it works in other areas such as wheel chair access. If small businesses cannot afford wheel chair acces, that's fine, but they have to prove it.)
If casinos can prove it, a question arises; if they are allowed that T&C will it cause more problems than it's worth?
I think there is a strong argument to think yes.
I have no real issue with any casino putting as many restrictions onto bonuses as they like, but make them...
A) Readable
B) Logical
C) All on one page of the casino website, not tucked away neatly and across 3 pages
It's good to see them going after stuff like this though, the next thing they want to look at is the likes of those Playtech progressives being held onto by companies depsite the money being funded centrally. That is still disgustingly allowed at some places.
A) Readable
B) Logical
C) All on one page of the casino website, not tucked away neatly and across 3 pages
It's good to see them going after stuff like this though, the next thing they want to look at is the likes of those Playtech progressives being held onto by companies depsite the money being funded centrally. That is still disgustingly allowed at some places.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
Casinomeister - are you going to submit something to the CMA?
It seems to me that you have lots of evidence that is relevant both to the bad things in Ts & Cs - terrible things like reverse withdrawals, non payment of jackpots due to withdrawal limits...all written up already.
You also have evidence that firms face scammers, professional bookies working without a licence, paying no levy or tax and that banned people come back with fake ID even after breaking Ts & Cs or for bonus abuse. Shoot they should hire you for a week or two!
It seems to me that you have lots of evidence that is relevant both to the bad things in Ts & Cs - terrible things like reverse withdrawals, non payment of jackpots due to withdrawal limits...all written up already.
You also have evidence that firms face scammers, professional bookies working without a licence, paying no levy or tax and that banned people come back with fake ID even after breaking Ts & Cs or for bonus abuse. Shoot they should hire you for a week or two!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
One point they should look at is that whatever the terms, they take the bet and resolve it, crediting the players' account so that they carry on betting without having been notified of the breach. They should decide whether to deem acceptance of an invalid bet an agreed variation of the terms, and that once accepted and resolved, the bet becomes legally binding even if the policy of the operator is to not accept such bets. This is how things work in other areas. One example is where a store gets it's pricing wrong, and their cashier still accepts the lower payment for the item and the customer leaves the store. Even though it's not the correct price, once the transaction is completed the store cannot recall it by demanding the customer return the item for a refund and repurchase at the correct price.
In a land setting, a contract is formed when both parties accept the bet, and there is no option for either party to legitimately and unilaterally change their mind after the bet as been resolved (except in cases of fraud). Online casinos operate differently, they can reverse a bet days, even weeks later, simply by taking the money back from the players' account.
If this interpretation is accepted, it will force online operators to use software enforcement of any variations of the built in default limits due to specific terms and conditions.
In a land setting, a contract is formed when both parties accept the bet, and there is no option for either party to legitimately and unilaterally change their mind after the bet as been resolved (except in cases of fraud). Online casinos operate differently, they can reverse a bet days, even weeks later, simply by taking the money back from the players' account.
If this interpretation is accepted, it will force online operators to use software enforcement of any variations of the built in default limits due to specific terms and conditions.
slotter999
Dormant account
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Location
- UK
I'm very cynical that this will amount to much.
Personally, I would recommend something very radical which is any bonus offer must come with absolutely no strings. In one simple move the problem would be resolved and the industry would have to innovate and I imagine move towards systems like those at videoslots to build customer loyalty.
Personally, I would recommend something very radical which is any bonus offer must come with absolutely no strings. In one simple move the problem would be resolved and the industry would have to innovate and I imagine move towards systems like those at videoslots to build customer loyalty.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
"very radical" could restrict competition and reduce value for punters.
This seems to be driven by the restriction moaners rather than the Ts & Cs legitimate issues. Fortunately I think the Competition Authority can get that the narrower margins on horseracing and the abuse by scamers trading like bookies and bonus abusing is not the same as punters and terms and conditions abuse with evil things like reverse withdrawals.
This seems to be driven by the restriction moaners rather than the Ts & Cs legitimate issues. Fortunately I think the Competition Authority can get that the narrower margins on horseracing and the abuse by scamers trading like bookies and bonus abusing is not the same as punters and terms and conditions abuse with evil things like reverse withdrawals.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It should ensure that casinos can no longer rely on protecting their "too good to be true" headline offers with complex and hard to understand terms and conditions. The result of a tightening up of what can be used fairly in terms of offer terms may well be that the headline offers will be more representative of their true value, which at face value will make them look much worse. Instead of being able to offer a 200% bonus for the first deposit, but protected with a raft of game exclusions, game specific variations of terms, max bet, min bet, etc; casinos may offer a 50% straight up "slots only" bonus where ALL slot games are equally treated and allowed, and you can bet as much or as little as the software interface allows.
Other things that should be looked at is onerous requirements for withdrawals, such as "post a notarised copy of your passport to the Philippines/Gibraltar, etc", or "if you don't drive, tough, there is no alternative means for you to be verified unless you spend £100 plus the cost of taking a day off and travel to a personal interview in the nearest big city on a passport you don't need, and then wait 6 weeks for it to arrive".
They may also look at whether it is fair to deliberately stall withdrawals via a "pending period" which by design exists solely to pad out what can be an instant process in this age of electronic banking into one taking several days.
Other things that should be looked at is onerous requirements for withdrawals, such as "post a notarised copy of your passport to the Philippines/Gibraltar, etc", or "if you don't drive, tough, there is no alternative means for you to be verified unless you spend £100 plus the cost of taking a day off and travel to a personal interview in the nearest big city on a passport you don't need, and then wait 6 weeks for it to arrive".
They may also look at whether it is fair to deliberately stall withdrawals via a "pending period" which by design exists solely to pad out what can be an instant process in this age of electronic banking into one taking several days.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2008
- Location
- Bangor North Wales UK
Online gambling firms to be probed by the CMA in the UK...Finally
Good. I had to take a casino to court last year because of some obscure term which meant they denied my winnings. Luckily for me, they were registered in the UK. All this 48 hour pending crap has to stop.
Good. I had to take a casino to court last year because of some obscure term which meant they denied my winnings. Luckily for me, they were registered in the UK. All this 48 hour pending crap has to stop.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
The CMA is a pretty professional bunch with a lot of clout.
This enquiry they are planning is being very widely reported in the UK media, and I believe this is the mainstream media opportunity many have been waiting for to shine a really bright spotlight on the antics of some of the less integrity driven operators.
I see indications here as well that the UK Gambling Commission is on the case, and will be collaborating with the CMA.
We could see a fairer attitude developing, if only in the UK.
There's an interesting poll being conducted at present by the Mirror here which is indicating that a significant number of gamblers have had unjustified withdrawal problems in the past:
This enquiry they are planning is being very widely reported in the UK media, and I believe this is the mainstream media opportunity many have been waiting for to shine a really bright spotlight on the antics of some of the less integrity driven operators.
I see indications here as well that the UK Gambling Commission is on the case, and will be collaborating with the CMA.
We could see a fairer attitude developing, if only in the UK.
There's an interesting poll being conducted at present by the Mirror here which is indicating that a significant number of gamblers have had unjustified withdrawal problems in the past:
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
I second that!
The withholding of full payment on Playtech progressives is absolutely outrageous imo.
There's already a thread about this: https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...nvestigate-fairness-in-online-gambling.75826/
I looked at both articles and they were both about the same topic.
I looked at both articles and they were both about the same topic.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
This is excellent news. So good in fact I made it a topic for my latest video blog.
Last edited by a moderator:
Happy to hear it, but after I read both articles there is no indication about the 48hr pending period changing. It is just an inquiry about bonus terms. I don't see pending time changing because of this. They might change because of the competition offering instant withdrawals. Although competition has very low max bet, so rich people can only play at 48hr pending casinos.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Just a quick note to say I have merged both threads.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Location
- England
100% this
Right now the casinos will take your deposit instantly . They barely bother checking ID . Once they have your money they let you do what you want . Why ? Because it's just a number on the screen "Balance : XXX" Only when you try to convert that number into actual funds do they start investigating whether or not they are willing to pay out. By law they now have the problem gambling measures such as reality check and setting loss limits . So , if they can do that why can't they have automatic bet limits / game restrictions . At the very least have a "Bonus Games" tab which contains only games you are allowed to play whilst using bonus funds (stanjames , casinoroom both do this) and then before a game loads have a popup saying "Warning £5 max bet "
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Location
- England
If anyone wants to make their opinions known, this page has all the information and a contact email address:
Personally, I think it's a good opportunity to spell out just how much promotions now trap players.
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Personally, I think it's a good opportunity to spell out just how much promotions now trap players.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
The bottom line here is the huge discrepancy between the abilities, will and capabilities of the UKGC and the reality of the industry. 
You don't have to be a bloody lawyer to understand the basic tenets of consumers laws and statutory rights of customers in the UK - after all the 'barrack room lawyers' primarily myself and Vinyl have called this right and predicted it for a while now.
I understand there will be a learning curve when a relatively new QUANGO like the UKGC is created to oversee a big industry like this one, but they have fallen well short of the mark because they could have prevented most of the issues today with a few tiny amendments to their terms, and clarifying others.
If the press and MP's etc. are getting involved, it simply exposes the UKGC's lack of capability and fitness for purpose. Despite being aware of the EMSEB and other issues they can't even add a line making licensees be honest with their sign-ups. This suggests they are entirely incompetent or simply that they are more interested in the casinos' opinions and revenues rather than the consumer.
As I said before I have a detailed complaint with the UKGC at the moment so this couldn't have come at a better time for it. EMSEB is part of it, along with terms which allowed (or weren't specific enough to prevent) actions like those of 32red back at Easter (TAB/SE). I have also suggested that for RG reasons all withdrawals are final irrespective of processing times and if not it is prohibited to offer incentives/bonuses to reverse.
Can I assume that Max/Bryan's enquiries into the EMSEB CCJ have yet to be answered?
You don't have to be a bloody lawyer to understand the basic tenets of consumers laws and statutory rights of customers in the UK - after all the 'barrack room lawyers' primarily myself and Vinyl have called this right and predicted it for a while now.
I understand there will be a learning curve when a relatively new QUANGO like the UKGC is created to oversee a big industry like this one, but they have fallen well short of the mark because they could have prevented most of the issues today with a few tiny amendments to their terms, and clarifying others.
If the press and MP's etc. are getting involved, it simply exposes the UKGC's lack of capability and fitness for purpose. Despite being aware of the EMSEB and other issues they can't even add a line making licensees be honest with their sign-ups. This suggests they are entirely incompetent or simply that they are more interested in the casinos' opinions and revenues rather than the consumer.
As I said before I have a detailed complaint with the UKGC at the moment so this couldn't have come at a better time for it. EMSEB is part of it, along with terms which allowed (or weren't specific enough to prevent) actions like those of 32red back at Easter (TAB/SE). I have also suggested that for RG reasons all withdrawals are final irrespective of processing times and if not it is prohibited to offer incentives/bonuses to reverse.
Can I assume that Max/Bryan's enquiries into the EMSEB CCJ have yet to be answered?
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Location
- United Kingdom
It looks like the UKGC are the ones to start this by referring a bunch of issues to the CMA. This may be an indication that the UKGC were out of their depth, and knew it, but didn't want this to become public knowledge. This might be why it looks like they have spent the best part of a year dithering and sitting on their arses whilst things like EMSEB made a mockery of fairness to the consumer and the RG it was supposed to be policing.
The UKGC will also have had information passed to them by the various ADRs, which would have shown them how the regulations were working in practice. They may even have been given details of court cases between players and operators, and the outcomes.
The UKGC will also have had information passed to them by the various ADRs, which would have shown them how the regulations were working in practice. They may even have been given details of court cases between players and operators, and the outcomes.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
The bottom line here is the huge discrepancy between the abilities, will and capabilities of the UKGC and the reality of the industry.
You don't have to be a bloody lawyer to understand the basic tenets of consumers laws and statutory rights of customers in the UK - after all the 'barrack room lawyers' primarily myself and Vinyl have called this right and predicted it for a while now.
I understand there will be a learning curve when a relatively new QUANGO like the UKGC is created to oversee a big industry like this one, but they have fallen well short of the mark because they could have prevented most of the issues today with a few tiny amendments to their terms, and clarifying others.
If the press and MP's etc. are getting involved, it simply exposes the UKGC's lack of capability and fitness for purpose. Despite being aware of the EMSEB and other issues they can't even add a line making licensees be honest with their sign-ups. This suggests they are entirely incompetent or simply that they are more interested in the casinos' opinions and revenues rather than the consumer.
As I said before I have a detailed complaint with the UKGC at the moment so this couldn't have come at a better time for it. EMSEB is part of it, along with terms which allowed (or weren't specific enough to prevent) actions like those of 32red back at Easter (TAB/SE). I have also suggested that for RG reasons all withdrawals are final irrespective of processing times and if not it is prohibited to offer incentives/bonuses to reverse.
Can I assume that Max/Bryan's enquiries into the EMSEB CCJ have yet to be answered?
After years of banging on to the UKGC about all sorts of things from self exclusion to poker (news soon) to ts and cs to reverse withdrawals... I share some of your frustrations but please remember that it really is not that long ago that the UKGC did not regulate online gambling at all, it was all offshore.
Even when it did kick in (Nov 2014) they faced a huge workload of registrations and verification of the firms & reporting, plus all the other distractions like the faux FOBT row and the stupid gibraltar court cases, also they got no new money until Nov 2014 and the new fees, their increase in budget was only about £1.5m which is a tiny fraction of what the Californian regulator said they would need for just 3/4 oline poker sites. Meanwhile they lost a whole load of staff to the industry who were now grapling with the UK rules.
UKGC had loads of new work, FEWER staff, they LOST experience of both online and technology, they got a little extra money but only after the work had started and when they had already lost key staff incuding the CEO giving notice and being replaced a year ago by someone with NO gambling experience. Meanwhile we have had 3 or 4 different culture ministers and the current gambling minister who works for the culture secretary had maternity leave this year.
Frankly this CMA thing, their work with the ASA and the new stuff coming on poker plus the progress on self exclusion and annual statements is quite impressive for a quango mired in government bureaucracy and politics.
IMO the more information the probe is given, the better.
It will help to illustrate the magnitude and gravity of this issue - especially from the player/consumer perspective.
slotter999
Dormant account
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Location
- UK
I suppose what you may perceive as value, I perceive as a great swindle.
If bonuses did not ultimately favour the gambling companies I don't believe they would exist.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
The current bonuses don't really offer value but they once did and can still. You are of course right that promotions should end up being good for the individual firm doing it. The odd cock up not withstanding (which would include Cheltenham this year BTW and likely best odds guaranteed) they should be designed to work for that ONE firm. The trouble for them is that they are really supposed to be about competition in a crowded field where if we are honest the product itself is fairly undiferentiated, or even the exact same product available from someone else. Bonuses were often the way price competition between sites happened. Firms offering cheaper do so for their benefit but the competition between firms delivers value.
Competition should force sites to offer value or lose custom, hence why the Competition and Market Authority is looking at them - are they real compettion or just misleading/confusion marketing? "very radical" might mean ban or further restrict competition on price by sites, not good IMHO.
Meanwhile, many bonuses are actually handcuffs and harmful a travesty of confusion marketing and unethical practice.
- Joined
- May 22, 2012
Bottom line is, the UKGC has existed for nearly a decade, and has deemed it fit to mess around with autoplay settings (a pointless non-RG exercise) and yet allows in its terms woolly SE/TAB conditions, reversible withdrawals (anti-RG) and can't even add 20 words to the SE rules regarding disclosure and fairness.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
Bottom line is, the UKGC has existed for nearly a decade, and has deemed it fit to mess around with autoplay settings (a pointless non-RG exercise) and yet allows in its terms woolly SE/TAB conditions, reversible withdrawals (anti-RG) and can't even add 20 words to the SE rules regarding disclosure and fairness.
Bottom line is that for most of the near decade of operation the UKGC regulated nothing online as the bookies and casinos went offshore for softer regulation where they chose the regulator. Gibraltar obliged, Malta obliged.......
Finally they got to licence them, after a court battle and a delay, then they introduced improved SE, new LCCP codes, we have a new Remote Technical standards consult coming v.soon too. They cooperate with the ASA & start clamping down on adverts. They start dishing out serious financial penalties/settlements on firms for ignoring money laundering and resp gambl rules. Then greater clarity on player fund protections. Now they get the CMA and their powers to deal with the Ts & Cs with the laws that CMA control. With the fine powers - and fine record that can defend against a juduial review ruling against them. Remember the firms are happy to keep taking the UKGC to court, in the UK, then in the EU..so the UKGC is vulnerable in court if it's punishment is deemed too harsh or unprecedented by the judges in a review....after all the CMA fines come in the tens of millions and potentially hundreds of millions.
The CMA also has investigatory powers to interview anyone from the firms they ask for, to enter business premises without a warrant to do do stuff,including copying docs, taking equipment...they also have clear powers to obtain warrants and impose fines. In contrast the UKGC is basically a semi independent part of the Ministy of Culture, they get to decide to prosecute or not on some very limited offences in the 2005 Gambling Act but they don't have the legal or investigatory resources for a major operation...instead they have got the CMA to spend some serious investigatory dosh..nor do the UKGC get to impose fines, they can only agree financial settlements and if you read the lessons learnt reports on those penalties you can see how the penalties AGREED are detailed to the pound, including the odd £30k for "investigation". This one will be costing a lot more than that, money the UKGC don't have.
The CMA powers and stuff are in this doc
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
The progress made by the UKGC in the under two years they have actually got to regulate online is not anywhere near all I've asked for or you want but it has been a damn site more than any other regulator.
Then your auto-play moan. It was a rule written when they did not regulate online, they doubled the max autoplay immediately and may be revisiting it soon. Personally I am suspicious of auto play esp re resp gamb. I will also add that on auto top up for poker (keeping your cash stack at a full buy-in and auto rebuy in rebuy tournaments) they moved within days when asked to permit it even though their old LCCP rules listed it explicitly as an example of the type of automation banned. When exlained to them they found the wiggle room to dump the restriction, saving sites additional development costs and players grief.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Location
- Belfast (Northern Ireland)
I'm just of a new site were I needed a law degree to understand the terms. I didn't bother opening an account because of it, however, I am finding that if it's too complex I won't.
We need more clear concise to the point terms. 32Red is a prime example of were it's done right.
We need more clear concise to the point terms. 32Red is a prime example of were it's done right.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Location
- UK
If and when you send something to the CMA this is the automated email response you will receive:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Location
- london
heres my favourite
Unbelivable
third deposit bonus-YOU CANNOT WITHDRAW MORE THAN YOUR DEPOSIT!!!
Unbelivable
third deposit bonus-YOU CANNOT WITHDRAW MORE THAN YOUR DEPOSIT!!!
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2016
- Location
- uk
Wheres that at? I will wind live chat up later when i am bored lol
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2016
- Location
- london
spinprincess
Similar threads
