UKGC/CMA

[G1000]

Hi all,

Obviously the UKGC/CMA have implemented a lot of new rules regarding bonuses and unfair terms and conditions on account of the possible breaking of consumer protection legislation. I have noticed a lot of casinos have now removed the max bet clause and that it is now only applicable to the bonus amount being confiscated not the entire balance. Given this shift do you think ADR’s would be more on the side of the consumer? Also what are the chances of people reopening cases where this confiscation was previously implemented?

Thoughts?

 

[Casinomeister]

I think that ADRs will side on what is right. There are only a few that the UKGC is allowing UK players to be referred to - eCOGRA, IBAS are two. Thepogg has pulled out, and we have retracted our application. Reopening cases? I don't think this will happen - but who knows? I've seen stranger things happen in the industry.

 

[slotter999]

Re: reopening cases. I've considered this myself.

I suspect it would have to go to a court of law as opposed to any ADR in order to be resolved.

But given the CMA have made some fairly broad conclusions I wonder if there is a PPI type scenario brewing away here in regards to retrospective action. It wouldn't be very difficult for the courts or the regulators to force the casinos to hand over all details of confiscated winnings. But it would probably be very difficult to get the regulators to do that. But not impossible.

I wonder what the total confiscated figure is. Quite high I imagine. The casinos must be preying this one blows over which I hope it doesn't.

 

[maxd]

... Given this shift do you think ADR’s would be more on the side of the consumer?

Flesh out that scenario a little for us. What kind of "shift"? And why exactly would that happen?

My perspective on this is that ADRs will basically do what they are told by the UKGC. If it's not a rule it ain't gonna happen. So ... what exactly are you thinking would shift the ADRs to take a more "pro player" position in general? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely trying to understand your thinking here.

 

[G1000]

Well I’m just thinking whether ADRs would now need to take into account the consumer protect act on disputes. Unless I have misunderstood something here.

The fact that they’ve all started to amend their terms and conditions now is all a bit too little too late. As far as I understand it (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the new guidance was issued in response to not totally fulfilling the requirements of the consumer protection act. Therefore if that act has not been followed, then surely that leaves the door open to cases being reopened prior to these changes on the grounds of the implementation of the consumer protection act.

Again I’m no expert in this but was just curious as to what people thought.

 

[maxd]

Hmm, I think I see what you are driving at but I'd bet against the ADRs involving themselves in any self-driven interpretation of the CPA. As I'd said previously, the ADRs will follow the UKGC's rules. (Usually) nothing less and (almost never) nothing more.

I've known cases where ADRs were smacked down by the UKGC for taking the initiative to look into cases any deeper than the UKGC remit specifically gave them leave to. My guess is that that lesson was not lost on the other ADRs and they'll be unlikely to get "creative" in the future. Not that most of them ever would have anyway but I think you get my point.

If it's in the UKGC rulebook then you can expect the ADRs to act accordingly. If it's not in the rulebook then it's probably not even on the table as a possibility.