Why Doesnt E-Cogra offer player's insurance?

[Casinomeister]

Something is unexplained here: it isn't just Ecogra who've pulled all reference to PriceWaterhouseCooper - it's EVERY online gambling site out there. They all now say "independent auditors" in place of "PWC"....

Actually, I think this was done a couple of years ago. In February 2004, I received this email from Brightshare's affiliate manager:

Hi Bryan,

I would like to draw your attention to an urgent matter. Please be advised that PriceWaterhouseCoopers has instructed all Microgaming casinos as follows:

1. It is not permissible to use the PwC logo and/or brand name in any e-mails whatsoever. This includes third party advertising.

2. It is not permissible to use PwC's name for any feature on any third party site.

Should you have any mention of PwC on your sites, please remove them asap. If you would like to refer to the casinos you are marketing as being audited, please refer to PwC as 'one of the largest professional business service providers in the world'.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Lloyd Apter
BrightShare Network

So we are probably looking at something that is associated with permissible uses of trademarks etc., instead of PWC going "underground".

 

[Webzcas]

Yep, this is correct. Ladbrokes were also asked to remove the PWC Logo and now have on their casino site: Payout Reviews by Independant Auditors

That said the payouts still get audited by PWC. Well they did back in July anyhow.

 

[Petunia]

** PWC still does the auditing for the MGS casinos etc. I think, personally, Bryan has hit it on the nail with the whole "use of trademark" statement. I also think the reason for that, is because PWC does not have time to argue with the likes of SOME players, questioning their integrity or complaining about the online casinos being fraudulent, and then taking the 'flaming' from the likes of these same players.
How many threads has started with "PWC is paid off by MGS" or something similar. How many individuals wrote to them and accused them of being paid off. Over the years, I guess it added up. PWC, as far as I am concerned, does not have time to deal with each and every player's request to see information, or to deal with the acusations. THAT is not why they are there.
Or maybe, they just don't want to be publically associated with the online gambling industry.
All in all, it does not matter. IF it was not PWC, but another accounting firm, the same accusations, the same flaming, the same doubt would have been casted upon them. THAT, unfortuanately is the nature of the industry.
I can tell you though, I have worked with an online company AAAAGES ago. (1999) and had to sit through and audit by PWC. These guys in their grey suites were all over the bloody place, poking their noses in everywhere! Even the marketing companies had to show precise information... that was then. This is now. I don't know how things work now.. but I do know that back then, it was a frigging nightmare when those dudes floated around for a whole week! **

 

[caruso]

OK, I'm behind the times - I thought it was a recent removal.

Yes, like I said above, even without Bryan's pasted email this was clearly a PWC directive - but why the secrecy? In the first place, why was the Brightshare fella not told WHY this directive had been sent his way, and in the second, if the business relationship between PWC and online gambling sites is ongoing, WHY conceal it? - you don't have to dig beyond even a couple of clicks on the sites to find the PWC-stamped reports. It's not been definitively covered up, it's simply been removed from the home pages.

Effectively, PWC want to remain associated with online gambling, but apparently prefer the matter to be publically unstated.

Quite the little mystery. If trademark use was permissable for five years (or however many), why is it no longer? And since it's THEY doing the work, what in the world is wrong with stating the fact? I'm not convinced by the trademark usage argument.

I emailed PWC on the matter yesterday, but my guess is they will not be clamouring to get a reply my way any time soon. If I'm wrong, I'll report the facts immediately.

 

[spearmaster]

Actually, this dates back to 2002, though in the case of eCOGRA it's probably more recent.

 

[suzecat]

I think PWC (among others) took the stance as a result of the Enron mess and the resulting indictment of their auditor, Arthur Andersen Co. As unpopular as online gambling is with the US government, I would think that any smart accounting firm would take the steps to cloak certain of their client base. Does anyone know, if pressed, would a casino group name their actual auditor?

 

[Petunia]

** They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't.
"I emailed PWC on the matter yesterday, but my guess is they will not be clamouring to get a reply my way any time soon. If I'm wrong, I'll report the facts immediately." - MY POINT MADE.
Suze - Truth be told, it is not all as hidden as it is made out to be. I know that some casinos actually shows a 'digital' certificate stating some of the audited figures online. ON that certificate, it shows PWC clearly. For instance.
Colosseum Casino - if you go to their "News" bar, and then, from there, "Pay-outs", select a period in time, and whallah!
If you go to Riverbelle too, they have the same - a digital certificate that states PWC on it. Sooooooo - not all such a big mystery really! **

 

[caruso]

They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't.

Actually, assuming that this is for the purposes of concealing the relationship whilst maintaining it, then yes, they are pretty much thus "damned". They need simply respond to my email, stating that this is not the case, and that the reason for the required removal is XYZ, to clear it up. Assuming they do not, we'll have to assume as above - and then yes, they will be "damned", because it won't be a savoury situation. Coverups are never savoury. If I ask you a question and you duck / avoid it, you are hiding something.

If you go to Riverbelle too, they have the same - a digital certificate that states PWC on it. Sooooooo - not all such a big mystery really!

I already pointed this out.

you don't have to dig beyond even a couple of clicks on the sites to find the PWC-stamped reports. It's not been definitively covered up, it's simply been removed from the home pages.

For me this makes the whole point. The removal is from the FRONT pages and any text reference. The reports are images, not text, and cannot be altered. Anything alterable has been altered - see the old Ecogra page:

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

...compared with the new one:

Old / Expired Link

Since the relationship is ongoing, WHY conceal it? And again, I don't find the trademark usage argument convincing, as I can see no valid reason to conceal this documented, ongoing, legal relationship.

 

[Petunia]

**Caruso, you are making a lot of assumptions, based on your own perception and judgements.
Are they wrong? I don't know. Are they right. I don't know. What I DO know is that every major company in every major industry, does not get so much flack for "publishing or not publishing" their accounting firms details.
What does it matter anyway? Would it make you feel any better? Would you have a different opinion on the casino or the accounting firm?
Everything is not a conspiracy, and certainly, as far as I am concerned, everything is a choice.
Whatever the reasons PWC have/had for wanting their logo's etc removed from casino sites, is truly a choice THEY make. However, it does not indicate (as far as I am concerned) that there is anything 'thuggish' going on.
Besides, this is completely off topic -- none the less interesting though.

PWC would not be the only company with restrictions of this nature on the usage of their logos etc at the casinos or their websites.
DID YOU KNOW - for instance - that the Red Cross would NOT allow any casino website display their logo, OR in any way or form condone statements such as "XYZ WOrking with the Red-Cross..." Although, they would gladly accept help from the industry. Again, I don't see anything wrong with this, and again, it is their choice.

Maybe I'm one of those pple who believes "Don't scratch where there is no itch" **

 

[amandajm]

Gamblers have no one to go to legally when things go wrong. No statutory rights atall, unlike with other products. Especially with online gaming. Hopefully Ibas will rule on online gaming disputes sooner rather than later.

That is why PWC will get asked questions about game fairness etc. PWC are bound by legal laws, they verify the payouts are correct, so there is the angle.

If PWC don't want to answer to the public and their topically related, fair questions, then they should'nt get involved in the first place I guess.