Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    OddsFactor is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2014
    Location
    Sliema, Malta
    Posts
    20
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Leo Vegas Terms Affiliate fines

    For some reason decided to have a good look at the terms.

    Term
    10.4 Contractual penalty
    Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in case of Your material breach or threatened material breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement or Affiliate Programme as well as any direct violation thereof, You shall be liable to pay a penalty of fifty thousand Euro (50,000) to Us for each such individual material breach or threatened material breach of this Agreement as provided herein (hereinafter referred to as Penalty).

    My question is, is this usual in all operator terms??

    Cheers

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to OddsFactor For This Useful Post:

    Cardy007 (3 January 2019), Moonlight Cat (2 November 2017), ocreditor (2 November 2017), Romboud Casino (30 October 2017)

  3. #2
    elgoog's Avatar
    elgoog is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    December 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    789
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    519
    Thanked 292 Times in 191 Posts

    Default

    i do read the T&C once in a while yes
    never found this
    nice find :S

  4. #3
    Romboud Casino is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    September 2015
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    51
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts

    Default

    UK gambling commission is fining to get casinos in line and this is the first casino threatening affiliates with a fine. Leovegas maybe tries to prevent fines caused by bad affiliate advertising. Happened recently in the UK.

    Haven't read this one before either. Thanks for sharing!

  5. #4
    ocreditor's Avatar
    ocreditor is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,972
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    5,271
    Thanked 3,476 Times in 2,126 Posts

    Default

    I understand the need to make sure affiliates are not messing around which can lead to brand fine in the UK, but in my opinion this term is not so good and I dont think this is the way to attract affiliates, you need to work with affiliates close as they are partners, review and approve their activity etc'.. if after all that the affiliate is doing something wrong so they can terminate the agreement, no need to fine, the affiliate will lose his account and this is a big lose already

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ocreditor For This Useful Post:

    Cardy007 (3 January 2019), Moonlight Cat (2 November 2017)

  7. #5
    luckyga's Avatar
    luckyga is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    129
    Thanks
    70
    Thanked 93 Times in 64 Posts

    Default

    OOh...tough stance, although it's one thing having the fine, applying it may be a bit more tricky, especially if they succeed = goodbye lots of affiliates! I for one would not want to work under such a risk.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to luckyga For This Useful Post:

    Webzcas (2 November 2017)

  9. #6
    Webzcas's Avatar
    Webzcas is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    1,394
    Thanks
    582
    Thanked 1,016 Times in 409 Posts

    Default

    Affiliate Progams need to police their affiliates. Over the many years I have been in the industry ( Since 2000 ), the vast majority of affiliate programs have turned a blind eye to their affiliates activities. As long as it brought them players.

    I am pleased the UKGC is getting tough on programs and operators. 888 were very deserving of their record 7million plus fine for instance, concerning allowing self excluded players to sign up to other sites within their operation. As were the other operators such as BGO who felt the UKGC and ASA's wrath.

    Hopefully, when the dust settles, all the hackers, spammers, black hat, negative seo individuals etc will have left the UK space.

    However, this term by Leo Vegas is a joke quite frankly and I doubt if they tried to take such action against an affiliate it would have as much chance in the courts as Gibraltar winning the Football World Cup.
    Exit stage left

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Webzcas For This Useful Post:

    ocreditor (2 November 2017)

  11. #7
    colin3005 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2015
    Posts
    212
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 191 Times in 96 Posts

    Default

    Don't forget about this term too

    You shall permit LeoVegas (or a person on LeoVegas’ behalf) to audit Your books, records, systems, data, marketing communication consents and other materials to ensure compliance with this Agreement.
    yep, like you have any chance of that.....

  12. #8
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,680
    Thanks
    1,999
    Thanked 2,375 Times in 1,272 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Webzcas View Post

    However, this term by Leo Vegas is a joke quite frankly and I doubt if they tried to take such action against an affiliate it would have as much chance in the courts as Gibraltar winning the Football World Cup.
    They will just deduct it from your commission I guess. That's not something that is legally correct of course, but if you want to do something against it, you should take action against them.

    I appreciate that programs are trying to control their affiliates, but this kind of clauses I do not.



  13. #9
    WagerX's Avatar
    WagerX is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Posts
    2,253
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 88 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Romboud Casino View Post
    UK gambling commission is fining to get casinos in line and this is the first casino threatening affiliates with a fine. Leovegas maybe tries to prevent fines caused by bad affiliate advertising. Happened recently in the UK.

    Haven't read this one before either. Thanks for sharing!
    So, using the wrong advertising materials is considered "threatened material breach "??
    Kind of severe considering they have very limited control over what thrid party sites publish.

  14. #10
    wonderpunter's Avatar
    wonderpunter is online now Private Member
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Posts
    2,253
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 1,582 Times in 936 Posts

    Default

    They suspended my account, never ever received an email from them so I used their system as neither aff manager i have contact works there any more. In the meantime I see their competition converting well on their traffic

  15. #11
    555's Avatar
    555
    555 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    October 2015
    Location
    Online
    Posts
    96
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 54 Times in 29 Posts

    Default

    No comments from any representative?

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to 555 For This Useful Post:

    -Shay- (1 December 2017)

  17. #12
    salis010 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    November 2018
    Posts
    18
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts

    Default

    €50,000 fine? I question the lawfulness of that. Its not that if both parties agree on contract to an unfair condition it means that no court can over-rule it.

  18. #13
    Triple7 is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2015
    Posts
    2,680
    Thanks
    1,999
    Thanked 2,375 Times in 1,272 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by salis010 View Post
    €50,000 fine? I question the lawfulness of that. Its not that if both parties agree on contract to an unfair condition it means that no court can over-rule it.

    Basically, it's unlawful, because they have to go to court to be able to collect this fine. I guess they will deduct it from your commission, which means you have to take them to court to fight against that.

    Dirty term of Leo Vegas.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Triple7 For This Useful Post:

    salis010 (6 December 2018)

  20. #14
    Cardy007's Avatar
    Cardy007 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    October 2018
    Posts
    117
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts

    Default

    Its a bit concerning to me to see Leo try use this type of wording on affiliates.

    Wouldnt it be better to help check all content is above board?

  21. #15
    ocreditor's Avatar
    ocreditor is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    4,972
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    5,271
    Thanked 3,476 Times in 2,126 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardy007 View Post
    Its a bit concerning to me to see Leo try use this type of wording on affiliates.

    Wouldnt it be better to help check all content is above board?
    Indeed.. but I find it hard to believe that it'll be enforced so easily or immidiatly or automatically whatever, before that they'll most probably ask to update/change the lake of compliance..

  22. #16
    Ace-Ten's Avatar
    Ace-Ten is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    i believe it will be added to many more. Its a direct response to their fine. If Leo are fined for affiliate breaches they can recoup some of the cost. At least theoretically. not sure how they would enforce this though. Through maltese courts???

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •