Casino Rewards - Retroactive terms & wagering requirements

[lots0]

I have to be honest and say that I feel the behaviour of Casino Rewards, Kahnawake and eCorga have been fairly shameful in this instance.

No surprise here...
None of these are true "Regulators", they all have financial interests... and that means they will ALWAYS choose the side that best benefits their own interests.

[GamTrak]

I can't believe folks are still promoting the RA brands. I'm amazed at how they can get away with doing some of the things they have and STILL have the support of the GPWA and other organizations. Sorry to be negative, but it's exactly how I feel.

[lots0]

Robin, you and I agree on this.

No need to be sorry for being "Negative", how can anyone not be negative with all the crap that is currently going on in this business.

[Roulette Zeitung]

Yes, unfortunately you are indeed only repeating yourself. I am not surprised about this anymore as it is impossible to deny that term 15 was retroactively added and that none of the casino terms can be legally applied to carry over wagering requirements.

This thread as well as my initial posts about this situation openly displays that Casino Rewards...

• First believe that a term to stipulate the carryover of lost bonuses "does not need to be in the terms and conditions because it is similar to if you had .01 cents in bonus left on your account."
• Base decisions on assumptions.
• Decide to invent new terms and apply them retroactively.
• Claim that a "loophole" has been used when a player complains about the application of a term that never existed.
• Offer deposit bonuses but claim that no deposit was made after the purchase had been played and risked in full.
• Use a bonus system across their entire group of casinos that is contradictory with their terms & conditions.
• Refuse to fairly correct a situation when almost all posters believe that C.R. did not adhere to its own terms and that they should honor the original terms.

This brings me to the conclusion that...

• I am urged to amplify this matter and involve third parties to eventually achieve a fair solution.
• Other players will be advised to have a good gaming experience elsewhere.
• Casino Rewards, the largest network of Microgaming casinos should be avoided.

I believe that my posts in this forum display that I tried anything possible to achieve a fair solution, which unfortunately still has not happened. This forum of gpwa serves to discuss player issues as well because any honest affiliate selects their list of recommended casinos based on this information.

However, it is clear that Casino Rewards does not want to further discuss this issue as there are no terms that can be legally applied to support their claims.

The story that happened at Casinomeister years ago was entirely different and one should know the whole story, as it is being pulled out of its context. Anyone that has been in the casino business for long enough will understand that some casinos never stop trying to apply retroactive terms.

Yes, Casino Rewards credits all earned comp points and bonuses into one shared account, from where any player can chose to redeem the funds at any casino across the entire group. This is very uncommon but actually did not bother me until this matter occurred.

Hello,

in over 10 years online gaming I have learned one thing: Without distress many online casinos try to steal player winnings with partly incomprehensible loopholes. Why? Is it greed or just impudence?

No real casino would ever come to such ideas. They would lose all guests.
Look e.g. Dublin Bet. Serious as it gets. They do not need any loophole-garbage.

Between the online casino and the corresponding affiliate company, there is no difference. There is a symbiosis. So one is liable for the conduct of the other. Anybody who do not understand this, should better look for a new career field.

What bothers me the last few days: The representatives of some affiliate companies think, with barking, bickering or barley broth charm unsolved problems could be solved.

Of course you can say: What bother me the problems of the player?
Answer: Easy.
The reliability of the online casino reflects the seriousness of the affiliate company, and vice versa.

In my opinion, the public external representation of some "businessmen" leaves much to be desired.

The BBB-Principle?

Intelligent and castle webmasters and readers stay unimpressed.
The good news: No Terms & Conditions, no loophole, no bonus system that can prevent that.

Leopold

[Schankwart]

in over 10 years online gaming I have learned one thing: Without distress many online casinos try to steal player winnings with partly incomprehensible loopholes. Why? Is it greed or just impudence?

No real casino would ever come to such ideas. They would lose all guests.

Thank you for your input, Leopold. In this case it is even worse though, as Casino Rewards only created their loophole terms after I deposited and played already. Customers will be made aware of this sooner or later and draw their own conclusions.

I am currently waiting for an update from GPWA as they offered to look into the matter if Kahnawake does not properly take care of this.

[Roulette Zeitung]

I am currently waiting for an update from GPWA as they offered to look into the matter

2 months later...

Hello Schankwart,

this thread is also a case, worth a closer look.
After all what happened i see it in a different light.
And as a result i must say: "I am sorry Schankwart, what happened to you."
Do you really believe, they care about your money, about your feelings or your person?
Say no word!
Answer it for yourself in your mind.
Thoughts are free.
Nobody can censor them.
I wish you all the best for the future and i hope, this will never happen again.
Don't trust in words.
Trust only in what people are doing.
Are they willing to help without to be shrewd?
Are they independent?
Don't forget the power of money.
It's changing the character.
And most time not in a good way.

Leopold

[Viriatu]

im on the side of the player, and i do ocasionally had one or other issue with bonus abuse, i still think renee is a liable and importante figure on this brand and call me stupid i still trust her to resolve things when i have a problem with a player.

Im hoping this can get sorted, the player paid and all will get on track. Maybe im being naive....

[Roulette Zeitung]

Thank you for your input, Leopold. In this case it is even worse though, as Casino Rewards only created their loophole terms after I deposited and played already. Customers will be made aware of this sooner or later and draw their own conclusions.

I am currently waiting for an update from GPWA as they offered to look into the matter if Kahnawake does not properly take care of this.

Ladies and gentlemen,

"I am currently waiting"

147 (in words onehundretandfourtyseven) days later...

147 days!



147 days later it will be very nice if the audience will see a public update in this thread because until today some questions are open and open questions gives me many sleepless nights.

After 147 days it is not asking too much.

Kind regards

Leopold Friesen

[Anthony]

Thank you for pointing out this was still open, I was under the impression the matter was closed. There has been multiple communications between the OP and Steven. I will share some of these messages, but do to privacy issues can only share Steven's:

Steven Corfman email dated 3 June, 2013

You know that I am upfront and care deeply. I have gone to bat for you and I will always fight for what I view is fair. I have read and re-read and re-read the Terms and Conditions in their original format to understand any basis for your original interpretation and to understand if the words used may somehow not match what the site representatives has said the wording meant.

Each re-reading, I find that my natural interpretation - how I would read the plain language of the agreement - happens to match what the gaming site representatives say it meant and happens not to match what you took it to mean.

In this case, I think the gaming site's actions were consistent with a reasonable interpretation of their terms. They say that a minimum wagering requirement is created, and they don't say that hitting a zero balance waives that requirement, so when an obligation is stated and no exception to that obligation is presented, then there is not a basis for assuming that some circumstance you view is exceptional actually grants an exception.

I know one of the parts that is frustrating to you is that they put in more clear language after you pointed out to them that part of how it was written was unclear. You present it as thought it is something new, but the way I read the term is that it is simply re-stating what was already there in order to be completely sure nobody else misreads it. But it is the same thing that was essentially there originally - that you have a wagering requirement, and you can't assume there is some exception to that requirement if they don't say there is an exception. I see the subsequent clearing up of the wording as helpful and not as something negative. If a gaming site was told their terms were unclear, and knowingly kept the terms in an unclear state, I think that would be unfair behavior because of failing to fix a known issue. But when they wrote the terms, they thought it was clear to begin with and other people also thought it was clear.

To me, I don't see a part of the original agreement that made you believe there was a wagering requirement exception granted in these circumstances. If there is special language that grants that exception that you think I overlooked in my reading and re-reading of the terms, I would be receptive to hearing more about what led you to your initial interpretation since it was so much different than what I view is the natural reading of the language.

Steven Corfman email dated 4 June, 2013

I asked if there was specific wording in the agreement that you interpreted as granting an exception to the withdrawal requirements, and I didn't see that addressed in your reply. I hope if there is wording that led you to your interpretation, that you will point it out to me. One thing you asked from me is what wording I saw that made me think there were wagering requirements that needed to be met before a withdrawal could be made. The sections are 4i and 4ii, the first part says that meeting the wagering requirements is a condition for making withdrawals, and the second part notes the number of playthrough times that are needed to meet the requirement. Those sections seem to establish that a wagering requirement needs to be met before any withdrawal is made, and there doesn't seem to be any additional special language that grants an exception to that rule based on hitting a zero balance - I just did not see the language you seem to assume is there granting that special exception to the wagering requirement rule. Was there language that you view granted the exception?

Steven Corfman email dated 18 June, 2013

I have been upfront that new information would be key right from the start of our interactions on this. When I wrote to you back on June 7, 2012, I noted that "it isn't proper for me to treat the watchdog as wrong unless there is something concrete that you can demonstrate now that you weren't able to demonstrate previously."

In that same message, I also wrote that our looking at the situation any differently would need to be based on understanding different facts. Specifically, I noted I could "look at the specific facts. But it needs to be based on demonstrable evidence since I've had issues with a lack of evidence in the past when trying to help you."

Your below message basically seems to be saying you'd like help without needing to answer any questions or present any new information. At this point two watchdog organizations have received your report and decided that no further action from the casino group would be required, a third watchdog organization has refused to hear additional reports from you based on false claims you have made in the past. If you would like additional assistance based on the belief that every other watchdog group you went to was in error, then I need the additional information that you did not share with them. If they had complete information, it is right to honor their decision.

There was not a reply from the OP and Steven marked the case closed. I apologize that those updates were not reflected here.

[Roulette Zeitung]

Hello Anthony,

Thank you for pointing out this was still open, I was under the impression the matter was closed.

thank you very much for taking the time. It is most appreciated. I will read it latest on Monday, want to do it with full attention.

Thank you again!

Leopold

[joeyl]

So Schwakwart never got sorted. Ecogra said no and KGC therefore would'nt look into it. Then Schwankwart disappeared haha. Madness