Casino Rewards - Retroactive terms & wagering requirements

[Schankwart]

Just to keep facts straight:

Term 14. and 15. were added retroactively and there was no indication of this anywhere in the terms or software before the change.


I am glad to at least be aware that your company does not welcome me as a customer anymore. However, this does not give you reason to claim that I was looking for a "loophole" when I simply played according to the terms of your casino!

Of course you will also not find this new term (15.) at any other group, as wagering requirements are always cleared when a bonus is lost. Other groups do not do this, which is why there has never been a problem with this until your company retroactively invented this term.

Regarding your question as to why I am playing at your group: I have been a customer at Casino Rewards for many years and enjoyed playing your MG's until I was blocked from redeeming over USD 1.000 in Comp Points which I had earned already. However, this situation was corrected by your colleagues last year and I decided to give your group another try. I also had high VIP statuses at a few of the casinos you took over, which unfortunately did not get transferred. Furthermore, I use my experience to review online casinos and help other players to find professional casinos to play at.

Obviously Casino Rewards do not agree to honor their own terms and resolve this issue fairly, which is why I am left no choice but to involve others into this case.

This thread is open for everyone to read and understand. I will keep it updated.

[Schankwart]

Renee,

Does CR use the clearplay bonus system?

Good question, slotplayer. The real money and bonus balance was $0 when I started playing, meaning that their system also clearly displayed that all previous bonuses had been lost already and that there are no additional wagering requirements.

Caruso, I'm with you usually but not in this case.

Maybe you should mention that Casino Rewards are the main sponsor of your website.

If you read my posts above you will see that I did make deposits in between taking bonuses.
This was also confirmed by Casino Rewards, as they would not have credited me with the bonus otherwise. This is a copy of CR's bonus terms:

* Bonus 25% calculated on first deposit.
* Bonus 25% fulfilled within 48 hours of deposit to CasinoRewards account.
* Player must deposit €£$50 or more to qualify for match offer.

Furthermore, I was also unable to find a term that stipulates that a bonus needs to be redeemed in the same casino where a deposit was made. You are obviously unaware that Casino Rewards are based on a system where a player only has one bonus account for all casinos. However, this also does not change the fact that I had already lost all previous bonuses anyway.

I have been playing at online casinos for more than ten years and it happens that there are casinos that do not honor their own terms. I am quite sure you would eventually understand this too if you actually played at some of the "safe" casinos you advertise on your website.

I suggest you base your claims on facts and not on personal agenda.

[TheCPA]

After reading thru all this, it seems fair enough to me that if a player is just taking freebies, then the wager thru should be cumulative for all the freebies combined. If you bust out before meeting the wager thru, but then deposit some real money, the previous wager thru requirements are zeroed out, and not a part of the real money play. This also seems more than fair to me.
IE: You are not penalized, and there are no retroactive carryovers on all the freebie money once some real money is put in play. I don't see a problem with these terms.

[mojo]

I suggest you base your claims on facts and not on personal agenda.

What?

In this case Renee said you didn't deposit between bonuses. It has nothing to do with me? I am lost.

Good luck to you.

[Caruso]

Caruso, I'm with you usually but not in this case. I have seen much to many complaints from Schankwart over and over again. Renee is right, play somewhere else.

It doesn't matter how many complaints he's had. If he's right, he's right. It's a nuisance, but the only reason for that is that the casino is playing games, at which point the complaint, and the nuisance, occurs. It isn't the player's fault that the casino doesn't pay.

As to depositing without a bonus, after a bonus bust out, for the purpose of zeroing out wagering requirements: if this is what the casino requires, this is what they must state. Now, they do (it's not as clear as such a astonishingly anti-player term should be, but we'll let that pass), but not when the player played. My suggestion is that he be paid, as he complied with the terms as they were then.

And could we please can the "it was always like this, we've just clarified it in the terms" nonsense? It wasn't in the terms when he played; what the casino might wish had been in the terms since the beginning of time is irrelevant.

Shanky: complain to Kahnawake. They have a good recent reputation, and I see no reason why they would not find in your favour here. You broke no terms, and you have the screenshot proof.

[Schankwart]

After reading thru all this, it seems fair enough to me that if a player is just taking freebies, then the wager thru should be cumulative for all the freebies combined.

To point this out once more:

I only received the bonus after I deposited and played my own money.

Casino Rewards may add any terms as they wish if they do not apply them retroactively.

[baldidiot]

Can someone clarify something for me - it's not 100% clear from the thread:

Was the most recent bonus the player claimed awarded without a deposit (eg: free chip etc..) or did they have to make a deposit to get the bonus?

Eg:

1. Original Bonus - Lost
2. New free bonus without depositing + WR is carried over

or was it:

1. Original Bonus - Lost
2. Player deposits to get bonus (eg: Dep $100 and gets $100) + WR is carried over

[TheCPA]

Renee said: I'm saying that if the balance is 0 and a deposit is made, the WR do not carry over, i.e. they are reset to 0. The only reason the WR are carried over is because he never makes a deposit in between taking each bonus. He has never made a deposit on this account.

She says you didn't, you say you did. Sounds like the first thing you all need to do is to agree on whether you did or didn't!

What is fair strictly depends on the answer to the question,..Did you make a deposit, and put it in play. And I mean to this account, not a different account with C.R..

My response is based on Renee saying you never deposited to this account. I have never known her to lie about anything, so I have no reason to doubt what she says.

[Schankwart]

Was the most recent bonus the player claimed awarded without a deposit (eg: free chip etc..) or did they have to make a deposit to get the bonus?

The bonus was only credited in my Casino Rewards account because I deposited $400. The relevant terms of this bonus offer are posted in post# 22. By the time of this purchase the bonus for my previous deposit had been lost already.

However, even if I had not made any deposit(s), there has never been a term that permits them to carry over wagering requirements from any bonuses that had already been lost! This was until I contacted them about this situation. Fortunately I took a copy of the original version before these changes.

What is fair strictly depends on the answer to the question,..Did you make a deposit, and put it in play. And I mean to this account, not a different account with C.R..

Yes, I deposited and of course also played my money. Please understand that Casino Rewards only allows all players one bonus account across their group of casinos and any player is free to select any casino to redeem a bonus into. Trying to justify that a player would only be allowed to redeem a bonus in the same account where a deposit was made would be contradictory to the entire Casino Rewards system. As Caruso says...

what the casino might wish had been in the terms since the beginning of time is irrelevant.

My experience at this group of casinos already turned into a true nightmare. Renee admits that her company no longer wants me as a customer, which explains me a lot.

The current balance in my account stands at $2600. I received a $200 bonus but Casino Rewards wants me to fulfill wagering requirements for $610. $410 of my real money were converted into this bonus. As they were unable to base their action on any terms, bonus term 15. was invented and retroactively applied.

I played in full accordance with all terms & conditions and am expecting Casino Rewards to honor their agreement without any manipulated changes.

[baldidiot]

So a deposit was made? In which case I don't see how the player violated any of the terms - including the new terms.

Regarding this term which has recently been added for clarification:

15. Wagering requirements will be carried over from a bonus should a subsequent bonus be redeemed prior to making a deposit.

The player did make a deposit - there is nothing in the terms to say the deposit has to be made without a bonus and if you want this to be a term you need to specifically state it. If anything this new term supports the players claim.

Furthermore the way the majority of casinos word their bonus terms (I'm talking generally now) does support the claim that rewards policy is against the norm. For example, this is from 32Red's bonus terms:

"In order to withdraw, you must play through the bonus amount 30 times."

So if we generalise, the terms are usually something along the lines of - to withdraw the bonus, associated deposit or any winnings you must make a certain number of wagers. This clearly makes the bonus terms relative to the bonus and deposit, but nothing that can be related to further deposits.

Also interesting is that Vegas Slots has similar wording:

"Bonus amounts credited to a player's bonus account are subject to 30 times play-through before they may be cashed in."

The player isn't trying to cash in the bonus account as the bonus funds have been lost. They made a deposit which, by definition, should go into their cash account. I don't see how this has anything to do with the previous bonus.

Obviously I don't have access to the full details, but if we can take the situation at face value then there is no justification for not paying the player. If you want to carry over bonus requirements when a player doesn't make a deposit without a bonus then you need to explicitly state that.

[TheCPA]

I think I agree with Baldidiot on this! lol Still not 100% sure I have the total big picture though.

You deposited at one of the casinos within the group, correct? But not the one associated with the account in question??

If that's the case, then you got some kind of bonus to the account in question without making a deposit? Can that happen without making a deposit if you already took a bonus at one of the other casinos?

Perhaps Renee can clarify some of this. She's saying no deposits were made to the account in question the way I read it, so this is where it gets fuzzy for me. Does the action from one of the other casinos count on this account? And is the above senario even correct? lmao!!!

[iGamingWriter]

So a deposit was made? In which case I don't see how the player violated any of the terms - including the new terms.

A deposit was made at another casino. That's the bone of contention here. The player is signed up to multiple casinos within the CR group, they deposit and earn bonuses at one casino, then claim the bonuses at another casino where they have never made a deposit. Was this situation clearly restricted in the terms and conditions when the player played - no. Is the player likely to be a profitable player for the casino in the long run - i'd need to take a bit more of a look at what they're doing, but the likely answer is no. Is this carry over of WR standard - no. The CR system is different enough for their to be some ambiguity here, but that just makes it all the more important that they clearly lay out exactly what is required from their customers from the start. What is very clear is that this thread isn't going to solve the issue and that if the player wants to achieve anything they are going to need to take it to KGC.

[TheCPA]

Ok, that's what I thought was going on.

I haven't scoured the terms,..the new ones, or the ones in place at the time this occurred.

If this isn't covered properly, then I feel like CR probably needs to make good, and consider it a lesson learned to tighten up on the terms to avoid confusion.

If it is properly covered in the terms, then Renee needs to post it for us. I just don't have the time right now to go thru it all! I think CR is a reasonable bunch overall. I don't see why this can't be sorted to everyone's satisfaction.

[Schankwart]

If anything this new term supports the players claim.

You are absolutely right. It does not matter in which of their casinos a deposit was made, as any Casino Rewards bonuses are credited into one single account, which is shared across their entire group. This means that even their new term (15.) would not permit them to "carry over wagering requirements from a previous bonus", as I did make a deposit. The bonus I received could only be earned by making a deposit.

However, it is only relevant that the new term was RETROACTIVELY added after I purchased, received the bonus and played already. Due to this term 15. cannot be legally applied anyway.

If you want to carry over bonus requirements when a player doesn't make a deposit without a bonus then you need to explicitly state that.

I think everyone agrees on this but Casino Rewards. They base their "assumptions" on Deposit Bonus term 5., which clearly does not stipulate any carryover of wagering requirements at all.

A deposit was made at another casino.

thepogg is right. This is how Casino Rewards offers their bonuses and Comp Points to all players.

CPA, I also believed C.R. became a decent group and was looking forward to give them more play. Quite frankly, I was very disappointed that Casino Rewards did not maintain the VIP statuses I previously earned at a few of their casinos before they bought them. However, I should probably be glad to know the truth rather now than later.


It is up to Casino Rewards how they want to resolve this. A complaint at KGC would not be the only option to eventually achieve a fair and proper solution of this matter.

[Renee]

OK I'm not even going to bother reading through this garbage. The player is trying to confuse everyone. I will list some facts. The player can go to KGC. I'm not going to keep going here. I'm just repeating myself over and over again.

Here are the facts:

The player deposits an amount, eg $1000, into account A.
He gets the bonus into his loyalty account. He then claims the bonus into account B. He has NEVER made a deposit in account B. My guess is so that if he wins on this account his original $1000 is not tied up to wagering requirements and he can withdraw the original $1000 because since he claimed the bonus to a different account, the original deposit can be withdrawn at any time. As I said, getting around it via a "loophole"

The player is trying to withdraw money they won from a bonus. They never deposited in the account. The "real money" they are claiming we "confiscated" is the money won from a bonus that automatically goes into bonus money if there are still wagering requirements to fulfil. If the player had deposited into account B where they claimed the bonus, the wagering requirements would have been reset to 0.

The deposit that the player made was NOT made in the same account that the bonus is being claimed into so the terms stick. The terms of each casino are for each INDIVIDUAL casino. They are not across the entire group of CR casinos unless specified in the terms.

There is one term that specifies that you may claim the sign up bonus at each CR casino provided you make a deposit in between. This is the only term from memory that mentions other CR casinos in terms of bonus. This means that if there is a term in one casino that isn't in another casino in the CR group, then it only applies to the casino it can be found in. This should be common sense. If you have wagering requirements at one casino, you don't have them at another. Common sense. I can't believe I even had to write that.

Now regarding the term about 30x - it has always been in the terms that all bonus have 30x WR. We have added a term to clarify that if a deposit is not made in between bonuses (and WR have not been met on the previous bonus) then the wagering requirements carry over.

It has been the case that if a deposit is not made in between bonuses on a single account that the WR carry over to the next bonus at our group since day dot. This is something that microgaming builds into the software for us.

If there is anything NEW, I will be happy to answer questions. I'm just really tired of repeating myself.

To the player - I will keep my ear out about an email from Mikki.

[Renee]

I wanted to clarify how the depositing into one account and claiming bonus into the other is a loophole.

If the player deposited and claimed the bonus into the SAME account, then withdrew their original deposit, they would also forfeit the bonus. Whereas this way they can withdraw their deposit and the bonus stays, so they are able to play with a bonus without really ever depositing.

Hope that is clearer.

[Caruso]

All this "this account, that account" is getting confusing, but I'm not sure it's relevant:

The "real money" they are claiming we "confiscated" is the money won from a bonus that automatically goes into bonus money if there are still wagering requirements to fulfil.

It has been the case that if a deposit is not made in between bonuses on a single account that the WR carry over to the next bonus at our group since day dot. This is something that microgaming builds into the software for us.

It doesn't matter what a casino claims "have always been the rules". The rules are as written at any given point. If "the player must make an unspecified deposit without a bonus, with an unspecified additional wagering requirement, for entirely unspecified and illogical reasons, in order to nullify any former wagering which we consider "outstanding" on lost bonuses and deposits" is not written in the rules, it does not apply.

You can go on about "it was in our terms since the year dot" or any variation thereof from here to eternity. It doesn't make it any less irrelevant as it wasn't written in the terms when he played.

It also doesn't reflect well on the GPWA that they don't take a stance on this. I know CR is the Holy Of Holies here, very good affy cash etc etc, but I think a nod towards accountability wouldn't be out of order.

[Anthony]

Ok, that's what I thought was going on.

I haven't scoured the terms,..the new ones, or the ones in place at the time this occurred.

If this isn't covered properly, then I feel like CR probably needs to make good, and consider it a lesson learned to tighten up on the terms to avoid confusion.

If it is properly covered in the terms, then Renee needs to post it for us. I just don't have the time right now to go thru it all! I think CR is a reasonable bunch overall. I don't see why this can't be sorted to everyone's satisfaction.

I haven't thoroughly reviewed the terms yet, I echo CPA thoughts here.

After I review them I will touch base with Rewards and Shankwart.

[TheCPA]

Renee said, As I said, getting around it via a "loophole"

This is a tough one. I understand the Casino's position completely, and I honestly don't feel they are being totally unreasonable from their perspective.

That said however, I understand the player's perspective too, assuming the real money deposited into account A was sufficiently put in play, and not used to simply generate the bonus, withdraw the real money from account A, and then play all bonues at Casino B for free.

If the real money in A was sufficiently played, and put at risk, then the loophole the player found is a valid player option, IMO.
Yes, I understand that doing this is not what the casino intended, or intends to happen, but somewhat valid none the less based on the terms in place at the time.

I know this player a good while now, and I have to admit, Shanky does scour the terms and look for these opportunities. I don't particularly like that, but in some weird way, Shanky has helped a lot of Casinos by finding these loopholes so the casinos can close them up and improve their terms for the future.

This seems to be the case here too. The loophole was exploited according to terms, and the Casino subsequently amended their terms.

In the end, and in the interest of fairness to both parties, Shanky knows there will probably be problems collecting when loopholes are exploited, but CR probably should appreciate the fact that a serious loophole can now be closed up.

Bottom line, IMO, {at least at this point}, both parties have some issues and culpability here.
Split it down the middle, pay half, and just bar the player for the future if you want. JMO based on what I've seen so far.

[Caruso]

There is no culpability on the part of the player. The "deposit again to cancel carried-over wagering" term was added subsequently.

Why does CR allow you to redeem bonuses into other accounts? If you can DO this, then by all means do so. The software / rules allow it, so it's not a problem. It seems very odd, though. Why not pay the bonus directly into the account that generated it? Either way, it's not an issue here as it doesn't represent player fault. It just seems odd.