Mini Class action legal team for us

[allfreechips]

So reading through the Superpartners terms I finally just told them its complete BS to require 60 new ACTIVE players, not 100% sure what active means other than a single deposit? Anyway I told them that no feasible, and I have a ton of traffic but 60 on an old brand just wont happen. I have players that deposits XX,XXX a month still from 2005, when I had a 45% deal. I explained that the new terms should not overwrite players that were lifetime guaranteed in 2004-2020 even if I remove them completely.

Long story short, I would be willing to pay for legal support in the jurisdiction of these operators along with others if that sounds like a good idea? Retain a legal team in the main jurisdictions and have them represent the entire group of us.

[allfreechips]

I have complete acknowledgement they retroactively keep changing terms, all in the negative towards us, is there no recourse to hold them to the orig lifetime terms? I'm surprised there is no discussion on this matter.

[eenzoo]

What discussion? 40/60 days back Bet365 let explode a bomb. From here and there affiliate were showing up, blaming Bet365 (a public listed company), throwing fists in the air, calling to the weapons, asking for law suits, started TG groups ... i have no idea what going behind the curtains but i would guess not that much.

Now u came up with Buffalo/Superpartners - know as one of the most "i dont give a fu ***" companies in business and u expect what exactly?!

[allfreechips]

I'm not upset, i'm just thinking as a larger group we could retain real attorneys in these jurisdictions to at least hassle them to hold up to their terms. Im more upset they get away with retroactive BS, and if they get away without any recourse all affiliates will follow.

[eenzoo]

They will get away with it. Without a doubt. Think this through. Dispite all odds against you, you win a law suit (which is not possible).
A court rules in your favor and Superpartners need to skip its retroactive changes and you should get paid following the original deal.

What do you think how long it take all your player base stops depositing and playing

[allfreechips]

I wish they would stop i got 2 players from 2005 that continue every single month lol...Do I think I would get retro pay and better terms? No, but I do think this would set a bit of a standard that we would push back.

[TheGooner]

I think that Enzoo knows this but he is saying ...

--> You watched the fuss about bet365 but stood on the sidelines (as have I to be fair) because it did not affect you.
--> Now a known dodgy company wants to shaft you with a 60 (sixty !!) new active players clause, and you want people to band together to fight YOUR cause.

Not pointing the finger at you really - at least you are trying - I'm probably worse by ignoring both situations.
Typically people don't want to fund a "class action" if they're not affected.

If you had an existing affiliate group which had been created with this sort of action in mind then you might have a basis for that idea ... but who is going to voluntarily fund your "mini" class action if it doesn't affect them ?

The issues are the same that it always was :
1/ most revenues for affiliates are between 0K to 2K per month at 80-90% of the programs.
2/ possible legal representation in the various jurisdictions is not known (no candidates).
3/ possible legal process in the various jurisdictions is unknown but likely to be longwinded.
4/ the price of this process is unknown but likely to significantly exceed earnings for most affiliates.
5/ most affiliates are not interested in supporting a legal process against a program if they have no financial interest.

So any one event only significantly affects a handful of affiliates, and the first action in a regulated territory has unknown legal team, and unknown process, and an unknown cost. It not really an attractive proposition is it?

And even if you get a legal win the program is likely to avoid paying by simply shutting down and rebranding, or some other corporate move to isolate and terminate the old program with no funds - meaning that would require another long winded process to get reimbursement - and there would be little goodwill (and profit?) between the parties going forward.

TLDR ?
Their new terms seem outrageous. But no-one else is likely to fund your action to retain your revenue on old players.

[Sherlock]

Bet365 is not a PLC. But Bet365 is the Bet365.

Indeed nobody will do anything real against them. If not against them, then against no other crooks.

But some people need the fake hope.

I was robbed like this by Tipico, maybe the biggest, licenced bookie in Germany. They made some ridiculous retroactive rules against the big affiliates. The higher was reveneue share amount the more I had to deliver players.

[allfreechips]

Oh bet365 closed my account years ago, I lost a lot with many affiliates, the super partners is just yet another that makes me realize we have no ability to push back as affiliates. That's why I had the idea of possibly retaining a legal team in a jurisdiction and allowing a x day sign up for any affiliate that wants to join in and share the costs.

SO yes I stood by when others and myself got raked over the coals, now I think its time to dig in a little. Honestly I have not researched to legality or costs of doing such things, maybe its worth it for a single attempt on superbet I don't know.

[baldidiot]

So reading through the Superpartners terms I finally just told them its complete BS to require 60 new ACTIVE players, not 100% sure what active means other than a single deposit?

The new terms are basically for an average of five FTDs a month aren't they? Just done in a weird way:

If, after a 6-month inclusive period, a minimum of 30 new active Customers have not been referred, then Revenue Share will be reduced to 20%.
If, after a 12-month inclusive period, a minimum of 60 new active Customers have not been referred, then Revenue Share will be reduced to 10%.
If, after an 18-month inclusive period, a minimum of 90 new active Customers have not been referred, then Revenue Share will be reduced to 5%.
If, after a 24-month inclusive period, a minimum of 120 new active Customers have not been referred, then Revenue Share will be reduced to 0.


So I totally agree, it's not a good thing, but for a minute I thought you meant it was 60 a month.

The terms also reference this in conjunction with the standard 25% - does anyone know if a custom deal changes the quota? I'm guessing not, but you never know...

[casinobonusguy]

We were dropped from 40% down to 25% even though we sent more than 60 players a year . I rather deal with one of the dodgy offshore guys than some of these 'Regulated ' casinos . I have to give credit to Rewards which was never my favorite for years but they are consistent and the Deal we got in 2006 is still active.
I will mention that for 9 years we did affiliate events in Canada and Fortune was the main sponsor for years , I had 5 members of the affiliate team in our home every summer even took them to our cottage for a week etc. Wonderful guys based in Johannesburg ,IMO the wheels fell off when they merged with the Cape Town bunch ,even players are telling me they are horrible now to them. VIP players waiting 2 days for a reply .

[Cash Bonus]

We were dropped from 40% down to 25% even though we sent more than 60 players a year.

Absolutely horrible. They just want to steal.

[allfreechips]

And next month they can say 200 players...

[GCG]

And next month they can say 200 players...

So we have been warned that we basically will lose all our legit commissions in the near future.

What is your strategy : take the risk, rewrite the content / redirect the casinos or completely remove all their brands?

[allfreechips]

No the idea was to have an actual legal entity we all pay to prevent new terms overriding old lifetime deals...

[casinobonusguy]

I figure this year will be last year we work with them .I already sent them more than 5 this month but I am going to find a better alternative to them .