Unibet Affiliate program, a No-Negative-Carryover program, has just changed my affiliate account over to a Negative Carryover relationship "Until the quality of your traffic changes".

Their terms and conditions state:
j) In the calculation of Net Profit, when a New Depositor account results in a negative balance for the Affiliate, due to New Depositor winnings and/or bonuses, the said balance will be set to zero at the beginning of each month. No negative carry over will be taken into account from one month to another in the calculation of the Commission due to the Affiliate.
BUT, of course, all affiliate programs have their standard "We can do whatever we want" clause in there somewhere, and Unibet has:
b) Unibet may change all or any part of this Agreement at any time (even without prior notice to the contracting party). If applicable, notice will be given by message to the contracting partyís email address and will be deemed to be served immediately when sent by Unibet. If the Affiliate does not agree to the changes the Affiliate should terminate this Agreement in accordance with its terms. The Affiliateís continued participation in Unibetís affiliate program after Unibet have posted the changes will constitute binding acceptance of such changes.

So they are well within their rights to do this. The question to my mind is simply whether it is particularly ethical for them to do so. This action basically means that affiliates who promote Unibet and generate real money players for unibet, may be arbtrarily deemed to be not generating the "Right type" of traffic, and then be changed over to -ve carryover. This puts the onus of profitability on to the affiliate - something which I always understood was the casino's job...?

Do any other sportsbooks typically enact this "We can do whatever we want" clause to screw over their long term productive affiliates?