Online Casino News
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Alderney Gambling Control Commission: an appalling decision and a disastrous precedent set for online gambling regulation
The Alderney Gambling Control Commission oversees remote gambling within the states of Alderney in the Channel Islands. In the blurb on the homepage we find the following:
Nice.
So, does this have any practical relevance to the player?
As reported at Casinomeister, in early July 2008 a player deposited at PKR Casino, receiving a signup bonus in the process. The next day he was tempted to re-deposit with another bonus invitation, after which he cashed out his balance.
Three days later, PKR Casino revoked his bonuses on the basis of "bonus abuse":
You have now been permanently banned from PKR and all funds gained by abusing the reload bonus have been seized.
Since the player had infringed no terms, he appealeed to the Alderney Gambling Control Commission, who released the following quite breathtakingly atrocious findings:
You made two large deposits, $200 and $500. The first deposit of $200 is the maximum eligible amount for a first time deposit bonus. The second deposit is again the maximum eligible amount for reload bonus.
As soon as the bonuses were cleared you requested a withdrawal, each time within five minutes of clearing the specific bonus.
You did not engage in any play between the first withdrawal and the second deposit when the reload bonus became available.
The only game you played was casino hold em.
The vast majority of the bets you made were the minimum $1. This is quite a small bet amount when compared to the amounts that you deposited. Only the basic main bet was played, never the side bet (AA bet).
The total amount you bet on the account was $20,002.00, this reflects the $10,000 bet to claim the first deposit bonus and then a second $10,000 to claim the reload bonus. It is clear that as soon as the bonus was released no more games were played.
Play only occured while a bonus was pending.
The Commission has thoroughly investigated your claims and are found to be in agreement with PKR Limited’s decision to exclude you from their site. On obtaining details of your game play it’s apparent that you have abused the bonus scheme that was offered to you.
In accordance with sections 9 and 10 of PKR Limited’s terms and conditions, of which you agreed to adhere to at all times, they are more than within their rights to close your account and seize all funds.
Here is section 10 of the above-mentioned terms and conditions:
So, according to the Alderney commission:
• The player played no disallowed games.
• The player made no disallowed wagers, or disallowed wager sizes.
• The player did not wager less than the stipulated amount.
In short: the player broke absolutely none of the rules of the contract.
PKR does not define "abuse", nor "irregular wagering patterns"; PKR does not, in fact, state that it must be unequivocably sure about this apparent "abuse", only that it must "believe" that the undefined indescretion has occured. And if PKR Casino believes that something which they cannot define may have happened, they reserve the right to confiscate players' money.
This must count as just about the most vague, inadequate and frankly risible condition you could find in a contract. Why not just say "we'll keep your money if we don't like your name"? Or "...if there's a 'y' in the month"? Or "...on Tuesdays"?
Would such absurdities be any more ludicrous than guesswork about a non-defined activity?
And yet, the Alderney Gambling Control Commission endorses this condition.
This is a precedent-setting move, as it sends a message out to players that casinos under Alderney jurisdiction may confiscate their legitimately-earned funds with absolute impunity, safe in the knowledge that the AGGC will do nothing to stop them if a bonus is involved and the casino in question seeks to invoke the undefined, undefinable and absurd "abuse" clause.
As such, I would like to ask the AGCC the following questions:
1) Since a straight observance of all the stated rules is not acceptable to you, precisely what would a player need to do to earn his full cashout at one of your licensee casinos WITHOUT incurring your displeasure? Which additional rules would you have a player observe?
2) You appear unhappy with the playing of just the one game; how many, and which, additional and unstated games would one need to play to earn a full cashout, and why do you not require that the casino list them?
3) You appear unhappy with the betsize; what betsize is acceptable to you, and why do you not require that the casino list it?
4) You appear unhappy with strict observance of the required wagering; how much additional wagering do you consider acceptable and why do you not require that the casino state this?
5) You appear unhappy with the timescale of withdrawals ("within five minutes..."); how soon after requirements are met is acceptable to you for withdrawing, and why do you not require that the casino state this?
6) You appear unhappy with the lack of play occuring outside of bonus requirements; how much additional play is acceptable to you, and why do you not require that the casino state this?
Lastly,
7) Why in the name of heaven can a player abide by all the given rules and not be paid in full?
I hope that at some point the AGCC will address these points, as it seems clear that a player who simply follows the stated rules is guilty in their eyes of an indeterminate indiscretion.
I should add that the complaints manager at Casinomeister took a similar line:
Our position on this is our usual position on bonus abuse claims: there is, generally speaking, no such thing. Playing by the strict terms of the bonus in order to take advantage of it is properly called "advantage play." The term "bonus abuse" is often just a euphemism for "we don't like how you play": by calling it "abuse" the offended casino generally hopes to then use is as grounds for withholding monies, etc. Our position is that if the terms of the bonus have been met without fraud or cheating (ie. bots, etc) then the player is due their winnings.
What the casino choses to do after the winnings are paid is a different matter. If they don't like the player's action then we think they're justified in asking them to leave, but they are not justified in confiscating their winnings, at least not on those grounds.
So the bottom line is that we do not support Alderney's affirmation that the casino was justified in confiscating the player's winnings. By the strict reading of the T&Cs PKR can claim the right to do so: we would say those are unreasonable T&Cs and stand by our decision that the player should be payed (sic).
There is nothing new about incentivising bonuses - they occur even in the UK banking sector. Take a look at the Alliance And Leicester esaving account:
The bank uses a bonus to boost the interest, giving them a nice, catchy headline rate. They may lose money on the bonus, but the idea is that the new custommers they'll gain will more than compensate for the loss. If the customer shamelessly empties his account when the bonus period expires and goes elsewhere, the bank does not confiscate the bonus funds. If they did, it would put them in quite monumental breach of UK law. And at the end of the day, why would they? - they should still make money overall.
So if a profit-motivated customer of a UK bank cannot have his funds unfairly confiscated, why can similarly focussed customers of an operation under the jurisdiction of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission be subject to such outrageous treatment?
Well, here's where it get's interesting.
The answer is that there is nothing in Alderney law which prevents it.
In the UK and across many, if not all, other EU countries, trading standards legislation does not recognise the legality of anti-customer clauses in contracts - take a look at the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:
If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail...An unfair term in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or supplier shall not be binding on the consumer...The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term.
One example of an unfair term is given as:
Unfortunately, there is no trading standards legislation in Alderney, and as such nothing that protects the consumer from unfair practice - take a look at the "fair trading" section of the States Of Guernsey trading standards page of the Guernsey government website:
I spoke to the Guernsey trading standards office today, and they confirmed that this is still the case - this legislation, though in the pipeline, is still not in place in 2008, fully eight years later!
I also spoke to the State Office of Alderney, and they confirmed that the same applies: there is no trading standards legislation in Alderney.
So where does this leave the player, on the receiving end of an outrageous decision issued by the Alderney Gambling Control Commission?
During my afternoon of phone conversations with the various Channel Islands public bodies, the Alderney Greffier pointed out that there is an appeal process listed in the 2006 eGambling Ordinance (see page 21, "appeals"). However, she acknowledged that this is a potentially very rocky path:
• Acceptance of the appeal request is down to the court itself.
• Alderney solicitors charge upwards of £400 an hour, making the pursuit of anything other than very large sums completely self-defeating.
• Exactly what would happen as a result of a successful appeal is by no means guaranteed in terms of customer satisfaction.
• Lastly, in the case of an appeal against unfair contract terms, when there is no actual law prohibiting such terms in the first place, it requires quite a stretch of the imagination to think that the court might find for the customer on that basis!
As such, appealing against a decision from the Alderney Gambling Control Commission would seem to be most likely a pointless and counter-productive excercise.
None of this should even be remotely necessary; an ostensibly respectable and competent governmental body should not be taking decisions based on what a customer might have done in relation to undefined, undefinable terms - this is grossly unprofessional and grossly unfair. Vague talk about "bonus abuse" is the stuff of the lowest level of online casinos; it's unthinkable that a governmental regulatory body would talk in the same manner. A serious regulator needs to take fair and balanced decisions: did the customer break any clearly defined rules? If so, he should not be paid. If not, he should receive his money; if he does not receive his money having broken no rules, then action against the operator should be forthcoming, up to and including the revocation of the operator's license.
Not so in the case of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission. What did they say? It bears repeating:
What is the lesson that players can take away from all this?
Well, take your chances by all means; a lot of the Alderney-based casinos are decent operations so you'll probably be alright. But remember that if you are NOT alright, if you accept a promotional bonus, on the casino's specific invitation as part of their marketing campaign to snag your deposit, and you cash out only to then find you're the subject of ill-defined accusations of unacceptable behaviour you apparently may have indulged in, then you can expect no quarter given from the Alderney Gambling Control Commission on the basis of their performance in this case.
Additionally, do not make any assumptions on the basis of geographical proximity; The Channel Islands are close to the UK and English is the spoken language, but they are an entirely separate nation with no particular affiliation to the UK, they are outside the European Union and have their own laws. You would not take anything for granted with operations licensed in Costa Rica or Antigua; do likewise with Alderney on the exact same basis. They represent neither the UK nor the EU.
This was, I think, a test case for the AGCC, the first one of its kind that's been in the public domain.
What a shame they fell at the first fence and set standards in online gambling back about ten years.
What is the point of "regulation", if the reality is this?
(I have also written this article for Midas Oracle - see Alderney Gambling Control Commission: you follow the rules but still you don't get paid. Why bother with regulation at all?)
4 Previous Comments
Thanks for posting this article, it's given me a new found hope that I may actually get my $250 back from the reload bonus (removed after betting around €3-6 per hand on Casino Hold'em)
By 
, at
10:16 am
I have alerted the Alderney Gambling Control Commission to this article, and hope they will see fit to address my questions.
By 
100% Gambler, at
4:07 pm
The casino has contradictory terms - 1 stating the playthrough requirement, another stating the playthrough requirement is something of a guideline, the details of which the player must take a guess at.
Well done Alderney.
I've done a brief followup for Midas Oracle:
Gambling Commission and DCMS stance on the Alderney Gambling Control Commission, a regulator which condones its licensees' unlawful behaviour
By 100% Gambler, at
9:58 pm
Moneybookers: potential breach of UK law
Moneybookers, according to the about us page, is "...a leading international online payment system and electronic money issuer authorised under UK and EU law and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the UK."
The location in a credible jurisdiction and regulation by an accountable governmental body is important as it gives vital protection to its customers under UK law; amongst other things, this includes the protection of personal data under the 1998 Data Protection Act.
In the PKR rovoking bonus discussion at Casinomeister a customer claims to have had his Moneybooker's account closed, the only explanation forthcoming from Moneybookers being that they "...received a complaint from an unnamed merchant".
In the "Rights of data subjects and others" section of the Data Protection Act, the following is stated:
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 8 and 9, an individual is entitled -
(a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller,
(b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of -
(i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject,
(ii) the purposes for which they are being or are to be processed, and
(iii) the recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed,
(c) to have communicated to him in an intelligible form -
(i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and
(ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data
This tells us that a consumer must be informed when and why his personal data is being processed, and from whom any data of which he is subject may have been received.
Moneybookers has failed to do any of this.
i) They have not disclosed the data they received "from an unnamed merchant".
ii) They have not disclosed the purpose of the data.
iii) They have not disclosed the source of the data, the merchant in question.
Assuming that the situation has been correctly reported, Moneybookers appears to be in breach of UK law.
The Information Commissioner's Office promotes both access to official information and the protection of personal information on behalf of the customers of UK-based companies. If a customer's rights under the Data Protection Act have been breached, they can file a complaint using the online enquiry form.
This seems to be the best course of action for the customer in question.
The security of personal data is of paramount importance in all things, both gambling-related and otherwise. Last year I reported on the CAP database sale issue, the proferred sale of the personal data of ten thousand UK online casino customers. The matter was hotly denied and its discussion was ultimately stifled, which is not entirely surprising considering the sensitivity of the issue and its possible ramifications.
Moneybookers is a regulated UK institution with many UK customers for whom large sums of money are processed. If they have breached UK law in not revealing to a customer details of personal data received from a third party, data upon which which they subsequently acted, they should be required to answer for it.
Your personal data is just that: yours. It is not available for hawking to the highest bidder, no more than it is available for use or disclosure to third parties without your knowledge or agreement.
2 Previous Comments
Actually slightly incorrect
If you phone any organisation up and ask them for information, they are not abliged to tell you.
However, you have shown section 7 of the DPA which allows for a Subject Access Request where ALL information held on relevant filing systems must me disclosed. A maximum fee of £10 is chargable
By , at
10:50 pm
The DPA requires that all relevant personal data be revealed to the data subject themselves. I said nothing about casual phone calls.
Which part of my article is incorrect?
By 100% Gambler, at
2:13 pm
Captain Jack Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Captain Jack Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the
management of the Virtual Casino group.
See my A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
2 Previous Comments
they do not answer the phone nor do they answer the live chat. I have requested my credit card company to investigate and get my deposits back I won a jackpot and they never paid it. They said it was a computer glitch. Do not use them and get your deposits back through your credit card companies. Dispute their charges. They are using Dubai as the banking system. They state you are buying articles when in fact it is for online gambling. Stay away from them now.
By , at
2:51 pm
Was it you who contacted me yesterday? If it was, my reply was returned as "undeliverable".
I might know someone who can help, so please email me your name, username at the casino and a clear account of what happened and I'll see if anything can be done.
By 100% Gambler, at
7:16 pm
Royal Ace Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Royal Ace Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the
management of the Virtual Casino group.
See my A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
0 Previous Comments
Ringmaster Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Ringmaster Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the
management of the Virtual Casino group.
See my A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
2 Previous Comments
I totally agree. July 26, 2009 won $5200. Was told I would receive money in increments of $2500. Then I was listed as a "skilled" player. As of todays date, (10-16-2009) I have only received $1000 ($500 at a time minus $60 processing fee). No straight answers, and being given the run a round. Doubt I will see anything else.
By , at
3:10 pm
Virtual, which owns Ringmaster Casino, has a history of paying in $500 per month increments to players they don't like.
That said, $500 per month is better than nothing. I think you're pretty lucky to have received anything - Virtual is a very disreputable group.
By 100% Gambler, at
3:15 pm
Catseye Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Catseye Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the
management of the Virtual Casino group.
See my A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
6 Previous Comments
1 hit 9000 jackpot at catseyecasino on 03/02/2009 they said after processing which take 7-10 days i will be paid but need wire transfer info i am hopeing
By , at
4:13 am
Good luck to you; let me know how it goes.
By 100% Gambler, at
1:48 pm
I've been paid multiple times but it just takes forever. Good luck.
By , at
7:34 pm
I was a new player with a $50 no deposit coupon to start. So I tried the games, played through the required $1500 which was then deducted, leaving me with $200. I cashed out the maximum of $100 and then went one to win a further $11,000! The next day, Cats Eye Casino erazed my winnings and denied my withdrawal. I followed all their rules for the no deposit bonus and still they denied me!
By , at
10:34 pm
There's a cap on no-deposit bonuses:
"The maximum withdrawal amount from any non-deposit bonus is twice the value of the bonus."
In order to stand a chance of payment, you'd have needed to get your $100 cashout processed first, then make a deposit prior to winning 11k and requesting a withdrawal.
Then, they'd find another excuse to not pay. LOL.
You might try my recommended casinos page.
By 100% Gambler, at
10:50 pm
Thank you very much!
By , at
2:06 am
Lucky Palm Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Lucky Palm Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the
management of the Virtual Casino group.
See my A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
0 Previous Comments
Pharaohs Gold Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Pharaohs Gold Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the
management of the Virtual Casino group.
See my A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
0 Previous Comments
Goldstream Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Goldstream Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the management of the Virtual Casino group.
See my A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
8 Previous Comments
I played at Goldstream Casino with a bonus coupon and won. I was told that I could withdrawel the money when I went to live chat. The money was approved on the 8th of april. When I did not receive it I called the help line and was told I used the wrong coupon and the withdrawel was denied. That I could make a deposit and play because the money that I won would not put back into my account or sent. I would tell everyone be very careful if you use a coupon or deposit money with them. I wish I would have read this blog before I every played with them.
By , at
5:59 pm
I won money at this casino and they never paid. They kept saying they never received the docs required to withdraw, I am also very concerned that they are involved with idenity theft. I am going to cancel my credit card because I am now having problems after visiting this site.
Avoid at all costs
By , at
2:37 am
t.n
i did the free coupon and won , from isreal , i heard about this group , i am not going to deposit any dollar to "receive " the winning , neither will send them any passport scan . i sent them 1 driving and 1 utility . so i aint worry about credits and staff . about id fraud , anything is possible .
By , at
11:05 pm
They have no license in any normal country , they could aquire a license if they try in boftotuan, ,iraq, palestine territory gaza , and so on , but my guess they will drop me a few dollars , since i lost 100 percent in 9 months at the trusted casinos , well accept
my last won on gmc, 190 dollars , are on the way to the bank from europe
By , at
11:10 pm
DO NO DEPOSIT HERE U WILL NEVER SEE MONEY THEY HAVE PLENTY EXCUSES NOT TO PAY U i feel for there unaware players
By , at
1:15 am
I got a free $25 chip to play at this casino and I turned that into $82 but some things made me very suspicious about this site just as i was going to make a deposit and then I found this site. I will forgo the money I won as I would not trust this lot with any of my private details.
By , at
4:32 pm
I played at this casino with a free chip. I won, but they had excuses about why I could not withdraw any money. I played past the playthrough so I was qualified to withdraw, but only $50. This went on for months and then they CANCELLED MY ACCOUNT for "free chip abuse". They said I could appeal the "final decision" with a manager and gave an email address. After such a runaround I wouldn't waste my time. After reading this blog, I know they are nothing but rip offs and would advise everyone NEVER deposit any real money with this bunch of thieves
By , at
9:21 pm
Never play here! My husband won $3500 and was qualified to take it out. It was approved and all is well except we have not seen the money and its been over 2 months. In the mean time he cant play there with any kind of bonus or coupon. Not that we want to now knowing what we know. OMG keep your money! If you dont they will!
By , at
10:21 pm
Plantet 7 Casino: avoid this latest member of the Virtual group
Planet 7 Casino is one of eight new casinos formerly owned by Warren Cloud and now under the management of the Virtual Casino group - see my
A Virtual rebranding of the Warren Cloud casinos article for the full details.
Avoid this casino at all costs.
4 Previous Comments
Planet 7 Casino is nothing but a jip joint. If you want my opinion--keep your money in your pocket and find another casino. If you use the promotion you have to play $19000 to 40,000 in order to withdraw any of your money. You get one penny comp point for each $100 you play. If you don't use the it takes you right out.
By , at
12:17 am
"If you want my opinion--keep your money in your pocket and find another casino."
Well yes, I did say "avoid this latest member of the Virtual group".
By 100% Gambler, at
9:50 pm
Can't uninstall their software without a warning popping up that they want to install malware on my computer.
Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time or money at Planet 7 Casino! Their games very rarely hit anything!!!!!!!!!! Done with giving them anymore of my money.
By shellfoxyroxy, at
3:40 pm