Online Casino News

Villa Fortuna Casino: you will not be paid your winnings unless you play slots; eCOGRA supports them

Villa Fortuna Casino is the most recent addition to the Grand Privé stable, a group which has been the subject of two previous blog articles, Grand Privé rogued by Casinomeister, and the more recent Grand Privé affiliate problem.


The Villa Fortuna terms & conditions deserve honourable mention in the online gambling hall of fame as containing quite the most outrageous payment condition in the entire unfortunate history of the online gambling industry:

Inactive accounts WILL NOT receive balance payments for wins.

An active account requires that a player deposits a minimum of $20 per week, and that the deposit is wagered through 20X. (All table games and Video Poker excluded from meeting the wagering requirements).

You can ALSO keep your account active by depositing $80 and wagering it through 20X at least once a month. Again all table games and Video Poker games are excluded from wagering).

As such:

• If your account does not qualify as "active", you will not be paid winnings.

• In order to qualify as active, you must wager $400 per week - or $1600 per month - on slots.

• Wagering on video poker, blackjack, or any other table games does not count as "active" account qualification wagering.

• Therefore, if you are a non-slot player, if you play exclusively blackjack, roulette, baccarat, video poker or any other standard casino game, and you win, you will not be paid your winnings.

• If you are a non-slot player, you can only lose at Villa Fortuna. As per their terms, you are not permitted to win at this casino.


In an industry currently existing on ever more absurdly unfair and convoluted terms and conditions, these are the worst and most extraordinary terms I have ever seen by a very large margin.


Villa Fortuna is powered by Microgaming, one of the oldest software providers in the business. Apparently, Microgaming is happy with this.

Surprised?

It gets better.

Villa Fortuna carries the eCOGRA "play it safe" seal - take a look at the eCOGRA approved sites page and you'll see Villa Fortuna residing in relative pride of place close to the top.

On the homepage, eCOGRA tells us:

play without worry only where you see this seal - "eCOGRA: safe and fair"

Apparently, eCOGRA considers that a casino whose terms do not permit anyone other than slot players to cash out their winnings is both "safe" and "fair".

This is strange, as any remotely reasonable definition of these terms would go along the lines of "monumental ripoff".


In addition to which, there is nothing in the eCOGRA Generally Accepted Practices which does not allow for such extraordinary terms.


So, in summary: a long-standing licensee (Grand Privé) of one of the oldest software providers extant (Microgaming) is running a casino whose terms do not permit the payment of winnings to players of blackjack, roulette, baccarat or any games other than slots. You can lose your money playing these games, but if you win, and you haven't played slots, you will not be paid. eCOGRA, seal-supplying toothless puppet of a casino supervisory organisation, funded by those same software suppliers whose casinos it "supervises", is happy with this.


This would appear to represent the current state of the online gambling industry - an industry which continues to seek readmittance into the US.


Stay away from Villa Fortuna Casino. Unless you are a slot player you will not be paid.

And when you see the eCOGRA "play it safe" seal, take something good out of it and have a little giggle; it has no other value.

Update 19th February 2009:

These terms have now been removed from the Villa Fortuna terms and conditions page.

They have also been removed from all the other Grand Privé sites, where they were also listed.

Post a Comment

Grand Prive affiliate problem: sorry folks, if you don't like the terms then don't sign up

Hell broke loose in the land of the online casino affiliate recently: the Grand Privé casino group closed its affiliate programme and informed its affiliate business partners that, as a result, their accounts would be closed and they would receive no more referral fees when their players, those players who had found Grand Privé through their affiliate website links, played and lost.

Affiliate land exploded in uproar: blacklists were rushed out and warnings were posted, while affiliate groups discussed how best to persuade Grand Privé to change their decision, fearing the setting of a dangerous precedent for other affiliate programmes which would then take the lead from Grand Privé and further curtail the referral commission income source by making a similar decision.

Here's a selection of the spleen being vented and the knickers getting knotted.

Bonded Casinos warning:

It is advised to stay away from these thieves to avoid becoming the next victim of their shameless lack of ethics.

Gambling Goldmine rogue listing:

Grand Prive Casinos have cheated, stolen, and breach of contracts...your money is not safe to play here.

Kasino King:

Basically they have just stabbed us all in the back and are stealing our money.

Casino Affiliate Programs' redoubtable leader, Large Lou Fabiano:

Grand Prive is knowingly in breach of that agreement and are attempting to defraud affiliates

(Ironically enough, my own Grand Privé warning found its way into most of the blacklists. That article, written three years ago in 200, is completely unrelated to this issue.)


Some heavy accusations flying around: "shameless", "cheating", "stealing", "defrauding", "breach of contract" and many more.


So: is Grand Privé, in fact, cheating, stealing from or defrauding anyone?


Well, actually, no. Not according to the Letter Of Casino Law.

Take a look at this copy of the Grand Privé affiliate terms:

TERMINATION IS AT WILL, FOR ANY REASON, BY EITHER PARTY.

The Webmaster (Affiliate) will not be entitled to referral fees occurring after the date of termination.

As such, affiliate or casino can end the agreement, for any reason, and referral fees are no longer payable from that date.

There is a caveat offered towards the end, where the casino references "...those obligations which by their nature are designed to survive termination", which may be interpreted as referring to the affiliates' current player base; however, there is no specification as to what this actually refers to, and the "...not be entitled to referral fees occurring after the date of termination" clause is sufficiently categoric as to safeguard Grand Privé against any liability: accounts closed and affiliate obligations concluded. End of.


Is this fair? Can Grand Privé reasonably invoke the letter of the law and refuse to pay their former business partners future referral fees for those players who were sent by those same business partners?

Hmm. Unfair terms. Let's turn the situation around a bit:


Take a look at the Vegas Palms promotion terms as they relate to bonuses credited to players' accounts (terms which were added after an episode in early 2007 in which Fortune Lounge casinos started locking accounts of players winning with bonuses - see the Royal Vegas locked account discussion at Casinomeister):

Promotional Terms and Conditions

Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, which all shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.

Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance.

The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute "irregular play" for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred to meet bonus play-through requirements.

As such, Vegas Palms and all the other Fortune Lounge casinos reserve the right to confiscate winnings on the basis of largely undisclosed criteria - note that they say they will decide at their "sole descretion".

In addition to which, the "...where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance" clause is patently absurd, as a player would infringe this term at any point in their play where the balance fell to a point where the bonus predominated; for example, if a player deposits £50, receives a £100 bonus, plays his balance down to £100 dollars, and in frustration puts all the remaing balance on the table...and ends up winning. This would be considered "irregular play", and winnings could be forfeited.

These terms are absurdly unfair, giving as they do carte blanche to the casino to deny any cashout whose original deposit happened to receive a bonus.

Hmm. Unfair terms.

How did the affiliate community respond?

In answer to another Royal Vegas complaint, this was the Casinomeister response:

Let me guess, you placed a single bet with your entire balance on VP, BJ, or slots.

These rules were there when you signed up, and by accepting the bonus you agreed to these rules. You should have not taken the bonus.

This from a Gambling Industry Association discussion:

If they don't like the terms,...don't take the bonus. Simple.

If they break even ONE rule, no matter if it's related to the bonus, no matter if it's minor, no matter if it doesn't even effect the outcome,....then all bets are off.

From another Royal Vegas confiscation issue

If a casino states clearly "...placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance..." that this will cause problems, how is this subjective? If a casino states that you are not to play with bonus funds in a certain way, then don't play that way.

From a Giant Vegas and Royal Dice complaint thread:

But when it is obvious to a casino that you are trying to get over on them - they'll invoke their "the casino reserves the right..." clause. If it's posted in their terms and conditions, then you've agreed to this statement.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was an intentional attempt on your part to either find a loophole or start splitting hairs. So they have invoked their "F.U" clause.

Let me make myself perfectly clear to everyone. If you try to scam over a casino, you won't get paid. Most casinos have some version of an F.U clause. When they choose to invoke this, that's their decision.

Fair enough: anything that's in the terms is to be respected. It doesn't matter how ridiculous, or unfair, the terms are.

It doesn't matter when the terms tell the player something as ridiculous as "...the casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play"

Nor does it matter when the terms tell the affiliate something as banana-headed as "...the webmaster (affiliate) will not be entitled to referral fees occurring after the date of termination."

It's in terms. If you don't like the terms, don't sign up.


In it's way, I can only admit that I do find it more than a little poetically ironic that, after their sanctimonious dismissal of players who complain about rogue terms, the affiliate community has now been so roundly hoisted by its own petard. Let's hear again the words of Casinomeister Bryan Bailey:

Most casinos have some version of an F.U clause. When they choose to invoke this, that's their decision.

So they do, Bryan.

So remind me exactly what Grand Privé did wrong?

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed