Online Casino News

Full Tilt Poker licensing meeting postponed until September

As reported in my Full Tilt Poker license suspended article of a few weeks ago, poker company Full Tilt Poker was due to meet with its licensing authority, the AGCC, a few days ago.

The meeting, as it turned out, was a non-event:

Full Tilt's application to adjourn: Heard in camera and granted 27 July 2011

At a hearing yesterday the Commissioners of Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC), acting as a tribunal, decided that the application for an adjournment of the hearing into the future of the licences issued to Full Tilt Poker (FTP) be conducted in camera. Following the hearing of this application, the Commissioners decided to adjourn the substantive hearing of the allegations against FTP. As part of their ruling the Commissioners emphasised that the substantive hearing into the future of these licences still needs to take place.

As a result of the arguments on behalf of FTP during the pre-hearing application the Commissioners decided to adjourn the hearing as they felt it was in the best interests of FTP's customers. A key consideration in their decision was to allow FTP licensees "to further pursue advanced commercial negotiations which could lead to a more beneficial outcome for player interests".

The Commissioners adjourned the substantive hearing to commence as soon as possible and in any event not later than 15th September. Further details regarding the exact date and venue of the substantive hearing will be announced as soon as practical.

On the face of it, the decision to postpone, on the basis of granting Full Tilt longer to organise an investor buy in / buy out, looks to be a postive move for the players. Whether or not the subsequent meeting, now pencilled in for no later than Septmber 15th, will also be held in private remains to be seen.


There has been a lot of discussion about the situation in the 2+2 poker News, views and gossip forum, where the best current thread for updates is Full Tilt chatter.

Post a Comment

The UK Gambling Commission: if we look beyond the hype, what does it offer the player?

The developing matter of tightening online gambling regulation in the United Kingdom, which I last reported on in January, seems to be gathering pace. A few days ago, it was reported across the media that the minister in charge of gambling had announced the need for change:

Government announces UK gambling reform plans

All on and offshore operators selling services into the UK will in future have to obtain a licence from the Gambling Commission if they wish to continue offering online gaming to UK customers, John Penrose, Minister responsible for gambling policy and regulation, has announced.

"It means anybody based anywhere in the world who wants to sell gambling services to any consumer based in the UK will, in future, have to have a Gambling Commission licence," Penrose said.

"The current system for regulating remote gambling doesn't work", John Penrose added. "Overseas operators get an unfair advantage over UK based companies, and British consumers who gamble online may have little or no protection depending on where the operator they deal with happens to be based.

"We will create a level playing field, so all overseas operators will be subject to the same standards and requirements as those based in Britain, as well as being required to inform the Gambling Commission about suspicious betting patterns to help fight illegal activity and corruption in betting," Penrose concluded.

Coincidentally, on the same day Antigua-based company Bodog announced it had obtained a UK license, with no lack of the company's characteristic hyperbole:

Bodog gets UK gambling license

Bodog has become the first bookmaker to gain the correct approvals to operate under the new regulations. Bodog UK received the remote and non-remote gaming license from the UK Gambling Commission and the site will operate from Bodog.co.uk exclusively for customers in the UK.

Upon the news, Bodog UK CEO, Patrik Selin, said, "Holding a licence granted by the world's most robust and respected regulatory regime is a huge springboard from which Bodog UK can launch. The credibility and trust that the UK already enjoys in the online gaming industry is immeasurable. To be able to launch Bodog UK with these licences in place is a huge bonus for us and not only will it benefit our customers but will also allow us to attract the best talent in the industry to work with us."

Given that the UK is apparently "the world's most robust and respected regulatory regime", let's take a look at the resources they offer players with a complaint against an operation within its jurisdiction.


The way the UK Gambling Commission handles complaints against its operators is laid out on the How do I complain about a gambling transaction page. Here are the highlights; they don't make entirely comforting reading:

1. Disputes can be expressed orally or in writing and may occur in person, over the telephone, by letter, by email, or via online support.

2. Complain, to the licence holder concerned providing as much detail as possible. Ideally, you should keep a full record of the dispute.

3. The licence holder should investigate the dispute, escalating as necessary, following their internal complaints procedure and informing you of the outcome.

4. If you are not satisfied with the outcome, ask the licence holder to refer the dispute to their appointed independent third party for investigation.

5. The independent third party should then contact you in the course of their investigation

What is an independent third party?

The arrangements vary but all Gambling Commission licence holders who have direct gambling customers are required to have an appointed individual or organisation.

What happens if the independent third party does not find in my favour?

Normally that will be the end of the matter. We are unlikely to reopen the enquiry unless there is clear evidence that the licence holder has not complied with their obligations.

Can we help to get your money back?

Generally the answer to this question is no. We do not assist in obtaining a refund of stakes placed, or put into a gaming machine.

So, to summarise: once all internal avenues have been exhausted, the operator with whom the player has a dispute will appoint someone as an "independent third party" to look at the matter. This party's findings are considered final by the Gambling Commission, who will take no further part in the dispute. There is no option for appeal, and the player is left with nothing beyond bringing a legal challenge through the courts.


It seems astonishing that, to quote Bodog, "the world's most robust and respected regulatory regime" does not offer its own mediation service. All other regulatory bodies do, however inefficient they may be in practice. The UK Gambling Commission offers none.


I phoned the Commission to verify this. The "independent third party" can in fact be any professional person (I was given the example of a solicitor) the casino in question sees fit to appoint. Knowledge of the subject matter is not a condition of appointment, so complex cases can be adjudicated by people with no expertise whatsoever in the field.


What if the casino in question envokes that doyen of casino excuses for non-payment where no rules have been broken, "bonus abuse"? How is a non-expert supposed to even understand this, let alone judge it?

What if a player is accused, rightly or wrongly, of illegal use of multiple accounts? How does a non-expert go about investigating the situation?

How does a non-expert ever judge a matter where expertise is required?


I had also assumed that the UK Gambling Commission was a body of great integrity. But was this simply because it is based in my own country, a country where there is little corruption in comparison to other jurisdictions around the world?


There are a couple of things to consider on the upside:


1) The Commission may have the kind of regulatory structure that makes disputes unlikely in the first place. This is no help to the player once a dispute arises, but it's worth bearing in mind. I have no idea if this is the case, and based on what I've read to date I'm not about to assume that it is.

2) The UK legal system is solid, so the simple fact of being here subjects the casinos to a tight regime beyond the Gambling Commission. If the dispute is for no more than £5000, relatively straightforward court hearings, at little cost and in front of a judge, can be organised on the small claims track; I'm going to write a followup article on how to go about this.


Those two points do not take away from the fact that the UK Gambling Commission does not have an in-house disputes service, and that the dispute process they do offer appears weak and inefficient. How a regulatory body handles player disputes is one of the single most vital part of its operations. What a shame that "the world's most robust and respected regulatory regime" - Bodog's words, not mine - seems to fall so short.

Post a Comment

Full Tilt Poker looking to be saved by European investors

This is a follow up to my Full Tilt Poker article a few days ago.


It looks like Full Tilt may have been offered a lifeline from a group of investors who are set to inject enough money to enable the beleaguered poker room to settle its debts. From the Los Angeles Times:

Full Tilt Poker to be sold to European investors

Attorneys associated with Full Tilt said the company signed an agreement Thursday with a group of investors who would put up enough money to pay back players and in doing so attain a majority stake in Full Tilt's Irish parent company, Pocket Kings.

The money is also intended to allow the company to settle a civil lawsuit brought against it by the U.S. attorney's office at the same time as the criminal indictment, the attorneys said.

(more)

This was confirmed in a media release from the Alderney regulators two days ago:

Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC) is in discussions, all be it at an early stage, with its licensees trading as Full Tilt Poker and a third party concerning the prospective refinancing of Full Tilt Poker.

The objective of these discussions is to enable the site to re-open to its current and prospective players.

So, it would appear that this looks like being that rarest of animals, an online poker room that closes but ultimately settles its debts and possibly even lives to fight another day. This is certainly good news for the players, a lot of whom haven't been paid since the DOJ filed charges against Full Tilt in April.


It wasn't all good news for Full Tilt. A new lawsuit has been brought against them for the problems caused to US players by the bank fruad they engaged in to avoid detection by the US authorities:

Class action against Full Tilt

9) Unbeknownst to US players, the funds they deposited in their individual player accounts were fraudulently processd by the Full Tilt enterprise. Due, in part, to the passage of the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, the enterprise was unable to process echeck and credit card transactions from US players. These restrictions drove the enterprise to engage in the illegal acts described above, and, more thoroughly, herein.

(more)

Ironically, as a stake holder in Full Tilt, renowned poker player Phil Ivey is named as one of the defendants. Until very recently, Ivey himself had a pending lawsuit against Full Tilt, which he subsequently withdrew.

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