Monney187

Thanks! Nice to be here! And thank you for your response! I understand the distinction you are making. Yes, technically a “no deposit bonus” means you do not need to deposit to claim it. And yes, players should read the T&C before accepting any promotion. I agree with that in principle. However, my concern is not about whether terms exist. It is about how the offer is presented versus how it actually works in practice. If a player claims a no deposit bonus, wins, completes wagering/then discovers that a deposit is mandatory in order to wager the winnings further or withdraw them, then the promotion is not truly “no deposit” in any meaningful sense. The ordinary interpretation of “no deposit bonus” is simple: you can win and withdraw without ever having to deposit your own money. If a deposit becomes compulsory at the stage where winnings are involved, then the label is misleading. Yes, the terms may disclose it. But relying on fine print to contradict the plain meaning of the headline creates a gap between marketing and reality. That is the issue. It’s not about players or casinos ignoring/disrespecting the terms. It is about whether the industry should accept a standard where the main promotional claim does not reflect the actual conditions required to access winnings. Ofc this kind of UX funnel dark patterns (that’s what I would call it) do work in practice for maxxing the customer acquisition / engagement, but does make it justified? In my view, “no deposit” should mean exactly that. No deposit to claim, no deposit to wager, and no deposit to withdraw legitimate bonus winnings after legally binding requirements (like kyc etc) are met. If a deposit is ultimately required to access what you won, then the offer is conditional by definition. IMO. I’m interested in hearing what do other people think about this? Or do people think this is the kind of business practices that fall under the “transparent” and “fair” category? Cheers!

Hi everyone, I want to raise an issue that I believe needs more scrutiny. We’re seeing casinos advertised as offering “no deposit bonuses.” The clear implication is simple: you sign up, receive bonus funds, and can play and potentially withdraw winnings without ever depositing your own money. However, in practice, more and more of these casinos operate differently. Here’s the issue: You claim a “no deposit” bonus. You win with the bonus funds. When you attempt to wager the bonus winnings (or move toward withdrawal), you are told you must make a deposit first before you can do wagering or cash out. At that point, it is no longer a true no-deposit bonus. If a deposit is required at any stage to unlock wagering of winnings or withdrawal eligibility, then the promotion is effectively a conditional deposit bonus disguised as a no-deposit offer. This creates a few problems: The marketing punchline: no deposit. The operational reality says: deposit required to access winnings The key restriction is often buried deep in the bonus terms Many players only discover the requirement after winning IMO. That’s not transparency, that’s technical compliance paired with misleading presentation. A genuine no-deposit bonus should mean: No deposit required to claim No deposit required to complete wagering requirements No deposit required to request a withdrawal (aside from standard KYC) If a deposit is required at any stage to unlock bonus winnings, it should be clearly labeled in different category altogether. Anything else creates a disconnect between advertising and actual mechanics. I’d like to hear from: Other players who have experienced this AskGamblers moderators/staff is this considered acceptable industry practice in your opinion? Casinos willing to explain the rationale behind this structure Because if a deposit is mandatory to access winnings, calling it “no deposit” is, at best, incomplete and at worst, misleading. Looking forward for discussion on the topic!