Bonus winnings vs own winnings

[Blackjax]

Apart from what fiekie said i would like to add  that non sticky are of two types. The one we usually have at our n1/direx casinos like Praise or bitstarz and the other type is Parachute Non sticky. Like caxino, Leo vegas, wildz, emojino where bonus and cash funds are kept seperate.

Sticky and no sticky have nothing to do with wager. It only means if bonus funds given at the time of deposit are  withdrawable (no sticky) or not withdrawable(sticky)

[Afi4wins]

8 minutes ago, spirit_123 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem, this is part of an EU-regulation on T&C and therefore valid in all EU-Member States 

I have just read that article...however, it's a UK Law, probably no longer an EU Law, but doesn't matter.

The big question is...is playing at casinos considered a Consumers Contract or a Business Contract? Most, if not all, Business Contracts are designed to protect the businesses, unlike Consumers Contracts which are designed to protect cunsumers.

The Contra Proferentum above is referring to a Consumers Contract.

[spirit_123]

Well, I just needed to find an article to explain the principle, but it is included in EU-legislation and is does specifically address Bussiness to Consumer relations. See also artice 3 of this directive:

Quote

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

Therefore I am quite sure these T&C would never held up in a European Court

[Afi4wins]

1 minute ago, spirit_123 said:

Well, I just needed to find an article to explain the principle, but it is included in EU-legislation and is does specifically address Bussiness to Consumer relations. See also artice 3 of this directive:

Therefore I am quite sure these T&C would never held up in a European Court

And that is also why a lot of disputes with casinos need ADRs to resolve them, because it involves legalities and interpretations.

Anyway, I'm not saying that you shouldn't get your winnings or deposits back, I cannot decide on that, so perhaps you do need an ADR to get it resolved for you. What looks like a simple interpretation of a Bonus Term can go either way in court. 

[spirit_123]

Well, I don't know. ADR Resolutions mostly won't be published. Maybe if this kind of thing it is a good thing to have a public Court ruling on the matter. 

[Afi4wins]

This is the Bonus Terms at BitStarz Casino:

1. 25.

   When accepting a deposit bonus, kindly remember that your deposit is locked with the accepted bonus. This means that you have two options, either to complete the wagering requirement of the bonus, or cancel the bonus. If you choose to cancel the bonus, the bonus and all winnings attributed to the bonus will be lost. Wagering with both the bonus money and your deposited cash will count towards the wagering requirement.

2. 26.

   In the event of any dispute, the decision of BitStarz will be final.

[Afi4wins]

1 minute ago, spirit_123 said:

Well, I don't know. ADR Resolutions mostly won't be published. Maybe if this kind of thing it is a good thing to have a public Court ruling on the matter. 

Well, if you don't mind paying lots of money on the legal fees, then you can always take the matter to a Civil Court for proceedings.

[spirit_123]

Quote

If you choose to cancel the bonus, the bonus and all winnings attributed to the bonus will be Lost.

Yes, but i still can interpret that in different ways: when is a winning attributed to the bonus. If I recall your opinions correctly this would be all winnings. So the text should read:

 

Quote

If you choose to cancel the bonus, the bonus and all winnings will be Lost.

These terms are by default void:

 

Quote

In the event of any dispute, the decision of BitStarz will be final.

Well it is hard to find which court they would be applicable to rule on this matter, but yes, I'll give it a shot. 

[Afi4wins]

6 minutes ago, spirit_123 said:

Yes, but i still can interpret that in different ways: when is a winning attributed to the bonus. If I recall your opinions correctly this would be all winnings. So the text should read:

 

These terms are by default void:

 

Well it is hard to find which court they would be applicable to rule on this matter, but yes, I'll give it a shot. 

Clause 25 already states very clearly that your deposited money is locked with the accepted Bonus. Meaning, whatever winnings you may have accumulated are therefore also locked with the bonus. No two ways about that, the way I see it.

As for the casino's decision being final, I cannot say much on that. The Business Contract may give them that right, but a Court Of Law may say otherwise.

Save your money and try with an ADR first...no point wasting money on legal fees for such a 'small' sum in question.

[Blackjax]

Hold on did bitstarz confiscate all your funds? I mean your deposit+winnings or just the winnings and gave you back your original 1000? And if you dont mind how much did you win upto. 

[Fiekie247]

2 hours ago, Afi4wins said:

What does the Bonus Terms at BitStarz like? 

 

and

 

So point basically is saying if you cancel after deposit, your deposit will be available, however if you deposit 50 euro, started playing and lost 20 euro and then cancel the bonus, the available balance will be 30 euro - Which is where real money gets exhausted first term come in.

 

Praise casino and another casino has that weird non-sticky term and its exactly the opposite of what they saying.

[Afi4wins]

17 minutes ago, Fiekie247 said:

 

and

 

So point basically is saying if you cancel after deposit, your deposit will be available, however if you deposit 50 euro, started playing and Lost 20 euro and then cancel the bonus, the available balance will be 30 euro - Which is where real money gets exhausted first term come in.

 

Praise casino and another casino has that weird non-sticky term and its exactly the opposite of what they saying.

That's actually a CONFLICTING term! See the copied bonus terms above.

Clause 25 states that if a bonus is accepted, no withdrawal is allowed because the deposited money is locked together with the bonus money.

Clause 8, on the other hand, allows the deposited money to be withdrawn, which conflicts with clause 25, unless it means a withdrawal of the deposited money BEFORE playing, or AFTER the bonus has been cancelled. 

[Fiekie247]

1 hour ago, Afi4wins said:

That's actually a CONFLICTING term! See the copied bonus terms above.

Clause 25 states that if a bonus is accepted, no withdrawal is allowed because the deposited money is locked together with the bonus money.

Clause 8, on the other hand, allows the deposited money to be withdrawn, which conflicts with clause 25, unless it means a withdrawal of the deposited money BEFORE playing, or AFTER the bonus has been cancelled. 

Look how this topic dig into bonus terms now.

Makes me wanna fully exam all casinos I play at bonus terms to be honest.

[spirit_123]

13 minutes ago, Fiekie247 said:

Look how this topic dig into bonus terms now.

Makes me wanna fully exam all casinos I play at bonus terms to be honest.

Well, this is basically my point. A couple of things:

1. Within the EU a clause which would never result in the loss of the casino and only in a win for a casino would be considered as unfair. I quoted the appropriate regulation in a post before. I mean this is the school book example. Should a casino really say this is such an important rule for us they should have all kinds and whistles in place to alert a player when he is violating the T&C. At least to the extend possible, which they are very well in this case, it is basically the same mechanism as wagering limits in the part of responsible gaming. 

With regards to the T&C, I am not really sure whether I entirely agree:

See for instance point 25: 

Quote

If you choose to cancel the bonus, the bonus and all winnings attributed to the bonus will be lost

Now it can't be the same as just winnings. Because: 

See for instance:

Quote

8. Players can request a withdrawal of their deposited amount prior to meeting the wagering requirements. However, the bonus amount and winnings will be forfeited as a result. Please note that when playing with a bonus, real money gets exhausted first.

 

Quote

14. Only one bonus can be claimed at a time. Deposit related bonuses cannot be "stacked". Bitstarz.com management reserve the right to void any bonuses and/or winnings obtained by fraudulent behavior.

 

Quote

27. Kindly note that it's not allowed to use bonus funds purely to progress through the bonus stages and then final stages completed with cash bets when bonus funds have been released or forfeited. If such tactic is adopted, BitStarz reserves the right to confiscate the winnings

I could give a number of instances why there is a difference. Though I appreciate your explanation a lot, it remains unclear to my when a winning contributes to the bonus and when not. From an asset-law perspective it would be an interesting thought that one could play with real money and would get bonus money in return. (With regard to the dual structure: you lose, you lose cash, you win, you get restricted money back). This seems more likely in a leveled situation. 

So, all in all. I would gladly refer this to a court. Especially when it is an industry standard to do it this way. I asked them if we could settle for a court or jurisdiction as it is a waste of everyone's time to fight over competences, however they failed to reply yet. 

[Blackjax]

If you take this to court you have no chance to win.

Your first argument-They added bonus to my deposit.

Bitstarz-My Lord! When you make a deposit you can chose I don't want bonus. Our player should have ticked that box and bonus would not have been added. It's in T&c. We ask to dismiss this case. 

Your second argument- I tried to cashout but they refused. 

Bitstarz- Your honor every bonus has certain wager requirements which are needed to be completed before cashout. If you cannot fulfill cashout cannot be processed. It's in T&c. We ask to dismiss this case. 

Your third argument- I finished wager but did not get my winnings. 

Bitstarz- My Lord! In the T&c it is clearly mentioned that there is a max bet limit of €5. Our player broke that limit. If it was a case of few spins we would let it go. Our customer would not have won the amount if he hadn't bet on higher bets and he did that on multiple occasions. Here is the entire 100 page of bet history with player exceeding bet history. 

Judge: The court hereby declares that player is at fault for breaking casino T&c. He should have declined bonus on deposit and read Bonus conditions. We rule in favor of casino. 

THERE YOU GO MY FRIEND. YOU OWE ME €1000 IN LEGAL FEES. 

 

[spirit_123]

No, I would center the case around this topic:

Quote

A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

As I said before the term of a max bet level does not even creates an imbalance, it destroys the balance. Because it would virtually always result in a win for the casino if violated either on purpose or by mistake. Therefore, if a casino would like to impose such terms they can in numerous ways, but not in their T&C. 

As said earlier there are a number of other issues to cover, so yes: I would gladly give it a shot.

[Afi4wins]

44 minutes ago, spirit_123 said:

No, I would center the case around this topic:

As I said before the term of a max bet level does not even creates an imbalance, it destroys the balance. Because it would virtually always result in a win for the casino if violated either on purpose or by mistake. Therefore, if a casino would like to impose such terms they can in numerous ways, but not in their T&C. 

As said earlier there are a number of other issues to cover, so yes: I would gladly give it a shot.

Some years ago, there was one or two such instances whereby the player was so dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint to the casino and vowed to take the matter up to a Civil Court. Nothing more was ever heard from that person, nor on the outcome of the court case. Don't even know if the case was heard in the court or not.

Personally, I think your argument is quite baseless, because you are using a Consumer Contract terms in your arguments, as opposed to a Business Contract terms that casinos use. There can NEVER be an individually negotiated contract done with casinos, because it is not a Services Contract, which would involve a client and a services provider, and the terms must first be negotiated and agreed upon.

Anyway, good luck in whatever you choose to do next.

[Afi4wins]

What it all boils down to is that if you don't like or cannot accept the terms of the casino's Business Contract, then don't play at that casino. Go play somewhere else that has your acceptable terms, and good luck in finding one as well.

Over the years, I have closed my accounts at hundreds of casinos, simply because I cannot accept their terms, or their level of customer services.

You just need to see everything in the right perspectives and know where you stand, and what to do.

[Blackjax]

I dont know how long have you been into online casino gambling but if you think that after breaking a casinos T&c you can get your money back you live in a fantasy world. 

The way you just posted a screenshot about that legal info please do not forget you also checked the box which said - i have read all terms and conditions and I accept all terms and conditiobs. Thats it.

[pinnit2015]

I presume the OP is taking the Betfred case into account re the imbalance, creating an unfair term?

Starters, it is true the case case should be a wake up to the legal teams; it does open the door a tad for arguments to be made; some with more validity than others.

But, the Betfred judgement, if you read it, had a number of other issues that made it easier for the judge to rule in the favour of the player: the inadequate signposting, the inability to expand upon what is an error etc

[pinnit2015]

And btw, i've heard many a poster of the years talk of taking things to court

I'm still waiting to see one doing so. 

[spirit_123]

1 minute ago, pinnit2015 said:

And btw, i've heard many a poster of the years talk of taking things to court

I'm still waiting to see one doing so. 

No I agree on that. It is quite a step. However, I really do think these terms are really unfair and I would like to see a courts opinion on the matter.

[pinnit2015]

1 minute ago, spirit_123 said:

No I agree on that. It is quite a step. However, I really do think these terms are really unfair and I would like to see a courts opinion on the matter.

I've said on here before that one i'd like to see tested would be breaching max bet, no impact, win 20k. Possible that it could be thrown out by a judge but equally possible the judge may say it was clear, unambiguous and therefore agree it's fine.

You need to have a serious amount of cash on the table to bring these things to court.

Not that i think it'll help but probably only fair to draw the reps attention to the thread incase anything to say @OlleBitStarz

[Blackjax]

As far as I remember the betfred case was a casino refusing to pay a £1.5million  jackpot amount which player had won on RAW MONEY and they were calling it technical glitch.

This case is of the OP breaching T&c which the OP also accepts he has broken. 

[pinnit2015]

1 minute ago, Blackjax said:

As far as I remember the Betfred case was a casino refusing to pay a £1.5million  jackpot amount which player had won on RAW MONEY and they were calling it technical glitch.

This case is of the OP breaching T&c which the OP also accepts he has broken. 

Different sides of the same coin tho; in the BF case the casino were relying on a term to negate liability and the judge specifically ruled on the enforceability of the term. 

Skim read to be honest as my attention span i pretty low atm: i thought the OP was talking about max bet breaches? Or is it locking deposit monies if taking a bonus? 

Get your point if it's the latter though: i'd be more confident in arguing the max bet breach being unfair than accepting a bonus that essentially comes with strings. The fact it's bonus funds, freely accepted and possibly clear may not help a case. 

That being said, did Afi not flag the contradiction in the terms? Good to see the legal team at BS picked that up. 

I got the impression the BF ruling that the judge was inferring that if terms are sufficiently highlighted it goes a long way to making them fair; so, for some casino's who have a pop up with 5 bullet points it might be easier for them to argue their fairness. 

The judgement's worth a read; though i'd pick the summary as there's a lot of legalease in them.