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:

The Commission ensures that its regulatory and supervisory approach meets the very highest of international standards.

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":

After a thorough review of your account it is evident that you have abused the PKRCasino Reload bonus.

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:

PKRCasino reserves the right to withhold any bonus payment if it believes that the promotion has been abused and/or where the terms of the offer are not fulfilled, or any irregular wagering patterns are found.

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.


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:

Earn 6.50% AER (variable), this rate includes a 0.88% bonus payable until 31 August 2009.

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:

A contractual term...shall be regarded as unfair if...it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

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:

...giving the seller or supplier...the exclusive right to interpret any term of the contract.

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:

In March 2000 the States of Guernsey approved the introduction of legislation relating to the sale and supply of goods and services, unfair contract terms, misrepresentation and the disposal of uncollected goods. This legislation is at the stage of preparation and subsequent introduction.

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:

it's apparent that you have abused the bonus

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?)

Post a Comment

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:

7 Right of access to personal data

(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.

Post a Comment

A Virtual Casino rebranding of the Warren Cloud casino group

A new set of Real Time Gaming casinos has recently appeared:

Planet 7 Casino
Goldstream Casino
Pharaohs Gold Casino
Catseye Casino
Royal Ace Casino
Captain Jack Casino
Silver Oak Casino

However, these casinos are not new at all; they are, in fact, the casinos of the Crystal Palace group, under the ownership of the now deceased Warren Cloud, renamed by the new owner. To add further intrigue, that new owner is the Virtual Casino group, an older and, if anything, worse lot than the former Warren Cloud stable - see the Casinomeister Virtual group rogue listing.

I established the Warren Cloud connection after downloading one of the casinos, Royal Ace, and finding login details already in place, suggesting I'd played at this casino before - which would be impossible as the casino is new. I had the following chat with a customer service rep, which established the relationship with the now defunct High Rollers' Lounge, one of the former Cloud stable:

Me: Hello
Rep: How may i help you?
Me: I downloaded the software and it came up as saying I already have an account, but I've never played here before. I don't want to register a new account as it'll land me in difficulties, but I don't understand what's happened. Do you have any idea?
Rep: please provide me with your username
Me: xxx
Rep: xxx?
Me: yup
Me: ???
Me: OK, but why did this casino bring up my old username?
Rep: yes because maybe you had one with HighRoller casino.

The other casinos in the group were established by a poster at Casinomeister, who correctly guessed the Warren Cloud connection.

The relationship with the Virtual Casino group was established by another Casinomeister poster, who had the following chat; she also confirmed the Cloud connection in the process:

Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are now chatting with Danielle.
Susan xxxxxxx: Hello. I don't remember playing at Catseye but seem to have an account.
Susan xxxxxxx: Did this casino used to have another name?
Danielle: yes
Danielle: it was Power Bet Casino
Susan xxxxxxx: Is it part of Virtual casino group?
Danielle: yes
Susan xxxxxxx: Thank you very much.
Danielle: welcome

So, the old Warren Cloud casinos have now been taken over and re-branded by Virtual; somewhat ironically, this effectively merges into one group the two biggest and worst RTG groups in existence.

As a reminder, here are the eight old Warren Cloud / new Virtual casinos once more:

Planet 7 Casino
Gold Stream Casino
Pharaohs Gold Casino
Lucky Palm Casino
Cats Eye Casino
Ringmaster Casino
Royal Ace Casino
Captain Jack Casino
Silver Oak Casino


It's my advice that all the above casinos be avoided at all costs - patronising Virtual will land you with many possible cashout problems, and an extreme liklehood of not being paid at all.

Post a Comment

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Post a Comment

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.

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 |