Graeme wrote:
They are best left to the sanction of the market which severely punishes sub-standard service or dubious practices. The Net abounds with forums, blacklists, recommendations and warning. This is by far a more effective antidote to malpractice than the various arbitrary levels of prohibition imposed and enforced by the decree of the authorities.
Graeme Levin
CEO
TheGamblingPortals.com
I disagree. This would be true if on line casinos were located in places where, if you are cheated by one, you could seek recourse through the courts. However, they are often in small, remote, nations far from where their players live.
They are well aware that someone living in France, for example, is not about to go to Costa Rica to sue them for the $5,000 they refuse to pay for some invented reason. They tend to be their own judges and, not surprisingly, usually decide the cases in their own favor.
Yes, bad publicity is something which they would prefer to avoid and sites like Gambling Grumbles serve an important function by getting some casinos to live up to their obligations. Others, however, don't seem to care what is said about them. They prefer to rake in the profits and when their reputations get so bad that most players avoid them, they simply close down the website and open another under a different name -- and proceed to begin cheating all over again.
The player who has not collected his winnings (or even had his deposit stolen by them!) gets very little satisfaction in knowing that the casino was eventually forced to go out of business, especially when it may re-open tomorrow under a new brand name.
Edited by user Monday, May 24, 2010 10:53:34 AM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified