I would guess that 95% of Stars players are not aware of the T+Cs or taken the time to read them.

Have you ever said a bad word about Stars Bobo?

BTW im not anti-stars

But they tick a box before they can install to say they have read the T&Cs! so your point is redundant.

99,99 % of the human race is not ware of the laws in their country, yeah most lawyers also doesnt know but will read it if they need. Therefore they know where to find them ...

Isnt a legit argument therefore.
There is this rule in law, not knowing the rules isnt allowed as an excuse.
To lazy to research the latin pragraph also cant remember it. (yeah i studied law, but only first year(changed)).

Nope.

06-29-2012, 05:30 PM

Good luck, OP.
I created a thread with my comparable but different situation today.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...dence-1421288/

Well, they've basically said they they can't say anything due to regulatory reasons, so I don't know what more you'd like them to do. Unless you don't believe them, which of course is your prerogative.

Sounds about right to me.

Of course they haven't, but I'm not sure how that's really relevant here. Isn't it pretty much common sense that a business has the right to turn away any customer they choose? And even if it wasn't, how does it change things to know about this clause ahead of time?

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find me saying much in the way of positive or negative things about most sites - I try to stay fairly neutral in most of my commentary, unless it's an obviously rogue company like Cereus. Most of the time when I'm commenting on site issues, I'm either giving advice or pointing out what I believe to be facts. Or flaws in posters' reasoning - I have to admit I'm something of a sucker for doing that.

That wasn't really a direct answer to your question, but I'm afraid I don't really have one. Among my thousands of posts, I'd expect you'd find a few posts saying something negative about something Stars has done, but I'll admit there would probably be more positive than negative, as I think they're a pretty well-run company. But I don't think you'll find many of my posts on either side.

All that said, it's no secret who I work for (2+2), so although I think I stay fairly neutral, and posting is not part of my job, I can understand why people might feel I have a bias. But I'd encourage those people to debate what I've said rather than worry about whether I have some agenda. I believe I've been sticking with pretty factual stuff in this thread. And there are plenty of other people in this thread expressing similar opinions; pretty sure they don't work for Stars and aren't "shills".

Firstly, theres a pragmatic counter argument that the security weakening aspect doesnt outweigh the need for transparency. Effectively, the argument is that someone, somewhere might use some information in a way that might present a security risk and might cause someone to lose money as a result. Theres a lot of maybes there. Im also fairly certain, that in the vast majority of cases, it is possible to give an 'explanation' without compromising security in any meaningful way. 'Completely ineffectual when exposed to a single customer' is thus a gross exaggeration.

Secondly, theres a theoretical or ethical point that regardless of the realities of the situation we should seek to be above that. Sure, there is a non zero risk associated with giving information out - but if that 'risk' is something small then it should be balanced against treating an individual fairly and the need for transparency. One of my favourite quotes from a judgement I read in my law degree days - "Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done." Transparency is vital for fairness and more importantly, its been well documented what happens when some companies are given a free pass to act without explanation.

Its for these reasons that I (and what seems to be many other posters) are suggesting that Stars should change their policy on this. I think explanations should be given.

-------------------

To OP,

First, just be honest. If youve done something in the past then you may as well just give up now because itll come out at some point. Personally, if I had been wronged and was a midstakes grinder (presumably you have a fair bit of liquid assets) Id certainly be willing to sink a few K into proving a point of principle. But thats your decision to make.

Ok, send stars an email asking to complete a subject access request with them under the Data Protection Act 2002 (2002 is the manx law version, 1998 was the UK version). I cant remember exact rules regarding jurisdiction but this act was based on an EU directive and apparently you're Dutch so that shouldnt be an issue. They are entitled to charge a fee for this (no more than £10 in the UK version, presumably similar) but have to disclose all the personal data they hold on you including 'any expression of opinion about the individual.' FYI, there is an exception that they dont have to disclose information about you if they believe you are involved in a crime. But on the other hand there must be more than a mere risk of that, so if they never intend to pass that info on or it to ever see court (or if they know it could never be proven in court!) then they would still have to disclose that. Also, if you applied in say x months time and any 'criminal' investigation was complete (and went nowhere) then they would have to disclose their opinion at that point.

If they still refuse to disclose reasons at that point, complain to the information commissioner for the IoM (youll have to look up further details yourself).

Escalate your complaint to the IoM gambling commission. Its likely they will just side with PokerStars on this but they may at least provide a reason. The IoM gambling commission is a government arm though and as such is subject to judicial review. So if they still refuse to provide a reason against you then go for judicial review under the arm of 'unfairness or bias' - its hard to develop a counter claim or provide evidence to refute their arguments when you are not informed of said arguments yourself. Problem here is that judicial review can get expensive, but as you are an individual you should be able to get some sort of fee insurance and/or cap. Even with that said though, its going to cost thousands (although, recoverable if you win obviously).

@Bobo and everyone else,

There is no generic right for any company (yes, that includes private companies) to operate in a way such that they can choose and not choose who they work with if that company is in a dominant market position. Pokerstars are in a dominant market position (FYI, ~40% is the lowest market share decided by a court to be a dominant position and Stars certainly exceed that) and as such are subject to competition law which would prevent them banning a distinct class of people for arbitrary reasons (see refusal to deal and/or exclusive dealing). No, 'profitability' is not a valid defence to competition law. Well, not in Stars' case at least, but its probably allowable for a smaller site.

If you still dont believe me, I found this in an OFT advice pamphlet in the UK (so its not binding, but the OFT regularly interpret law and UK law is pretty similar to Manx law):

The type of practices that could indicate abuse include [...] or refusing to supply an existing customer without an objective reason.

Now, its been a while since I read competition law, but Im guessing they would lose in an EU court. Are they subject to EU law? Well, despite the IoMs protestations, Stars does an awful lot of business in Europe and the argument of 'we arent located in Europe therefore EU Law doesnt apply to us' didnt work out too well for Google recently. It has however in the past worked out well for Netflix so YMMV, although there is certainly a legislative trend in the EU increasing its jurisdiction and attempting to resort to a destination country centric approach rather than a country of origin approach.

Although the IoM does have competition laws, since the Island is designed to be utilised by businesses for tax purposes Im guessing that it may well be significantly looser than EU Law.

Good point! Although all players in the EU are playing on PS.eu and PS.eu is licensed in Malta and subject to Maltese regulation and the Maltese Lotteries and Gaming Authority. Doesn't change that this way you are able to retrieve all information Stars has about you. Just send them a request, applicable law can be found here: http://www.idpc.gov.mt/dbfile.aspx/DPA_amended2012.pdf (article 21).

You can also complain online @ the Maltese Lotteries and Gaming Authority: https://www.playresponsibly.org.mt/C...MFb_3ZwaX8846I

PokerStars violated Maltese regulations as they require that the possibility of filing a complaint with the Maltese Lotteries and Gaming Authority is mentioned in the case of an unresolved dispute. Mark referred you to a much colder island instead. Don't know if he intentionally send you the wrong way, but he's violating the rules Stars is subject to for sure.

Protection of business interests is a valid defense, though. The example given in the letter of the law is that a company can refuse to serve someone with a poor credit rating. Depending on what their reason is (which, ofc, we don't know), PS might be able to argue with that defense.

One could also make the argument (I won't make it) that they're not in a "dominant market position", given that market share isn't the sole determinant of that.

Thats not true. I think there is no differenz between ps.eu and com.

If being a bumhunter was against the TOS every reg would be banned. Playing against weak opponents is part of the game.

Great attitude, im sure you'd feel the same way if they chose to ban you just because they can.

If PokerStars banned YOU tomorrow, I guess you'd agree to your own guilt, right?

Malta does practically nothing for regulation. I mean just look at how they handled Minted Poker.

None of these regulators do anything to serve players.

I mean consider anywhere outside of a dictatorship where a regulator would allow their client to word the T&C's that offshore websites have towards their customers.

All decisions including the taking of your funds will be solely up to us and we can do this at any time and for any reason... and as to the reason part, we don't even gotta provide that. There are no appeals and this decision is final.

paraphrasing obv. but that's the jist of it.

+1 You beat me to it.

What a silly post.

Why dont we just assume everyone siding with the OP or supporting his argument is a childhood friend or relative too?

wrong. there's been no evidence provided by pokerstars whatsoever. they just said that they cannot comment on the issue.

nobody is disputing what stars can and cannot do-- it's obvious that they are a private company and they can deny service to whomever they wish. what the people want to know is whether stars' policies have shifted towards a "gaming industry standard." if there really is a new risk assessment policy, does it factor in their winrates and amount of rake paid? this information is important because it makes the difference between whether or not it is worth for these people to play on stars.

This.

Just because a site has in their T&C's that they can do whatever they want with no recourse is not that alarming. What is alarming is when they actually start to do it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=57

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&postcount=60

Just sayin'.