Firstly, this is not true. There is no need to worry if you view it purely as a "is my money safe".

Secondly - while I'm no fan of microgaming (their software is pretty terrible) I really don't see how you can hold a software provider responsible for one of their customers going broke and failing to fulfil their obligations.

I don't know the inner workings of it, but I assume microgaming licence their software to those willing to pay and I don't see how this should mean microgaming should assume any responsibility for how those operate.

If I consider purchasing something on the net, I'm not going to look at what technical solution the webshop uses, I'm going to look at the actual company I'm doing business with.

Similarly, when I decide which poker/gambling-sites to do my business with, I don't look at the company providing the technical solution but the company I'm actually doing business with.

In this case I trust Ladbrokes to not only keep my money safe but also to vouch for the integrity of the software they've chosen to use. I do not care about Microgaming as I have no direct business with them.

If the software is bad (which it is) I yell at Ladbrokes as they chose the solution. Should my money go missing, I'd take it up with Ladbrokes. I see no reason to go after those who supplied Ladbrokes with the software - my business is with Ladbrokes and it's their responsibility to keep me safe (which I'm very confident they will).

Clearly you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Not worth discussing this further with you unless you do some homework before posting. Read OP at least.

QFT. Microgaming is more than simply a software provider and it's involved in one way or the other in almost every aspect of the network.

As to not being worried about your money, I have to disagree with you again. If you trust Ladbrokes it's mainly because of their reputation, which is a result of many combined factors. Them associating with partners suspect of crookery would defintely be a factor in the mix, and would make a dent in their reputation. This perfectly qualifies as cause for concern, and I think the least action one should take is ask them why they'd willingly treat with such providers.

I've quoted the original text below. However, in summary:

Microgaming may have no legal liability, but this has not stopped them bailing out failed operations in the past. If they had no legal liability, why did they do that? Why incur unnecessary expense? And TWICE?

Good business practice. Protection of good name. Consumer confidence. And so on.

Then there is the fact of Microgaming's recommendation of Tusk to the skins. This goes way beyond bailing out as sensible, good business practice. Microgaming recommended a failing licensee - look at the liquidation report. The same year Microgaming pushed Tusk on the skins, Tusk was on the ropes. Did they do ANY due diligence on Tusk when they made this recommendation? Or was it a case of "Hey, have a chat with these folk, they'll see you OK"? In fact, if Microgaming can be proven to have done no proper due diligence, this may actually end up as a genuine legal liability.

Microgaming orchestrated a monumental screw up which has cost a lot of people a lot of money. It really would be a sensible move on their part to make good.

Ladbrokes is one of the safest sites out there imagine as they make most
of their money through thieir shops in the UK and online gambling .
But you state that you trust Ladbrokes to keep your money safe on
their poker site .
They used to be independent and only used Microgaming software but
that is not the case anymore they are now a part of Microgaming and if it
all went tits up at Microgaming i dont think your money would be 100%
safe with Ladbrokes Poker site.
Stranger things have happened and just because you trust a certain site
or a friend for example . You can still get stung by a friend or a poker site
no matter how much you trust them .

Agreed.

Come on - even the OP here states that Microgaming has no legal liability for these losses.

You might argue that MG should reimburse players because of customer service or even some sort of moral obligation, but at worst they're "suspected" of bad customer service, not any form of crookery.

You may think that a company that have been in business for close to 200 years and have built their rock solid reputation on being trustworthy and safe has suddenly started working with shady companies and are going to rob all their customers soon, but I'm going to need a little bit more evidence before I start mistrusting them...

I did. There were two reasons stated for why MG should reimburse players.

1. "In the first place, it's the right thing to do and they've done it before. "

Really? They've gone above and beyond before and therefore they are now expected to do so again?

2."In the second place, Microgaming have resposibility for having directed the skins to Tusk in the first place"

They may be guilty of having given bad advice, but at the end of the day the responsibility lies with those who signed up with Tusk. It was their responsibility to check out and verify any information they got from MG as well as do their own research in other areas. The fact the companies that actually hold the responsibility are no longer around to pay people back does not mean it's ok to turn to an involved third party and expect them to pay up when they have no legal obligation to do so.

If there are more reasons that were not mentioned in the OP, please feel free to state them, but if these two points constitute the only reasons why MG should reimburse players, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on wether or not this is enough to claim they have an obligation to do so.

If you did read anything, you're doing a poor job of demonstrating it.

Information from Microgaming? Which? There was none, no more than there was from the skins. Look at the archive Ts & Cs - there is no mention of Tusk. The Tusk ownership issue was in no way disclosed, which is another way of saying it was withheld.

Microgaming apparently failed to do any due diligence on a licensee to whom they pushed 28 skin customers. At the time of the recommendation, the licensee was clearly failing. The licensee then failed. To pass this off as "bad advice" on the part of Microgaming is coming it some. This was a monumental mistake. A failed licensee is one thing. A failed licensee that you actively push onto other customers is something more.

I think we shouldn't overlook the fact that Microgaming has kept remarkably quiet throughout this whole affair. After March 2008, MG has not said a single word about the Tusk fiasco, not publicly (as would be reasonable), nor even privately through e-mails, forum representatives or even lawyers. Nothing.

If they had nothing to hide, why would they be dead silent when absolutely everyone is expecting them to say something -anything! And they no longer could say they don't speak up because the situation is not affecting them: their reputation is at risk here, to put it mildly.

Minus EV about microgaming being a software provider....

They collect roughly 20% of overall rake. Why don;t they at least return that little bit?
They decide what games are offered and at what limits. Also decide what rake to charge.
They freeze accounts without skins knowing why
They transfer funds between skins
They offer security that they are the oldest running casino (part of their marketability)

This.

I lost my net worth at the time in this shizzle. Had to get a $700 loan and start over at $50NL. 2+2ers please support those of us who got jilted. Fk Microgaming.

LMAO, thousands of players have their money frozen for over a year without any response and he needs more evidence.
Why don't you deposit to Battlefield poker right now? I heard they have a sweet $1000 sign up bonus...

The matter of fact is, noone was warned about this tusk issue, we all signed to those sites, because they were MICROGAMING skins, not because of some Tusk company we have never heard of.
Players were mistreated and cheated and noone gives a damn.

But because of people like you, this network is still up and running, raking millions. "My skin is safe, all those others skins were bad", not realising, this could happen to you as well.

Do you have severe reading comprehension problems? I am talking about Ladbrokes, not MG. I kinda doubt MG has been around for close to 200 years.

As for "people like me" being why they are still up and running - kindly explain how this could happen to me? You see, "people like me" stick to trustworthy sites - whatever MG migth be, Ladbrokes is as solid as they come and MG has no say over wether or not my money is safe with them.

Dont think your getting it people here are not saying Ladbrokes is not safe i know that they still play on there own network for games under 600nl they share with Unibet, but by going into partnership with a company that still has to answer this cant be good for pr!

Umm, yes, that is exactly what some people in this thread have been saying and why I got involved in the thread in the first place.

I think people have alluded to the loss of a layer of protection, that of the software provider. That much is true. If you take this as a precedent for Microgaming's new stance, that of zero responsibility for licensees, then Ladbrokes is no longer as safe as it was; in the unlikely event that Ladbrokes went down, Microgaming would not, on the basis of the Tusk business, step up to the plate.

So yes, Ladbrokes is weakened by this.

However, since Ladbrokes is probably far better financed than Microgaming, this is an absolute technicality. I'm sure Laddies will be going strong long after Microgaming bites the dust. But it is valid, if an absolute technicality, to make the point.

I for one did not intend to signify that your money is at risk with Ladbrokes. But if you're trusting your bankroll with a respected company and you see said company associate itself with a questionable partner: wouldn't that be at least cause for concern?

What do you have to lose by merely shooting Ladbrokes an e-mail asking why they would choose to deal with Migrogaming, knowing their reputation is rapidly going down the drains? If there is something to be learned from this whole mess is that players must be active in protecting themselves and their money, because no-one is looking after them.

this

^^^^^^ Yes, a sticky would be nice imo!

The main reason not to sticky a thread is that nobody ever reads stickies. I wish people read stickies, especially the "Read Before Posting" ones. But once something gets stickied, most people completely ignore it. People tend to skip right over anything that is stickied and only read the threads below. As long as it stays on the front page on NVG, the MGS thread will be read by so many more people than it ever will as a sticky. If I sticky it, it will die.

This is very true - my first time at a forum I will usually (or at least sometimes) read the sticky/ies, but after that, stickies just seem to blend into the standard header stuff at the top of the page.

This is such a shame that scum like the people running MGS make all this money and sell the players out. They can't be trusted. I was playing on ladbrokes and as soon as they made the switch to MGS i took my money off the site.

This sort of behavior can't be encouraged and I know I for one won't have anything to do with it. Also nobody that I'm friends with will play on these sites either. It's really unfortunate that you can only trust a few select sites to put your money on, but I guess its poker and this will attract the type of scum that run MGS to get into this business to make money.

has anyone had a response yet from microgaming?

No aside from a secret microgaming poster who was accidently outed in the other thread they are content to NEVER address this issue and pretty much just hope it goes away. That's the other thing.... Microgaming realizes they could very well be held liabile for wahts happened and they are also realizing people have figured out they are not simply a software provider. They've completely chosen to shut up because they realize legally they arn't safe.

I guarantee they are reading this though... hi there