It is a tax of the "retained" gross revenues of the site. So rake (less rakeback/VIP) from a UK player is levied at 15% of those site revenues.

UK players pay no tax on gambling winnings.

It may lead to slightly lower rakeback/VIP or the sites may eat this.

So this means every time I play for example a £49 + 1 sng, the government will take £0.15 from the £1 rake? And then the site may or may not decide to absorb this. If they don't want to absorb this then uk based players will just get a slightly reduced rb %.... is this correct? Thank you

Broadly speaking, yes (it is likely to be a little less dependent on the taxable base structure)

Yes

It depends on the site's strategy. e.g. they may choose to keep rb the same but reduce advertising in the UK

I see... thanks Steve. So all in all it should have only a small impact on grinders (that aren't rb grinders) that are based in the UK?

Total joke. If you were a victim of sexual assault, IBAS would rule you liable for dirtying the offender's phallus.

I think what you mean is that IBAS make their adjudications by reference to the sites TOS. To me this seems like the only way an arbitration process can work.

You get a free, impartial appeal based on those TOS. Better than nowt.

If IBAS (or similar) adjudication fails to satisfy in the UK gambling debts are enforceable, the small claims court or other civil action is still open to you, you can also go to the Advertising Standards Authority to appeal about being misled.

This Calvin Ayre article discuses how they are getting tougher on online sites/affiliates adverts http://calvinayre.com/2013/08/21/bus...tising-issues/

Those TOS are also subject to adjudication under the unfair contract laws.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Unfa...by-statute.php

That's a good part of the problem, but no. There's no reason it can't cover the unfairness of ToS except that the people funding it (the sites) don't want it to rule on that for obvious reasons.

The other problem is that they're anything but. In once case, a site had an explicit rule for how a situation would be handled, did it differently (making them money and costing the player money, obviously), and IBAS ruled for the site with no reference at all to the site even having such a rule. In another, they referenced a rule, but claimed it said the exact opposite of what it said (X is forbidden except in situation Y, X was done in situation Y, IBAS ruling for the site only mentioned that X was forbidden). And they've refused to take cases of clear abuse (voiding a future that has gone way +EV) and AFAIK still don't get involved at all over things like a site refusing to pay you (often without telling you why), which was a UK specialty for years (and maybe still is).

This kind of sham recourse (and things like LGA are even worse) is why I was bugging PX in another thread making sure court access was always allowed.

If you have links to the specific cases I'd be interested in checking them out before my submission to the UKGC consultation on this bill.

The IBAS annual report 2011 (where did 2012 go?) claims that from 1998-2011 they had awarded a total of £2.5m to customers.

http://www.ibas-uk.com/pdf/IBAS_Annu...t_2011_web.pdf

Having given it a read they do address their more controversial/high profile rulings.

It is hard not to conclude that this service is superior to either nothing or going to the GRA or LGA.

Sure, in the same way that a freeroll to roll a 12 on a craps table is better than a freeroll to roll 13, but that's still not saying much. I'll PM you info on the cases.

Many thanks, I must say publishing 2011 annual report inn mid July 2012 and no 2012 annual report yet is a bit pants.