Important Echeck Announcement

[sloto]

Dear Affiliates,

I am writing to inform you that unfortunately we have lost GATM eCheck processor. This was a major processor for Deckmedia and a lot of money is owed to us by Echeck which appears to be lost at this stage.

Echeck was having issues with its confidential name 'GATM' and 'Global ATM'. These terms (GATM and Global ATM) leaked out across the internet and they contacted us on several occasions requesting that we ask affiliates to remove all references of 'GATM' from those gambling related sites listing it. Lots of affiliates assisted with this which was greatly appreciated. However many affiliates refused and the term 'GATM' remains on many sites and now the company has gone offline and is not responding.

In the past Deckmedia have taken huge loses upon us to ensure that affiliates have not lost out in such circumstances. For example, when Deckmedia lost Ewalletxpress and Mastercard, Deckmedia took the FULL hit ensuring all affiliates were paid the full amount for those months.

I regret to inform you that this time round Deckmedia will not be able to take these loses from Echeck and those affiliates who have earnings from Echeck deposits will have those earnings deducted. This will take place on the 31st March.

This is not a decision which was made easily and I apologize to all of those who will be affected by it.

Please try to understand the circumstances. This is a loss for everybody and unfortunately was out of our control.

Kind Regards,
Paul

[casinobonusguy]

This is not surprising to hear,I guess we should start wagering on which processor goes next .

[Tovey]

Hi Paul,

It's unfortunate you are having difficulties with a processor.

It is however the case that your obligations to affiliates are independent of any such difficulties as unfortunate as they may be.

I've taken the liberty of reviewing the agreement in place and the highlights are:

In Section 4 it says:

You will earn Advertising Revenue based on the Casino Net Revenue, Deckmedia Affiliate Program pays up to 45% marketing fee on Casino Net Revenue generated by affiliate

This is defined elsewhere in 1.7:

1.7 Casino Net Revenue will mean the sum of Deposits less Redeems generated on your Tracking Code(s) based solely on our log files.


So while I'm sorry you've lost some funds here if there's not clear justification in the contract to make deductions on what we are paid all amounts owing to affiliates are still owing notwithstanding the issues present with this processor.

While I hate to see anyone lose money, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that affiliate agreements must be honoured otherwise no one would have a viable business as an affiliate.

The onus simply must be on the operator to choose reliable and trustworthy processors or to take the liability if a processor fails to pay.

I'm happy to obtain a formal legal opinion from our commercial lawyer and post it if you would like further clarification on this.

Otherwise, what is owed must be paid.

In the past I've tried to work out similar issues to this in private, but at this point, I'm not going to let contractual obligations to affiliates not be respected without standing up and pointing out the illegality of it.

[Simmo!]

Are there any processors serving the US market that are 100% reliable and immune from confiscations? If not, then speaking personally I'd rather the casinos I work with take that risk rather than cut off all US players and decommission my existing player base. As long as players and affiliates know there is a risk and what it might mean of course.

I appreciate that is not everyone's view and I respect yours and other's positions on this but I'd rather have a US market with risk attached than no US market.

[sloto]

Hi Tovey,

I am not familiar with you as an affiliate at Deckmedia please can you provide me with your affiliate details.

Deckmedia pays affiliates based on casino net revenue. As Deckmedia was never paid the deposits there was no revenue.

However we will update our terms to be more specific given the situation regarding payment processors and the US market.

Thanks

[sloto]

Hi Tovey,

We have updated the terms to be more specific.

4.2 Charge-backs or Loss of a Processor
A charge-back is defined as un-collectable CC transaction from the CC companies as a result of customer non payment or fraudulent credit card use. Charged back amounts will be deducted from your payment or the reserved funds. Charge back fees will be paid to CC companies and will be administered by Sloto'Cash Casino and Desert Nights Casino. In the event where the casino loses a processor and is not paid for the deposits which were made, the casino reserves the right to adjust affiliate earnings for deposits that came from that specific processor.

[Guard Dog]

Is this a retroactive term?

[tryme1]

Is this a retroactive term?

Clearly it is as they've already removed the commissions and then added the term.

[Guard Dog]

Clearly it is as they've already removed the commissions and then added the term.

I want Sloto to come out and state that they are retroactively applying this term. I know it is retroactive, of course.

[Tovey]

Hi Tovey,

We have updated the terms to be more specific.

4.2 Charge-backs or Loss of a Processor
A charge-back is defined as un-collectable CC transaction from the CC companies as a result of customer non payment or fraudulent credit card use. Charged back amounts will be deducted from your payment or the reserved funds. Charge back fees will be paid to CC companies and will be administered by Sloto'Cash Casino and Desert Nights Casino. In the event where the casino loses a processor and is not paid for the deposits which were made, the casino reserves the right to adjust affiliate earnings for deposits that came from that specific processor.

Hi Paul,

This new term is fine, so long as it applies only to players sent after the term introduction.

Otherwise, it's a retroactive change and it would not be legal to effect either past revenues or players sent prior to the term introduction.

As long as the agreement sets out what happens if anything in the event there's a processor failure that's fine as we can decide where to send the players as we know what the rules are.

But you can't after the fact change the rules and there's a pretty huge body of contract law that states retroactive changes aren't legal unless agreed to by both sides.

Please state your position as to the applicability of this in a retroactive sense on both of past revenues and players sent already.