I find myself sitting here scratching my head about this one. I am amazed that 138 upper management really thinks that this is the right way to act. If they deal with affiliates this way, how do they deal with customers? Am I missing something or does this defy logic? We are a small affiliate who is associated with a autonomous player mediation site. The player mediation site has a goal of trying to help players resolve issues and ultimately improve the image of our industry when issues arise. In man cases the Casinos come out looking great. 138.com has several player complaints that according the players didn't get resolved. 138.com then wrote to the mediation site and indicated that the issues were resolved, then indicated that they were not resolved because the players were all cheats and then indicated that they could not work with the mediation site because it violated the Data Protection Act. The mediation site never requests sensitive information, the player requests that the mediation site assist creating a representation situation and any information needed is already provided by the player. All that is needed is the casino to explain how it was solved the issue. In general terms. 138.com then realized that the autonomous mediation site has an association with us, an affiliate. They threatened to close our account and not pay outstanding commission if we did not lean on the mediation site and get them to take the site down. We as the affiliate told them that we could not but could try to help figure this issue out. 138.com then closed our account and refused to pay commissions based on their terms and conditions. They sent over their terms and conditions but I don't think they read them. They used the term "Sole Discretion" to close our account. This is within their terms and frankly we had decided through our interactions we didn't want to do business with them going forward because their approach to customer complaints and us. This term does not however give them the right to not pay past commissions from June and July. This does demonstrate a willingness to not pay funds that are owed simply at their discretion. In our view, this should be concerning for all. I ask you the affiliate community. Am I missing something here? Is this good for our industry and if a Casino treats a business partner like this what does it say about how they will treat players?