Big Betty Partners
Affiliate Program Representative
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2025
- Messages
- 65
- Reaction score
- 18
Dear AGD community,
1. Regarding the data behind our decision
Our review process is based on data from multiple systems — Affilka, where the initial partner analysis is carried out, as well as PostHog and SEON data processed by our internal analytics team.
Pausing traffic immediately after a payout threshold is reached — before a full investigation concludes — is standard risk management, not retroactive justification. It's a precaution to avoid a payout obligation growing larger while a review is still underway, not a decision about fraud itself. The industry standard for commission hold periods is actually 30+ days specifically because some fraud signals — like chargebacks or fraud-history flags — take time to surface in full. Our timeline of 15 days between pausing and confirming the fraud signal falls well within that standard window, not outside it.
At any stage, the partner has the ability to contact their affiliate manager to request clarification or additional context regarding performance or risk assessment.
Summary:
1. The partner's claim that the report was "compiled" is not an argument in this dispute — it is simply their interpretation of the process. Yes, the report is compiled, because it is part of a comprehensive multi-layer review.
2. The partner had the opportunity to request any additional data they needed through their affiliate manager, but did not do so.
In this case, 4 out of 5 players had a significant history of Email Fraud Hits (725, 64, 58, and 26 respectively).
Fraud Hits reflect a documented history of potentially risky or suspicious activity associated with a user across different brands, platforms, or services. This signal is not tied exclusively to our ecosystem, but is considered part of the user’s overall risk profile.
Our CPA model is built around rewarding users who bring real and sustainable commercial value. Users with elevated risk signals carry a higher likelihood of multi-accounting, bonus abuse, payment issues, or other behaviour that does not qualify for CPA payouts under our risk policy.
Summary:
4 out of 5 players showed significant fraud-related indicators. These signals had a direct impact on the traffic quality assessment and, as a result, on our final decision. A high number of Email Fraud Hits across 4 players is a clear indicator of elevated risk and low-quality traffic.
The partner was informed about this assessment through direct communication before the traffic was suspended and was made aware that such traffic would not qualify for payment. At that time, the partner acknowledged this assessment.
Summary:
The partner — and everyone reading this forum — can see the full picture, and every affiliate understands that affiliate programs do not pay for low-quality traffic. The AGD community has already provided additional clarification on this point above.
When specific users are identified as low-quality or associated with fraud-related signals, those conversions are excluded from the final payout calculation. This is standard risk management practice across the industry and was applied in this case.
1. Regarding the data behind our decision
Our review process is based on data from multiple systems — Affilka, where the initial partner analysis is carried out, as well as PostHog and SEON data processed by our internal analytics team.
Pausing traffic immediately after a payout threshold is reached — before a full investigation concludes — is standard risk management, not retroactive justification. It's a precaution to avoid a payout obligation growing larger while a review is still underway, not a decision about fraud itself. The industry standard for commission hold periods is actually 30+ days specifically because some fraud signals — like chargebacks or fraud-history flags — take time to surface in full. Our timeline of 15 days between pausing and confirming the fraud signal falls well within that standard window, not outside it.
At any stage, the partner has the ability to contact their affiliate manager to request clarification or additional context regarding performance or risk assessment.
Summary:
1. The partner's claim that the report was "compiled" is not an argument in this dispute — it is simply their interpretation of the process. Yes, the report is compiled, because it is part of a comprehensive multi-layer review.
2. The partner had the opportunity to request any additional data they needed through their affiliate manager, but did not do so.
2. Regarding SEON approval
A general SEON approval status does not automatically determine payment eligibility. It is only one of several risk indicators within a broader evaluation framework.In this case, 4 out of 5 players had a significant history of Email Fraud Hits (725, 64, 58, and 26 respectively).
Fraud Hits reflect a documented history of potentially risky or suspicious activity associated with a user across different brands, platforms, or services. This signal is not tied exclusively to our ecosystem, but is considered part of the user’s overall risk profile.
Our CPA model is built around rewarding users who bring real and sustainable commercial value. Users with elevated risk signals carry a higher likelihood of multi-accounting, bonus abuse, payment issues, or other behaviour that does not qualify for CPA payouts under our risk policy.
Summary:
4 out of 5 players showed significant fraud-related indicators. These signals had a direct impact on the traffic quality assessment and, as a result, on our final decision. A high number of Email Fraud Hits across 4 players is a clear indicator of elevated risk and low-quality traffic.
3. Regarding “low-quality traffic”
This classification was never presented as an accusation of fraud. It is a traffic quality assessment clearly defined in our Terms and Conditions.The partner was informed about this assessment through direct communication before the traffic was suspended and was made aware that such traffic would not qualify for payment. At that time, the partner acknowledged this assessment.
Summary:
The partner — and everyone reading this forum — can see the full picture, and every affiliate understands that affiliate programs do not pay for low-quality traffic. The AGD community has already provided additional clarification on this point above.
4. Regarding the account balance
The balance shown in the partner dashboard reflects calculated commission and should not be treated as a guaranteed payout regardless of verification results.When specific users are identified as low-quality or associated with fraud-related signals, those conversions are excluded from the final payout calculation. This is standard risk management practice across the industry and was applied in this case.
Conclusion
- The decision was made following a structured internal review process using Affilka, PostHog, and SEON data in accordance with our Terms & Conditions and internal risk management policy.
- The partner has access to their affiliate manager for any further clarification or additional data related to this case.
- Big Betty Partners does not leave messages unanswered and remains open to constructive dialogue both privately and publicly. We have already provided the full picture of this case, including all review stages, arguments, and the final decision.
- Big Betty Partners does not pay for low-quality traffic, especially where fraud-related signals are present in user history.
Decision
- The partner still has the option to contact their affiliate manager regarding payment for the 1 player who passed verification.
- The remaining 4 players did not pass the risk and quality assessment and therefore cannot be paid.
