I think it is generally accepted that operators need to protect themselves against multi-accounters, chargeback artists, ID crooks and the like (noone has much sympathy for those sort of players), but to use the FU clause on trumped up allegations to avoid paying what is due is to descend to the depths of roguedom.Ĭlick to expand.I always thought LOL meant 'Laugh Out Loud'. If the player meets the T&Cs set by the operator, then it is impossible for him or her to be a 'bonus abuser' yet the questionable operator will sometimes try to deny payouts on that very dicky ground. 'Management can do what it likes, regardless of any other term and condition' or 'Management reserves the right to make the final and unappealable decision' etc etc etc (you get the drift)Īnother favourite is the arbitrary casino decision on who is a 'bonus abuser' which in itself is a redundant label. You'll have to fill in the spaces here - the FU clause refers to the 'F**k You' attitude of some online casino and poker room operators who have all-embracing and catch-all lawyer's conditions that summed up amount to:
