Below we highlight the terms that players should be aware of when playing with Aspire Global run properties.
Dormancy Term – Term 4.5.1 states: “Starting 1 October 2016, if you are a UK resident and you have not logged in to your Player Account for six (6) consecutive months, then your Player Account will be considered as “dormant account” and We will charge a monthly maintenance fee that will be deducted from the balance of your account. Such fee being the higher of: (a) ten (10) percent of the then current balance of the account; or (b) GBP 5, until the balance of the account reaches zero.” 24/07/2018
Timeline for the Provision of Identification Documentation – Term 2.4 states: “We reserve the right at any time to request from You evidence of age in order to ensure that minors are not using The Company Services. We further reserve the right to suspend or cancel Your Player Account and exclude You, temporarily or permanently, from using The Company Services if satisfactory proof of age is not provided or if We suspect that you are underage and such satisfactory proof is not provided by You within five (5) days of our requesting such proof, Your Player Account shall be closed and You shall forfeit all funds in Your Player Account, such decision shall be final, binding and not subject to appeal.” 24/07/2018. Giving a player only 5 days to submit identification documentation leaves players with a very short window if there are any issues that need to be addressed.
Maximum Bet bonus term – “When a bet abuses the betting system – regardless of which game it was placed on – it will not count towards a player’s wagering requirements. If the player placed single bets equal to or greater than £4 or £0.50 per line or 15 percent of the bonus amount before the wagering requirements for the bonus have been met, we reserve the right to withhold any amount in excess of the player’s original deposit from a player’s withdrawal. In addition, if a player deposited with Skrill or Neteller and placed single bets equal to or greater than £2.50 of the bonus amount before the wagering requirements for the bonus have been met, we reserve the right to withhold any amount in excess of the player’s original deposit from a player’s withdrawal.” – The inclusion of “or equal to” is of no significant or relevant benefit to the operator in terms of prevention of bonus abuse and as such serves only to trip up players who skim read the terms. 25/09/19
.com serves as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service for Aspire Global license as part of their MGA license requirements. This means that we can offer legally binding rulings for all complaints submitted to this service from jurisdictions subject to the MGA license.
The Prime casino group have an inconsistent reputation with their affiliate partners as shown by their Rogue status at Affiliate Guard Dog.
Multiple venues in this group run on the SkillOnNet platform. This platform have been shown to have run non-random games. See https://fair-betting.com/skillonnet-software-non-randomnot-fair/.
In December 2017 we became aware of SkillOnNet offering a Self-Exclusion tool that, in our opinion, was designed with the intent of manipulating users looking to Self-Exclude into selecting the minimum possible exclusion length while making it difficult to locate information on the longer exclusions that should be available to players. We view this practice as morally questionable with the primary intent of allowing at risk users to re-engage with gambling services at SkillOnNet operators more quickly.
The Prime group have also been caught out trying to hide significant terms and conditions.
The SkillOnNet license appear to have engaged in a retroactive Responsible Gambling exclusion to justify non-payment of winnings. A player who asked whether they had ever self-excluded at a property on the SkillOnNet license was advised that they had not, that they should consider self-excluding and allowed to play on. Months later when the player hit a four figure win, the same conversation was then used to justify non-payment of the win despite the operator not feeling the conversation was significant enough to require application of an enforced exclusion at the time the conversation occurred.