Nice to see this from Party

[PPP]

We aren't paying for anything. If you have fraud players, you don't get paid. What is their to complain about in that?

And you don't need to have done anything wrong to get fraud players. if some player deleted his software and resigned up under your affiliate link just to get another bonus, you don't deserve and income from that... and if you ever got any it would be right for them to take it back. the only issue there is they should credit the first affiliate for the income taken from the second affiliate.

[Catfish]

I give services to those players, like coaching, freerolls etc. And you do not seriously believe that they will "track" the player back to the first affiliate and give the money they take from me to him ?

And my complain is that first they do not take any measures to prevent a player that was already registered to create a second account with the same name and adress. That should not be so difficult to do. I asked every player for ID, and they gave it to me. Was PartyPoker interested to have the ID data for crosschecking ? No, they weren't.

But most important is this : they send me a mail accusing me of "encouraging player fraud", because this is the only way they can use that clause to hold my money back. If I have read the terms and conditions correctly , if the affiliate has not committed any act that goes against the PP regulations, they have no right to hold back money.

[PPP]

You haven't read the terms correctly. Even when affiliates do nothing wrong, they can have money held back for the actions of fraud players. the most obvious is players who used stolen credit cards or did chargebacks. it should be obvious that no affiliate should get income because a credit card thief click a banner on their site.

It appears they are going to try to be better about tracking duplicates now which is also a very good thing.

[Catfish]

Sorry but I could not find a clause in the terms that applies to my case. Can you please specify ?

[PPP]

Specify your case? Obviously not.

The terms mention fraud players. The terms say they can do anything they want at their own discretion. You agreed to both when you starting promoting Party.

[Catfish]

Now heres the text of the original mail I received :

It has come to our attention that you are in breach of your Affiliate Agreement by virtue of encouraging Players who have previously opened a Player Account to open new Player Accounts using the Link provided on the Affiliate Website. This is in direct breach of Section 3.7 of the Affiliate Agreement which states:

“3.7 Commercial Use Only. This marketing opportunity is for commercial use only. You shall not … attempt to artificially increase the Affiliate Accruals payable to you or to defraud us. Violation of this provision shall be deemed to be Fraud Traffic”.


This clause obviously is meant to keep the affiliate from defrauding PartyPoker. But when the affiliate has not contributed to the defrauding, nor has "encouraged" a player to open a second account, I cant see how they can use this clause against the affiliate. Period. And by the way, under EU law, in a contract between two parties a clause that gives one party the right to "do what they want to their discretion" would be null and void.

[PPP]

What they quoted is straightforward, so I don't understand your other question. Obviously the terms directly apply to your case.

Your dispute is simply they are wrong in their assessment. None of the rest of us can have any clue what you actually did, and what they think you did, so there is no point in talking about any of that.

[Catfish]

You don't get it. That clause could be used if an affiliate were actively involved in defrauding PartyPoker. Since I have not done any such thing, it does not apply to my case. I have shown the clause to a lawyer, and he told me just that.
I am not going to sue them because there is no point in spending more money in lawyers fees, but I hope that someone who has more money withheld will.

[PPP]

Dude, you don't get it. They are saying you did. They wrote RIGHT THERE that you "encouraging". Now come on it's silly to say the clause does not obviously apply. You even quoted what they said.

You simply deny what they are alleging, and again obviously none of the rest of know what the facts are.

[Catfish]

So your opinion is that they can just state that I was encouraging (which I didn't) , without offering (and having) any kind of proof ? And you think that is in line with the law ? What kind of understanding of law do you have ? Or is it just the way it looks like to me, that you are in fact working for PartyPoker, and try to justify their actions or disencourage affiliates from reacting to this policy in the way they should ?