- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Curaçao's new ADR scheme: The Good, The Bad, and The WTF.
About a month ago Curaçao Gaming Control Board (GCB) published a directive for how Curaçao-licensed casinos are to handle player complaints, effective immediately. In a nutshell this is the new law of the land:
On the surface of it this may look wonderful: Curaçao GCB proactively diving into the dysfunctional mosh pit that complaints against Curaçao-licensed casinos currently are with a spate of rules that will bring fairness and professionalism to all. In truth the GCB may be making things a whole lot worse for the very players they are supposedly trying to protect.
In the first place affiliates with highly experienced complaints resolution staff currently occupy a significant portion of the complaints resolution space: think Casinomeister, AskGamblers, CasinoGuru, LCB. As of this new ruling from the GCB all of those are rendered non-participants when it comes to helping Curaçao-licensed casino players get fair representation in their complaints. Each year that amounts to thousands of player cases and many millions of dollars returned to players. Wiping all of that off the table in one fell swoop seems very much as though the GCB has something else on its mind aside from helping players.
Secondly, since there are as yet no Curaçao-Certified ADRs -- there's only one currently in the process so there are no Certified ADRs at the date of this publication -- it's a not hard to see that the GCB has given its casinos carte blanc to ignore player complaints for the time being: they can't use a non-certified ADR and there are no certified-ADRs. Happy days for the casinos, not so much for players. We’re already seeing players being caught up in this Catch-22.
Next there's the "lawyer plus three specialists' requirement. As a counter example to that we at Casinomeister handle roughly 600 cases a year. There are one and a half of us doing that -- I'm the half because of my management duties at CM -- and none of us is a lawyer. I'm a certified ADR specialist and that seems to have been quite sufficient for roughly the past two decades. How can the GCB ignore the fact that small team like ours have, over the years, successfully handled roughly 10,000 player complaints and have seen close to $10M returned to players? Again, on paper their requirements may sound good but in practice it’s just an arbitrary requirement that ignores a lot of important real-world facts.
And finally there is the question of Curaçao-certified ADRs only. On the surface that looks like a wonderfully aggressive move to have oversight and hands-on control of the ADR scene. Unfortunately we have a very strong counter example to show what actually happens when a jurisdiction does this: Malta. Malta made very similar moves some years ago and enough water has passed under the bridge that it's fairly safe to make some good observations about how that's worked out.
At the top of the ADR foodchain are the proven professionals: IBAS, eCOGRA and ... nobody else really comes to mind. These guys are usually dedicated solely to providing ADR services: they know their stuff, have vast track records to prove it and are pretty much the best in the business.
Next comes the mid-level guys like us at CM, AskGamblers, etc who are in it largely from the early days as affiliates offering a service to players. We're pretty well-skilled on the Complaints scene because we've been at it for years and years and have shown that we bring a valued service to the player community.
And then, in the Malta example, there are a number of ADRs who are there only because Malta said they could be. Unfortunately most of those have little complaints-resolution experience, they often work very slowly, and the truth is that players have repeatedly reported them as being unfit for purpose: they simply wouldn't be able to cut it if it wasn't for the monopoly that Malta created for them. And now Curaçao has opted to replicate that model for themselves. If this proceeds as planned IBAS and eCOGRA are shoe-ins, if they are interested; the mid-level guys are affiliates so apparently they're out of the picture, and that leaves a big hole where one can easily forsee a new crop of monopoly-protected ADRs of low and poor quality popping up like mushrooms after a summer shower, player’s needs be damned.
All in all one gets the impression that Curaçao's new ADR regs are something that a local politician scribbled on a napkin over a business lunch with some casino execs: a lot of great sounding fluff and not much practical thinking behind it.
UPDATE: we’ve just received the following from a player taken from a recent letter he received from a Curaçao-licensed casino:
FTR a 6-month expiry on player cases is inordinately short; industry standard is one year.
About a month ago Curaçao Gaming Control Board (GCB) published a directive for how Curaçao-licensed casinos are to handle player complaints, effective immediately. In a nutshell this is the new law of the land:
- Curaçao will certify ADRs.
- Curaçao-licensed casinos must name at least one Certified ADR they will refer disputes to.
- Curaçao-licensed casinos may only discuss player complaints with a Curaçao-certified ADR.
- Casino operators are to shoulder the cost of the ADR's services.
- All Certified ADRs must have at least one lawyer and three ADR specialists on staff.
- Affiliates are explicitly blocked from being Certified ADRs.
On the surface of it this may look wonderful: Curaçao GCB proactively diving into the dysfunctional mosh pit that complaints against Curaçao-licensed casinos currently are with a spate of rules that will bring fairness and professionalism to all. In truth the GCB may be making things a whole lot worse for the very players they are supposedly trying to protect.
In the first place affiliates with highly experienced complaints resolution staff currently occupy a significant portion of the complaints resolution space: think Casinomeister, AskGamblers, CasinoGuru, LCB. As of this new ruling from the GCB all of those are rendered non-participants when it comes to helping Curaçao-licensed casino players get fair representation in their complaints. Each year that amounts to thousands of player cases and many millions of dollars returned to players. Wiping all of that off the table in one fell swoop seems very much as though the GCB has something else on its mind aside from helping players.
Secondly, since there are as yet no Curaçao-Certified ADRs -- there's only one currently in the process so there are no Certified ADRs at the date of this publication -- it's a not hard to see that the GCB has given its casinos carte blanc to ignore player complaints for the time being: they can't use a non-certified ADR and there are no certified-ADRs. Happy days for the casinos, not so much for players. We’re already seeing players being caught up in this Catch-22.
Next there's the "lawyer plus three specialists' requirement. As a counter example to that we at Casinomeister handle roughly 600 cases a year. There are one and a half of us doing that -- I'm the half because of my management duties at CM -- and none of us is a lawyer. I'm a certified ADR specialist and that seems to have been quite sufficient for roughly the past two decades. How can the GCB ignore the fact that small team like ours have, over the years, successfully handled roughly 10,000 player complaints and have seen close to $10M returned to players? Again, on paper their requirements may sound good but in practice it’s just an arbitrary requirement that ignores a lot of important real-world facts.
And finally there is the question of Curaçao-certified ADRs only. On the surface that looks like a wonderfully aggressive move to have oversight and hands-on control of the ADR scene. Unfortunately we have a very strong counter example to show what actually happens when a jurisdiction does this: Malta. Malta made very similar moves some years ago and enough water has passed under the bridge that it's fairly safe to make some good observations about how that's worked out.
At the top of the ADR foodchain are the proven professionals: IBAS, eCOGRA and ... nobody else really comes to mind. These guys are usually dedicated solely to providing ADR services: they know their stuff, have vast track records to prove it and are pretty much the best in the business.
Next comes the mid-level guys like us at CM, AskGamblers, etc who are in it largely from the early days as affiliates offering a service to players. We're pretty well-skilled on the Complaints scene because we've been at it for years and years and have shown that we bring a valued service to the player community.
And then, in the Malta example, there are a number of ADRs who are there only because Malta said they could be. Unfortunately most of those have little complaints-resolution experience, they often work very slowly, and the truth is that players have repeatedly reported them as being unfit for purpose: they simply wouldn't be able to cut it if it wasn't for the monopoly that Malta created for them. And now Curaçao has opted to replicate that model for themselves. If this proceeds as planned IBAS and eCOGRA are shoe-ins, if they are interested; the mid-level guys are affiliates so apparently they're out of the picture, and that leaves a big hole where one can easily forsee a new crop of monopoly-protected ADRs of low and poor quality popping up like mushrooms after a summer shower, player’s needs be damned.
All in all one gets the impression that Curaçao's new ADR regs are something that a local politician scribbled on a napkin over a business lunch with some casino execs: a lot of great sounding fluff and not much practical thinking behind it.
UPDATE: we’ve just received the following from a player taken from a recent letter he received from a Curaçao-licensed casino:
“… that the new Curaçao LOK (National Ordinance on Games of Chance) regulations have now formally introduced a six-month expiration period for player complaints. This means that a player
must submit a complaint within six months from the date of the event giving rise to the dispute."
FTR a 6-month expiry on player cases is inordinately short; industry standard is one year.
Last edited:
