Nothing hidden and no reason to lol
To add tho, I did work in a land based UK casino for 5 years and worked my way up to lower management where I was involved in the 'ban' process.
There we had a 'signed for when joining' policy that the casino did not have to disclose any reasons for withdrawal of VIP benefits or total membership bans, which we very rarely had problems with, figure online casinos are well within their rights to adopt a similar policy
Companies are too afraid to discuss things like this with customers. The problem is, this can backfire spectacularly. A customer has to second guess why, and there are certain strict legal protections against companies using their "right to refuse service" for an ever increasing number of reasons, things like race, gender, disability, etc. The problem then is that if the customer they have banned belongs to one of these groups they can easily believe that it's why they got banned, and in the absence of any other logical explanation, and the clear "we have something to hide" attitude from the business, it can create both a PR backlash and legal action. The problem then is that legal action in such cases is something of an anomaly, the company has to prove they didn't discriminate because of a protected criterion such as race, gender, etc. rather than the usual "guilty until proven innocent".
There have been a couple of recent PR backlash disasters from our big supermarkets. Sainsbury's threw out a couple for kissing each other as they shopped together. It wasn't anything "heavy", just a regular kiss in public, one that might offend a few "prudes", but is perfectly acceptable in modern society. The catch was that the couple who got thrown out just happened to be lesbians, but Sainsbury's staff had hidden behind their "right to refuse service" by insisting they leave for "kissing". The PR backlash was that this was a ridiculous reason, you see couples kissing and holding hands when shopping all the time, it may not be widespread, but one thing you NEVER see is some pompous store manager marching over to them and chucking them out for it. The logical conclusion was that they were not thrown out for "kissing", but for a "lesbian kiss", which just happens to be one of those legally protected situations where the usual "right to refuse service" doesn't apply. The result was that a university load of students descended upon the store and held a protest "kiss in", whilst Sainsbury's HQ had to get firefighting, and FAST! They sacrificed the local store manager by saying this was certainly not company policy, and that the staff involved would be "retrained". Of course, their REAL worry was a lawsuit for discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation, for which there is no legal upper limit on the award of damages, and in which they would have to convince a jury that it was more probable that they ejected the couple simply because of a kiss, rather than because it was a "gay kiss". This being a jury of 12 people who probably see couples kissing in public on a regular basis without being asked to leave anywhere.
With this in mind, we see some pretty odd policies in B&M businesses where people of colour, disabled, etc seem not to be held to the same standards of behaviour as the rest of us. This is because the company knows that it could have to come up with a definitive reason for ejecting such a person, rather than the more general "right to refuse service" which is often used when they have a "feel" about someone, or a "suspicion" based on some intelligence, that they feel presents a risk to them should they allow them to remain, but something that is too vague for them to be able to cite as a valid reason for refusing service to someone were they to be put on the spot.
Casinos will often eject or ban people who appear to be "suspicious", perhaps colluding as a pair or a group at a table in order to beat the house, or a team of card counters. They can't prove any of it, but they will ban such players either from certain games, or from the casino as a whole, but they would not want to be backed into a corner by having to explain why they banned the person in front of a judge.
It's far easier for online casinos to use their right to refuse service because there is less chance of such an action ending up anywhere near a judge, however online casinos DO use secret intelligence to seek out fraudsters and advantage players, and by using their right to refuse service from the outset, rather than having to react after the fact by voiding winnings, they lessen the chances of them being put on the spot and having to explain the reasons. A bonus ban is therefore far safer for the casino than having to void winnings when they have been taken to the cleaners by a group of APs. It's also fully supported under the CM standards, which say that a casino must honour winnings where terms were not broken, but if they feel the player is "too good" with the bonuses, they can then bonus ban them without having to worry about their accreditation status being at risk (in most cases).
Only taking 50% and 100% bonuses over a prolonged term is going to be something the casino doesn't like, and would be one factor in a decision to bonus ban a player. Reinstatement would in part depend on whether they feel that the player is genuinely altering their playing behaviour, or whether they are "working the system" with a view to again only taking the 100% and 50% bonuses once reinstatement has been achieved. The problem is of course that unless the player can be monitored when taking bonuses, there is no real way to judge whether or not there is going to be a change were they to be reinstated.
Now, as for the Club Rouge question, it DOES seem that it is being changed from a long term/lifetime club with few extra benefits to an active part of a new loyalty system, one where movement can be both ways, and on a regular basis, just like any other casino VIP program whether online or B&M. In a regular VIP program, players only stay in the top level if they continue to deliver the level of participation that got them there. If they play much less, or visit less often, the status can be reviewed and they can drop a tier or two.
Most MGS systems work on loyalty points earned, and have a target to reach to move up a tier, and an often smaller maintenance target to remain there. If activity reduces significantly enough, the maintenance level is not achieved and the player drops a tier.
I have seen several MGS casinos use a split between a regular tier system based on loyalty points, and a top tier based on something like an invite. GNUF had a top section which could be reached with 1,000,000 points, but the maintenance level was only 100,000 which was not much higher than the 75,000 needed to move up to the top Platinum tier in the lower section. It made the Black and Prive tiers almost impossible to reach through play alone, but pretty easy to maintain for a player that got bumped up there by invite. The difference between these and Club Rouge is that in the latter the maintenance criteria are also undefined, not just the invite criteria.
The way it's set up is unfair to some players. Besides, they don't give too much for being silver, I don't think it would be a big ask to reduce the required loyalty points to 250/month to maintain it.
