Gaming industry news sites are reporting a major development in the fight against unfair wagering requirements. We all know that, if there’s one thing that really upsets casino gamers, it’s accepting what looks like a great deposit offer, winning on their favourite slot, table game or sportsbook, only to find that they can’t withdraw their winnings. Buried in the small print of the terms and conditions of that generous-looking offer, there’s frequently a nasty little get out clause for the casino. This is called the wagering requirement – the need for the player to bet 20, 30, or as much as 50 times the “free” bonus deposit they thought they were getting.
Karamba sued in Sweden for too high wagering requirements
The Swedish consumer ombudsman, Konsumentombudsman (KO), has taken on Aspire Global over wagering requirements at their subsidiary casino, Karamba. And one of the points they’re taking legal action on, is the fact that the bonus restrictions and rules are written in so small font that most consumers could easily miss them. The case against Karamba is that: “The company promises bonuses and free spins that, in practice, force the player to play too large sums, or the money is lost.”
Try a great new no wagering slot site instead:
" Over 4500 games to play with no wagering all day! Select a yummy fruit, then enjoy the pursuit."
It could be that anyone aiming to get a generous bonus from a casino is looking in the wrong place. But all players have the right to demand transparency. And burying the news about the wagering requirement in obscure paragraphs at the end of the terms and conditions is not what anyone would call transparent. 888, for example, has a Freeplay £88 promotion with a x30 wagering requirement on bonus winnings, a fact which is explained in tiny print right at the end of their standard T&Cs, which themselves are only accessible via two links. Small print conditions were another of the Swedish ombudsman’s complaints against Aspire. ”
NoWagering.casino expect the Swedish regulation to tighten up regarding wagering regulations and how attractive a high wager bonus may look in the coming year
“, says Markus Jalmerot, co-founder of the top site for No Wagering in the English speaking world.
Wagering among average sites
An average site such as 888 is no worse in this respect, than many other casinos, and its X30 is in the middle of wager requirements which can be as high as X50. But perhaps the Konsumentombudsman might also like to take a look at the other great unfairness in the wagering requirement, frequently also tucked away discreetly. That’s the wagering contribution. You might think that every penny you spend with the casino, contributes 100% to playing through your bonus wagering requirement, and getting you to the point where you can finally withdraw your winnings. Not at all.
Because another nasty surprise awaits you. Many games offered by a casino, make paltry contributions to the play through amount. For example, 888 (and again, they are by no means the worst offender), only awards you 20% towards the wagering requirement, if you play poker table games, triple card poker or roulette. However, the good news is that things are changing. New online casino sites from 2019, like Nomini, have brought much-needed openness and fairness into this area. People are beginning to realise the full unfairness of wagering requirements, and actively searching for casinos that don’t impose these onerous conditions before they pay out. After all, why should you even bother with a online casino site no having low wagering?
Unfortunately, some casinos boasting “no wager requirements” are not quite telling the whole truth, since there are sometimes a whole bunch of other restrictions instead. Check in on the top list of no wagering casinos regularly for updates aimed at giving you the gaming savvy to avoid the worst of these traps and get more value for your money.
Looking for better alternatives than Karamba? Check out our toplist of low wagering casinos, or sites without wagering on deposit that can be found here.
