- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,434
- Reaction score
- 208
Partially against my better judgement, and certainly against the better judgement of the majority of the population, I decided I'd give online blackjack a try. Nothing big. Just $20. If I win, I win, and if I lose, I lose. I've lost $20 before. I'm no stranger to it.
So, after registering an account, I entered my credit card details to make the deposit. I looked it over thoroughly to ensure there was no automatic re-bill or recurring deposits at a pre-determined time interval "for your convenience".
Upon submission of accurate information, it turns out the credit card transaction could not be completed.
I thought this to be rather strange. I knew my card was good for the $20 in question. Maybe something is wrong with their payment processor.
So I try another site. Same deal.
I figured there had to be a reason for this consistency. The payment processor did not look similar in the UI's appearance, so I had a feeling it wasn't the payment processor, but rather my card issuer.
Perhaps they considered a transaction to an offshore entity to be "suspicious"... though I've made multiple purchases from European merchants in the past with absolutely no problems.
So, I flipped my card over and called up RBC Visa support.
As it turns out, RBC (Royal Bank of Canada, for the non-Canadian readers) has a policy against utilizing any card issued by them for the purposes of gambling, due to "high fraud rates", according to the rep on the phone.
I didn't recall seeing this in the cardholder agreement when I read it out, but I stood corrected. A section of the cardholder agreement reads as follows:
"We also reserve the right to prevent your Credit Card or your Account from being used for certain types of transactions as determined by us, including transactions connected to Internet gambling"
This is total bullshit that I can't use my own credit card, to cause my own funds to be transferred for a purpose of my choosing. It's a free country, and I should have the liberty to engage in activities as I see fit.
Why should they care? They still earn their commission from the merchant on processing the payment (typically in the order of 3%).
So, besides being a simply unethical thing for them to limit what I can do with my credit card, I thought to myself, could this not fall under the category of restraint of trade, as they are abusing a position of power to prevent companies of a certain nature from enjoying the business of consumers such as myself?
This area of law is not my forte (and I only study intellectual property law as a hobby), so my ability to interpret the competition act was a bit weak and did not allow for me to conclude anything.
So I thought I'd ask DNF... do you think that by doing this, RBC is restraining trade in a perhaps illegal manner?
So, after registering an account, I entered my credit card details to make the deposit. I looked it over thoroughly to ensure there was no automatic re-bill or recurring deposits at a pre-determined time interval "for your convenience".
Upon submission of accurate information, it turns out the credit card transaction could not be completed.
I thought this to be rather strange. I knew my card was good for the $20 in question. Maybe something is wrong with their payment processor.
So I try another site. Same deal.
I figured there had to be a reason for this consistency. The payment processor did not look similar in the UI's appearance, so I had a feeling it wasn't the payment processor, but rather my card issuer.
Perhaps they considered a transaction to an offshore entity to be "suspicious"... though I've made multiple purchases from European merchants in the past with absolutely no problems.
So, I flipped my card over and called up RBC Visa support.
As it turns out, RBC (Royal Bank of Canada, for the non-Canadian readers) has a policy against utilizing any card issued by them for the purposes of gambling, due to "high fraud rates", according to the rep on the phone.
I didn't recall seeing this in the cardholder agreement when I read it out, but I stood corrected. A section of the cardholder agreement reads as follows:
"We also reserve the right to prevent your Credit Card or your Account from being used for certain types of transactions as determined by us, including transactions connected to Internet gambling"
This is total bullshit that I can't use my own credit card, to cause my own funds to be transferred for a purpose of my choosing. It's a free country, and I should have the liberty to engage in activities as I see fit.
Why should they care? They still earn their commission from the merchant on processing the payment (typically in the order of 3%).
So, besides being a simply unethical thing for them to limit what I can do with my credit card, I thought to myself, could this not fall under the category of restraint of trade, as they are abusing a position of power to prevent companies of a certain nature from enjoying the business of consumers such as myself?
This area of law is not my forte (and I only study intellectual property law as a hobby), so my ability to interpret the competition act was a bit weak and did not allow for me to conclude anything.
So I thought I'd ask DNF... do you think that by doing this, RBC is restraining trade in a perhaps illegal manner?