Do you consider this to be restraint of trade?

[Maxwell]

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?

 

[Gerry]

So I thought I'd ask DNF... do you think that by doing this, RBC is restraining trade in a perhaps illegal manner?

Check with RBC. Perhaps there has been a slew of complaints piled up against these companies and they are doing this to protect the consumer.

 

[Maxwell]

Check with RBC. Perhaps there has been a slew of complaints piled up against these companies and they are doing this to protect the consumer.

Already did. It's no secret to them or anyone else that fraud on these sites "due to their nature", as they put it, is positively rampant.

But yet phone orders, credit card imprints and orders placed over non-secure connections (which happen all the time), which are 100 times more vulnerable, are somehow okay. I don't know who's running their risk management department.

Regardless, I would not consider business expediency to be grounds to banish an entire area of commerce, which is why I think it may fall under the category of "restraint of trade".

 

[Gerry]

Already did. It's no secret to them or anyone else that fraud on these sites "due to their nature", as they put it, is positively rampant.

But yet phone orders, credit card imprints and orders placed over non-secure connections (which happen all the time), which are 100 times more vulnerable, are somehow okay. I don't know who's running their risk management department.

Regardless, I would not consider business expediency to be grounds to banish an entire area of commerce, which is why I think it may fall under the category of "restraint of trade".

By accepting their cards and signing up with them, you agree to their terms. And we know banking terms change almost monthly. If they have blocked certain URL's (who's to say that these sites are not just one massive network) then, by default, you accept their terms.

You have the options of getting a CC with another company or not to do business with these 'offshore' betting sites.

 

[Maxwell]

By accepting their cards and signing up with them, you agree to their terms. And we know banking terms change almost monthly. If they have blocked certain URL's (who's to say that these sites are not just one massive network) then, by default, you accept their terms.

You have the options of getting a CC with another company or not to do business with these 'offshore' betting sites.

They told me the restriction was based on merchant category. I can only assume that any blackjack site on any URL would have to accurately classify themselves upon establishing their credit card service.

I understand that I did willingly agree to their terms, however do consider that they were the only bank who would issue me a credit card (every other bank required proof of a steady job and liked to ask a lot of questions which I did not particularly care for), which of course was secured against a deposit. But I don't have the option to just "choose another credit card".

I figure I have nothing to lose by inquiring to Industry Canada about getting this investigated.

I wouldn't say I'm a gambling addict, but this is rather frustrating that my hands are tied, and that a credit card which I legitimately obtained and have paid off in full every month can't be used for a purpose of my choosing.

 

[katherine]

Recently, some European banks have disabled debit/credit cards for use in certain (mostly non-European) countries, unless customer explicitly requests otherwise.
Reason: too much fraud going on there (skimming etc).
So the card issuers charge you full price for a defective and insecure product and it's almost like you should be grateful they are limiting your ability to use it for your own 'security'.
Try a prepaid card perhaps.

 

[Gerry]

Most likely because of this clause, which treats it as a Cash Advance:

Cash-Like transactions, which are transactions similar to cash, are also treated as cash
advances. Cash-Like transactions include money orders, wire transfers, travellers’ cheques
and gaming transactions (including betting, off-track betting, race track wagers, casino
gaming chips, and lottery tickets).

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

Also, interesting site and comments:



There are some big advantages to using Moneybookers as your funding method for online sports betting. The first one being that you have the option to use your chequing or savings account or even Visa card to fund your accounts. Some banks in Canada like TD and RBC block credit cards transactions for online betting. Moneybookers acts as a third party that lets you fund the account however you wish and transfer those funds to and from sportsbooks of your choice. When clients initiate a withdrawal, Moneybookers sends the money directly back to your credit card or bank account you initially funded the account with. Fee's are very small at Moneybookers. The only time you pay a fee is for withdrawing money back to your bank account. Fee's rarely exceed $5 for even large withdrawals.

 

[whitebark]

Does your province have online gaming?

@ katherine - is that the infamous pooping puffin?

 

[Maxwell]

Most likely because of this clause, which treats it as a Cash Advance:

Cash-Like transactions, which are transactions similar to cash, are also treated as cash
advances. Cash-Like transactions include money orders, wire transfers, travellers’ cheques
and gaming transactions (including betting, off-track betting, race track wagers, casino
gaming chips, and lottery tickets).

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

Also, interesting site and comments:



There are some big advantages to using Moneybookers as your funding method for online sports betting. The first one being that you have the option to use your chequing or savings account or even Visa card to fund your accounts. Some banks in Canada like TD and RBC block credit cards transactions for online betting. Moneybookers acts as a third party that lets you fund the account however you wish and transfer those funds to and from sportsbooks of your choice. When clients initiate a withdrawal, Moneybookers sends the money directly back to your credit card or bank account you initially funded the account with. Fee's are very small at Moneybookers. The only time you pay a fee is for withdrawing money back to your bank account. Fee's rarely exceed $5 for even large withdrawals.

Whether it is a cash advance or a purchase is immaterial. In fact, they would probably encourage the use of a cash advance, because at that point there is a 0 day grace period for interest, so they'll make money from day one on the advance.

Their issue lies with the security. My issue lies with the fact that I see that as an invalid excuse to obstruct the business of online casinos, and my ability to patronize them.

I may try moneybookers, but I'm not one to let "company policy" make my life difficult. That is, when it's a fight that's worth fighting.

---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

Does your province have online gaming?

It's in the works. But that would definitely have been my first place to look, if it had already been established.

 

[Gerry]

A few years ago when it became "illegal" for U.S. residents to play in these offshore casinos, there were 'workarounds' immediately set up.

Instead of betting money, you bet with credits or tokens or what ever the casino termed the coinage. You would purchase these 'currencies' with your CC, paypal, moneybookers, etc. and bet those online currencies. Thus, the laws were circumvented.

I am sure along with tens of thousands of customers being burnt by these online games, RCB Centura has perhaps lost a few million in payments and fees that their customers either contested or defaulted on.

 

[katherine]

is that the infamous pooping puffin?

Must be a sibling, I don't do politics