To me the issue is very simple:
A contract is a contract. The entire world economy is based on the fact that a written or verbal contract is binding. If that was not so, there would be no way for anyone to trade and each of the world’s citizens would have to raise their own food and build their own shelter. No one could trust anyone.
So the world agrees that a word is a word and a handshake is a handshake.
Including a clause that a contract can be changed at any time is common practice to discourage lawsuits, but in reality it would never stand in any court. Contracts are binding, period.
If a casino wants to add a clause that imposes a quota, they have the legal right to do so. But not retroactively, it must not affect existing contracts.
Going forward, new affiliates do need to read the T&Cs before signing a contract, as cumbersome as that may be. We have AGD to check with, and that makes it a lot easier. I would not recommend to any affiliate to enter into a contract that has a clause imposing a quota.
Simmo’s point about all of us experiencing periodic setbacks due to google fluctuations is a great one to illustrate how one could potentially lose everything due to a snafu when a quota is in place.
Quotas are not acceptable, and breach of contract is downright illegal.
Re Centrebet, they posted a response in their CAP forum and it looks like they are reconsidering. I hope they do, they have otherwise a decent reputation. No reason they should shoot themselves in the foot like this.
But there is more to come, watch this thread!