Yes, we’re an incentivized site. It looks like the players came from some sort of fraud ring because the ip addresses were all different and some of the countries were different. Also, the Cake stats reports showed that these players all played a lot of raked hands, and generated sufficient rake. Fraudulent players don’t normally play a thousand or two thousand raked hands. The $1700 was spent on incentives.
Renee, I don’t think it’s fair to have the affiliate pay for all of the chargebacks. You can say that we shouldn’t have brought the player to the site, but at the same time, why did the poker site allow the player to play at the site for 6 months before telling the affiliate? or however long? Affiliates have costs as well, especially incentivized affiliates. All that I asked from Cake was some sort of compromise in regards to the fraudulent transactions. We did not knowingly defraud Cake. We were defrauded as well. Why should we be responsible for the entire amount?
Then, not only did they lock our affiliate accounts, but they also closed all of our Cake player accounts, and notified the other affiliate managers of these fraudulent transactions, defaming us in the process. Would other affiliate managers have done this as well?
If this happened to a rakeback affiliate, and the payments were already made to the players, then would the rakeback affiliate lose all of their commissions? Ultimately, I think it’s the responsibility of both the affiliate and the site for taking on these fraudulent players.