We would like to raise a formal complaint regarding an unresolved payment dispute with the affiliate program.
We agreed to run a test PPC campaign under specific terms: €20 minimum deposit, a cap of 20 FTDs per brand, and soft KPIs limited to fraud, multi-accounting, duplication and similar traffic-quality issues.
Importantly, no KPI related to deposit volume, Dep2Cost, ROI, NGR, retention or minimum deposit amount was agreed before the campaign started. There was also no agreement stating that the CPA would be reduced or replaced by a payment based on the amount of deposits generated.
Based on these agreed conditions, we purchased traffic using our own media budget and delivered the campaign. We generated 16 FTDs during the first test cap. The campaign was stopped before the second test cap was used because the results were not meeting expectations.
After the traffic had already been delivered, the affiliate program informed us that the results were commercially unsatisfactory and proposed paying us only approximately the amount of deposits generated — around €900, despite the originally agreed CPA commission being approximately €4,480.
We believe this is a significant issue because the payment model is effectively being changed retroactively based on performance criteria that were never agreed as conditions of payment.
We repeatedly explained that:
the campaign was launched as a test;
the agreed terms did not include a deposit-volume or ROI KPI;
we fulfilled the agreed traffic conditions;
we invested our own media budget into acquiring the traffic;
no fraud, multi-accounting or duplication violation has been demonstrated to us;
the campaign was stopped after the first test cap, meaning the second agreed cap was not even used;
the advertiser's poor commercial result does not automatically constitute a breach of the agreed CPA terms.
We also provided evidence of PPC activity, including Google Ads statistics and the domain used for the campaign. The advertiser stated that this was not sufficient to prove that their particular brand was advertised. We asked them to specify exactly what additional evidence they required, but no clear technical requirement was provided. Instead, the discussion returned to the commercial performance of the players and the amount of deposits generated.
We also want to highlight that the advertiser themselves acknowledged that the issue was not a violation of any specific agreed launch condition, but rather the fact that the traffic did not produce the commercial result they expected.
Despite this, they continue to insist that they can replace the agreed CPA payment with a payment based on deposits generated.
As a gesture of goodwill, we offered to discuss a 10–15% adjustment after the hold period, depending on the final quality and retention figures. However, we cannot accept a complete change from the agreed CPA model to a deposit-based payment after the traffic has already been delivered.
The situation is particularly concerning because the campaign was explicitly positioned as a test campaign. The purpose of a test is precisely to evaluate how traffic performs with a particular product. If the advertiser required a minimum Dep2Cost, ROI, deposit volume or retention KPI as a condition for CPA payment, these requirements should have been disclosed and agreed before the traffic was purchased and delivered, rather than introduced after the results became unsatisfactory.
We are therefore asking AskGamblers to review this case and help determine whether an affiliate program can retroactively replace agreed CPA terms with a deposit-based payment solely because the test traffic did not meet their commercial expectations, when no such KPI was agreed beforehand.
We are prepared to provide the full communication history, agreed terms, traffic statistics and available PPC evidence to support our case.
Our goal is not to escalate the situation unnecessarily. We simply want the originally agreed commercial terms to be respected, or for an independent party to assess whether the proposed retroactive change of payment terms is justified.
6 days ago
AskGamblers
2 days ago
Dear Winmaniacs Affiliates,
Please let us know if there are any updates regarding this ongoing complaint. Please note that, in case you fail to respond within the given timeframe, we will consider your case unresolved and it will be closed accordingly.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
