Open Amounts:
June 1062,00€
July 1350,00€
August 1744,18€
Total Amount 4156,18
Dear Complaint Team,
We have Open Amounts with Peaky Partners since June, July + August
June Payment was wrongly processed by Finance of Peaky Partners as Affiliate Manager told us. June Afflika Bill was 8850€ Finance only transfered 8850USDT (7788€ at payment date)
July + August are still on hold in afflika as of "Finance additional Check"
Promise was made several times that missing amount of June will be added manual in Afflika System to be withdrawn.
Responses of Affiliate Manager are taking up to 2 weeks and more to recieve only same short answer as before and no information about payment.
Requested contact to Finance Team several time, won't receive any contact details.
At current we recieved information that we are getting accused of low not real traffic deposit, although affiliate Manager told us to keep brand online "at lower position" after first month. Only after third month we recieved Info to delist brand.
Deal has 78 FTDs, Depositcount is 111 total Depositsum 8387 €
There is No reason to get accused of Not real Traffic and deposit 8387 € for Partnerincome of 11900€
Could you please Open Case and try to help us solve this issue?
Thank you and kind regards
Hoping to get answer from Peaky Partners side asap as communication with Affiliate Manager and even Head of Affiliate is without responses.
AskGamblers
Dear Peaky Partners,
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.
Dear AskGamblers,
We tried to resolve this matter in chat, but we were unable to reach a solution. Here is a summary of the situation.
From 1 June to 31 August 2026, the first three months of our cooperation, we received 78 first-time depositors (FTDs). Of those, 60 made only one deposit and did not return. That represents 76.92% of all FTDs.
The data report is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qxmFQt7_dSSYLvV4ddnRRPhs4lwgxNxa/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=101439926240650306021&rtpof=true&sd=true
Our retention team contacted these players throughout the period, but the results did not improve.
We raised the issue with the partner on 8 June 2026, one week after cooperation began. At that time, we were told that more time was needed (see the attached screenshot). Three months later, the situation had not changed.
We have already paid the partner €7,788. A further €4,156.18 is currently on hold due to the low quality of the traffic.
Under Sections 2.4 and 5 of our Terms and Conditions, which the partner accepted upon registration, we have classified this traffic as low quality. The outstanding €4,156.18 will remain on hold. If the performance of the players already referred improves, we will review the decision and release the amount accordingly.
Best regards,
Peaky Partners
Dear AskGamblers,
Unfortunately, due to technical issues, the screenshot we attached to the previous message was not sent.
If you need this information, we would be happy to email the relevant files to you.
Best regards,
Peaky Partners
Dear Peaky Partners,
the solution suggested in Chat was that you offered us to pay 1072€ of the Open Amount of 4150€.
We are several years in this business and offered you a fair solution to pay 50% (2075 €) instead of 4150€ to solve this issue.
Please keep in mind that Affiliate Business is about Promotion! We did offer several promotional benefits for Ego Games, like First Position on Website etc. you recieved FTDs and also Users redeposit as of this month - even though we are Not Promoting - so still there is active Traffic from our Users - CPA was agreed on without Baseline, I suggestet to even add a Baseline as solution afterwards which you declined -Users are still registered and deposited which need definitly mean you have to pay for Traffic generated.
If this is the way you handle things how can affiliates Trust you for payment and start Partnerships? This is Not the way to handle things and declined payment. There was No Test Cap, No request to delist after first month, so Traffic should be paid accordingly.
We even proposed to waive 50% of Open amount! How is that Not a fair proposal to solution of this case?
Only Ask Gamblers complaint is the reason we recieved answers in Chat anyways, before that it was tried to ignore every message send.
So please be fair and agree to the 50% proposal to clear this case.
AskGamblers
Dear Peaky Partners,
The AskGamblers Complaint Team is kindly asking you to provide a detailed explanation of the issue along with all the relevant facts and evidence that could support your accusations towards the affiliate. Please make sure to state all the relevant terms that you believe have been breached by the affiliate, if any. Please send required information to support@askgamblers.com directly.
Please note that according to the AGCCS Terms, we consider all the information presented during the course of our complaint process confidential and as such it will not be shared with third parties.
Please be in aware that in case you fail to respond and/or provide requested information within the given timeframe, the complaint will be closed as unresolved.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Dear AskGamblers Complaint Team,
Thank you for following up.
I would like to clarify our position, sum up and respond directly to the allegations made by Peaky Partners.
First, we have been active in the affiliate business for several years and have extensive experience working with affiliate programs. We have always operated our traffic and promotions in good faith.
During the cooperation with Peaky Partners, we actively promoted the brand and invested promotional resources into the partnership. This included giving the brand a prominent position on our website, including first-position placement, in order to generate visibility and FTDs. This was a genuine promotional effort undertaken with the expectation that traffic generated under the agreed CPA arrangement would be treated according to the agreed partnership terms.
The most important point in this case is the communication lack and timing.
Peaky Partners states that the traffic was considered “low quality.” However, according to our communication history, there was:
No test cap communicated to us at the beginning of the cooperation.
No instruction to stop or significantly restrict traffic after the first month.
No formal request to delist the brand after the first month.
No clear warning that commissions would be withheld because of the traffic quality.
No timely notification that the traffic was considered unacceptable under the agreed CPA arrangement.
On the contrary, after the first month we were instructed by the affiliate side to keep the brand online, albeit at a lower position because of depositsum. We therefore continued the promotion based on the communication we received from the program.
We only received information about delisting after the third month after waiting for more FTDs as if it was planned to generate more Traffic and Not pay generated Traffic Afterwards.
It is therefore difficult to understand how the traffic can now retrospectively be classified as unacceptable for the entire period when we were not instructed to stop the promotion when the alleged problem was identified.
Peaky Partners states that the issue was raised on 8 June, one week after cooperation began. If this was already considered a material traffic-quality problem, we believe the appropriate and commercially reasonable action would have been to clearly notify us, impose a test cap, establish a baseline, or request that we stop/delist the brand at that time.
Instead, the partnership continued.
There were also genuine users and genuine deposits generated through our promotion. As stated in the original complaint, the campaign generated 78 FTDs, 111 deposits and approximately €8,387 in total deposits. Users also continued to return and deposit even after we stopped actively promoting the brand.
This is particularly relevant because the CPA was agreed without a baseline or retention requirement being communicated to us beforehand. We even suggested introducing a baseline retrospectively as a possible solution, but this proposal was declined.
We also want to address the suggestion that the traffic should simply be considered unpaid because a high percentage of users made only one deposit.
A retention metric cannot reasonably be introduced retrospectively after the traffic has already been delivered unless such a condition was clearly communicated and agreed beforehand. If Peaky Partners believed that a certain retention rate or minimum number of deposits was required to qualify for CPA, this should have been communicated before or during the campaign, together with a clear warning when performance allegedly failed to meet that requirement.
We have also already demonstrated our willingness to resolve this commercially. The outstanding amount is €4,156.18. Although we maintain that the amount was earned under the agreed partnership, we offered to accept 50% — €2,075 — as a compromise simply to bring the matter to an end. Peaky Partners offered €1,072, which we could not accept given the circumstances.
Especially not accepting a retroperspective Baseline (we suggested 30/40€) when the critic is one time deposits or missing re depositors sounds very unexplainable for us because this would filter our traffic accordingly and would potentially even meet creteria of Terms of Service.
Please find also Traffic Screenshots of July -Today, the Traffic we won't get paid according to "low quality".
Hopefully this sums up this case and can help to solve it accordingly.
Kind regards
Yasar
Dear AskGamblers,
We have sent the response with all the evidence to your email.
Best Regards, Peaky Partners
AskGamblers
Dear all,
Following a careful review and consideration of all the information, details, and/or proof presented by the parties during the complaint process, the AskGamblers Complaint Team reached the conclusion that Peaky Partners management acted in accordance with their Terms and Conditions.
Based on the abovementioned information, the AskGamblers Complaint Team considers this case resolved, and it is now officially closed.
