On October 13, we agreed with the advertiser on a cap for the Fastslots product without KPIs without BL, and then we sent traffic. At the time of the reconciliation, on November 10,the advertiser informed us that he was dissatisfied with the quality of the traffic, so he made a request for us to discuss alternative payment options, but after we agreed to discuss the situation in more detail, the advertiser decided not to waste time with us on discussions which he suggested, and unilaterally changed the amount of the commission for us, reducing it by more than 4 times, so basically he set a commission that was more than 75% less than the one we agreed on. The advertiser changed it without agreeing anything with us and with no any negotiations. However, he had no right to do this, as the agreement was without KPIs without BL, and therefore communication with us should have been open, and we should have agreed on everything together, and not received a result without our participation in that. Later, to our requests to get an explanation and discuss this situation, in particular in Google Meet, the advertiser refused, began to ignore us, did not want to invite his Head of Affiliates in our Telegram group chat. In addition, other managers of the company including Head of Affiliates Divesrum Partners also began to ignore us. Looks like scam case because changing the conditions without notifying the partner and ignoring the partner is just a way to refuse to fulfil the obligations assumed regarding payment to us.

Dear Diversum Partners Affiliate Program,

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.

This complaint has been reopened as per Diversum Partners Affiliate request and AskGamblers Complaints Team would like to give it one more try and help both parties involved into the dispute reaching to a satisfactory resolution.

Hi there,

We would like to clarify the situation, as the published claim omits key facts.
Prior to campaign launch, we explicitly communicated traffic restrictions, including a prohibition on low-value keyword intent (e.g. “free casino”, bonus-only traffic). These rules were acknowledged before traffic started.
After reviewing the delivered traffic, we identified search intent that violated those restrictions. This is a compliance matter, not a KPI or performance issue. A “no KPI” agreement does not remove the obligation to respect traffic rules communicated in advance.
Even though the traffic did not comply, and could have been fully invalidated, we acted in good faith and approved payment equivalent to deposit value for all delivered players. This amount was confirmed internally and finance was instructed accordingly.
The suggestion that commission was “cut arbitrarily” is incorrect. The adjustment was based solely on traffic non-compliance, not on performance dissatisfaction, and partial payment was approved despite the violation.
We remain open to factual discussion, but we cannot accept claims that ignore previously agreed traffic restrictions.

Kind regards,
Diversum Partners Team

Dear @21stGold,

The AskGamblers Complaint Team is kindly asking you to update your complaint in a timely manner and confirm if you consider the issue resolved. Please note that, in case you fail to respond within the given timeframe we will consider your case resolved and it will be closed accordingly.

Please keep in mind that as per the AGCCS Terms and Guidelines which you accepted upon registering and using our complaint system, you are obliged to provide the necessary level of assistance and cooperation during the process and providing updates in a timely manner is a must.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Good afternoon, thank you for conducting your communication at least here, although you ignore communication in working groups for more than a month. There has been no response from you anywhere except this message here. Therefore, the fact that you remain open to factual discussion is not entirely true. This is the first violation, which is unacceptable if we are talking to you in a business context. Secondly, and this is key - you did not accept any agreement about which keys you are banning, this is a lie, we only discussed the rate and the fact that the traffic would be without KPIs and without BL. (all screenshots are attached). As for the key keys that you attached in your screenshot to us in the group chat after we sent the traffic - all the keys there belong to the general category, there are no low keys, in particular (e.g. “free casino”), this key was not used at all and this is a lie. The welcome bonus key, which is one of the keys, on the screenshot you sent is a logical key, players often choose a casino based on the welcome bonus, make a deposit and become regular players on the product. Moreover, all other keys on the screenshot are also general keys. That is why there are no low keys. In addition, I explained to you how the traffic flooding mechanics work: if you promote general keywords, the system can start showing or ranking ads/pages based on related keywords, even if you didn't add them. That is why you had no reason to unilaterally cut the payment, and then, upon our request to discuss the situation and resolve it in a way convenient for both companies, simply started ignoring us.
Moreover, any changes in payments must be discussed with your head and us personally, as our agreements were different, I can repeat that that was a cap with no kpi about quality. I am very grateful that in your message here "You remain open to factual discussion", but in practice this did not happen. We have provided screenshots of how you are ignoring us in work chats. Please find the strength to schedule a call us and discuss the situation and resolve it and improve your communication with us in particular. We remain open to factual discussion and open for finding a solution for both parties, but this requires your involvement, not ignoring. If you do not wish to engage in such communication in order to find a joint solution, then fulfill your obligations in accordance with our agreements.

Kind regards,
21stGold

Dear @21stGold,

The AskGamblers Complaint Team is kindly asking you to update your complaint in a timely manner and confirm if you consider the issue resolved. Please note that, in case you fail to respond within the given timeframe we will consider your case resolved and it will be closed accordingly.

Please keep in mind that as per the AGCCS Terms and Guidelines which you accepted upon registering and using our complaint system, you are obliged to provide the necessary level of assistance and cooperation during the process and providing updates in a timely manner is a must.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Dear @AskGamblers

We do not consider the situation resolved, the advertiser has still not paid the agreed commission amount, and is still not communicating with us and ignoring us.

Hi there,

Thank you for your message. We would like to clarify several points, as the current statement contains factual inaccuracies and omits important context.

First, the claim that communication was ignored is incorrect. The issue was discussed multiple times both in direct messages and in group chats, and our position was clearly communicated on several occasions. The fact that we did not agree to further calls after repeatedly confirming a final decision does not constitute ignoring communication.

Second, the disagreement was never about KPIs or performance metrics. While the campaign was agreed as “no KPI / no BL,” this does not eliminate the obligation to comply with traffic rules and restrictions communicated prior to launch. Low value search intent was explicitly flagged as not acceptable before the campaign started. This is a compliance matter, not a quality KPI.

Regarding keywords, our assessment was based on traffic intent, not on whether specific terms were manually added by the affiliate. Even when general keywords are used, the publisher remains responsible for the resulting intent and traffic profile. This is standard industry practice. The fact that certain queries may have been triggered automatically does not invalidate the compliance concern.

Based on this review, the delivered traffic did not meet the agreed traffic restrictions and could have been fully rejected. Nevertheless, acting in good faith and considering that you operate as a network, we approved payment equal to the deposit value of all delivered players. This was a discretionary goodwill decision, not an obligation.

The suggestion that payment was “cut unilaterally” is therefore misleading. The adjustment was a compliance-based resolution, communicated clearly, confirmed internally, and stated as final multiple times. Continued attempts to reopen the matter, including repeated messages and escalation requests after closure, do not change this position.

We stand by our actions, which were aligned with the initial traffic rules, industry standards, and good-faith commercial conduct. No further adjustments will be made regarding this campaign.

Kind regards,
Diversum Partners Team

Dear @21stGold,

The AskGamblers Complaint Team is kindly asking you to update your complaint in a timely manner and confirm if you consider the issue resolved. Please note that, in case you fail to respond within the given timeframe we will consider your case resolved and it will be closed accordingly.

Please keep in mind that as per the AGCCS Terms and Guidelines which you accepted upon registering and using our complaint system, you are obliged to provide the necessary level of assistance and cooperation during the process and providing updates in a timely manner is a must.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Dear @AskGamblers
The issue is not solved. The advertiser actually refuses to communicate with us further. Starting from November 19, from the moment the advertiser informed us that he was unilaterally cutting off more than 75 percent of our payment without negotiations with us, the advertiser has not been in dialogue with us in working groups. The advertiser is also lying about everything what is mentioned here. First, he has no right to cut the payment, second, he has no right not to communicate with us and ignore us. In fact, the advertiser made a decision because it was financially beneficial to him, violating our agreements with him, and cutting more than 75% of the required payment, without having any grounds for this, as the only conditions that we agreed with the advertiser are conditions without KPIs without BL (the advertiser confirms this here too). No agreements regarding the possibility of cutting the payment at the advertiser's request was not agreed upon before the traffic launch.
In addition, after providing traffic, all keywords correspond to the category of general keywords, and do not belong to low keywords. I am sending a screenshot where you can see that the keyword is "casino francais", that means, "French casinos" and belongs to the general key not to low key.
It is especially terrible that we were ready for dialogue to find a joint decision, but the advertiser unilaterally decided to cut the payment and start ignoring us, and continues to do so now. Therefore, the fact that he is open to cooperation is not true, he is only open to biasedly cutting the payment and stopping the dialogue with you. Be careful with this advertiser. I attach all available evidence of my words in the screenshots below. Please post the screenshots I provide in this message. If Diversum Partners refuses to resolve this situation, you can consider this complaint as unresolved. As for now they are still ignoring us (all screenshots provided)
Dear @DiversumPartners
We remain open to factual discussion and open for finding a solution for both parties, but this requires your involvement, not ignoring. If you do not wish to engage in such communication in order to find a joint solution, then fulfill your obligations in accordance with our agreements.
Kind regards,
21stGold

Hi there,

We would like to clarify the situation for AskGamblers moderators, as several statements above are factually inaccurate and omit important context.
The claim that we “refused to communicate” is misleading. This matter was discussed multiple times in both direct and group communications, and our position was communicated clearly on several occasions. Declining to continue repetitive discussions after a final decision has been communicated does not constitute ignoring communication.
The adjustment in question was not related to KPIs, performance metrics, or conversion rates. While the campaign was agreed as “no KPI / no BL,” this does not remove the obligation to comply with traffic rules and compliance requirements communicated prior to launch. This was a compliance matter, not a KPI issue.
Responsibility for delivered traffic lies with the publisher and/or network, including responsibility for resulting search intent. Even when general keywords are used, publishers remain accountable for the type of traffic generated. The fact that certain queries may be triggered automatically does not remove this responsibility, which is standard practice in PPC and SEO traffic acquisition.
In addition, our actions were taken in accordance with our Terms & Conditions. While the campaign was agreed as “no KPI,” affiliates remain responsible for compliant traffic acquisition (Sections 3 and 6). Our Terms allow us to assess CPA eligibility, withhold or adjust commissions in cases of non-compliant, bonus-seeking, or abusive traffic, and to suspend or close discussions once a final decision is issued following review (Sections 6, 7, and 10). Traffic rules were communicated prior to launch and form part of these compliance obligations.
Based on our review, the delivered traffic did not comply with the agreed traffic rules and could have been fully rejected. Nevertheless, acting in good faith and considering that the partner operates as a network, we approved payment equal to the deposit value of all delivered players. This was a discretionary goodwill decision and not a contractual obligation.
Continued attempts to reopen a closed case, including repeated messages and escalation requests after a final decision had been communicated, do not change this outcome. We categorically reject allegations of dishonesty or bad faith. Our actions were aligned with our Terms & Conditions, pre campaign traffic restrictions, and standard industry practice. No further adjustments will be made regarding this campaign.

Kind regards,
Diversum Partners Team