How ClickID lost €18,000 through WinAffiliates: a case of real iGaming scam.

Or what happens when a partner changes the rules of the game after the campaign is launched.

Background: simple conditions and scaling were promised

In early February, a WinAffiliates representative approached ClickID Media about cooperation, after which an agreement was reached to launch traffic without KPIs for mindep – €90 for each user with a minimum deposit.

The WinAffiliates manager confirms the terms and conditions, and the campaign starts on February 6.

Within a few weeks:

• Communication is stable and going well with the manager Olga;
• The quality of traffic does not cause any comments, the manager receives feedback on each partner;
• More than 10 partners are connected;
• More than 500 FTDs are involved.

ClickID managers regularly receive feedback, control the quality, and scale the campaign with the approval of the advertiser.

And then a sudden stop: the advertizer changes the rules

On February 26, WinAffiliates employee Lyudmila unilaterally suspends traffic and connects head manager Riccardo to the dialog, inviting him to make a call.

Call Summary

1. Changing behavior.
   Riccardo says 352 players have shown “suspicious activity”
   and talks about minimum deposits, stakes, low engagement
   According to him, $90 will never pay off.
2. They put before the fact about changes in conditions:

• Baseline 20 EUR.
• Traffic is considered to be fraud/motivated (Winaffiliates could not decide).
• Riccardo says it directly: “Paying for traffic by CPA is financially unprofitable for us.”

At the same time, no evidence of fraud or motivated traffic is provided – only a general screen with superficial metrics.

Negotiations without results

We agree on the details of the evidence and wait.

A few days later, the same thing happened again: the second round of negotiations yielded no results. ClickID tried to resolve the issue calmly, demanding detailed analytics and official explanations. In response, they received formal letters, duplicates of previous arguments, and no new facts.

ClickID insisted on paying for traffic in full according to the agreement. The arguments are simple and clear:

• The scaling was agreed upon by the advertiser itself;
• At all stages, everything suited him;
• The traffic came from 10+ different sources;
• There were no proposals to stop or change the conditions.

Instead, in the WinAffiliates report, all partners suddenly became “fraudsters”. What exactly they are accused of is not explained.

The irony is that the traffic continued to work. At the time of the negotiations, there were already €39,000 in deposits. And according to CPA, this should have been €48,000 in payments.

So, here’s the deal:

• The expected CPA payout was €48,000;
• Actual payment was €29,250.

ClickID partially covered the costs to its partners to preserve the network’s reputation.

Conclusion: how to recognize an unscrupulous partner

This case is an example of how “cost optimization” can turn into a slippery slope of payment avoidance.
The biggest danger is not in the conflict itself, but in the fact that:

• Conditions change after the launch;
• Arguments sound loud, but remain unconfirmed;
• Partners are declared as fraudsters without proper verification.

Recommendation from ClickID

We do not recommend working with WinAffiliates.
This is not the first and not an isolated case. On our part, the case is fully documented and open to partners.

For networks, agencies, and arbitrageurs

Check new partners before launching. Fix the terms in writing and control the analytics yourself. And be ready to terminate cooperation as soon as the partner tries to change the agreement unilaterally. We wish everyone only adequate cooperation.