Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
The advertiser is Stars Partners (ex. Lala.Stars) and the product is OceanSpin. Our first campaign was launched in June and focused mainly on ASO traffic, which was approved in advance under fixed CPA terms with no KPI or retention requirements. Shortly after, without any factual justification, traffic from four independent webmasters amounting to €16,400 was labeled as fraudulent. The accusation was made retroactively, after approval and invoicing, and based solely on “ChatGPT analytics” and generic “activity screenshots.”
Despite this, management refused to provide data or engage in proper review. Requests for a detailed report were ignored, while the entire flow was labeled “partner fraud.”The decision appeared arbitrary, made after the fact, and inconsistent with the advertiser’s own approval and payment confirmation.
Although the advertiser declined to fulfill the payout, we fully compensated our webmasters for the approved traffic at our own expense, as they should not bear the consequences of the advertiser’s internal decisions. For us, this case was not only about payment, but about maintaining trust, accountability, and transparency within our partner network.
→ We are aware that we are not the only partners who have faced such an issue. The market should be informed about this case.
![[Image: 2025-10-07-00-09-41.webp]](https://i.ibb.co/why76RJ6/2025-10-07-00-09-41.webp)
Case development and correspondence
After the reconciliation in early August, all volumes were confirmed. The payout for July (€11,100) was approved, and an invoice was issed. Shortly after the payment deadline passed, the advertiser suddenly announced that “fraud/motivated traffic” had been detected and refused to proceed with payment.
![[Image: Screenshot-9.png]](https://i.ibb.co/ks3rnmnm/Screenshot-9.png)
No concrete evidence was provided. Instead, we received a single screenshot with basic activity data, which did not demonstrate any signs of fraudulent or incentivized behavior. All further explanations from the advertiser were built around that same screenshot.
![[Image: 2025-10-07-23-32-44.webp]](https://i.ibb.co/DH4BXhyW/2025-10-07-23-32-44.webp)
Sveta | q3.network:
Hi everyone! Could you please tell me when to expect the July payment?
Alex:
Clarifying the reason for the delay.
The delay is due to detected fraud — motivated traffic.
We are not ready to pay for 28 FTDs out of 51.
(attached screenshot with traffic statistics)
Please send the invoice for 23 FTDs.
Sveta | q3.network:
Let’s first sort this out because we don’t agree with these conclusions.
We need a detailed report specifying which partners, which deposits, and what indicators were used.
![[Image: 2025-10-07-23-35-14.webp]](https://i.ibb.co/dsPwkF3B/2025-10-07-23-35-14.webp)
[/b][/i]
[b]Alex:[/b]
I sent the report above in the screenshot. What exactly do you disagree with?
[b]Sveta | q3.network:
And what am I supposed to understand from this report? I need to see which conversions or which partner’s traffic you consider fraudulent, for what reasons, and a detailed fraud report is required.
The fact that there are players with minimal deposits — and that’s exactly what I see in the report — doesn’t at all mean that the traffic is fraud or motivated.
Alex:
There are players who made a deposit but never requested a bonus, never played, or never made a withdrawal.
We don’t want to pay for 70% of the players, because by one or several indicators they are classified as motivated.
So these are not real players.
The criteria by which they were identified are listed above.
Sveta | q3.network:
Players who made a deposit but never played or withdrew always appear in the streams, and this has never meant fraud or motivation.
Since when is that considered fraud?
We repeatedly requested a full analytical report or any detailed justification for the accusation. In response, we received direct refusals, stating that “everything has already been provided.” At the same time, the advertiser proposed that we “prove the opposite” by arranging a live video call with our webmasters to show their funnels, despite the fact that the apps involved had already been banned and the campaigns had ended weeks earlier.
![[Image: 2025-10-08-00-30-19.webp]](https://i.ibb.co/fdxNSN08/2025-10-08-00-30-19.webp)
[i]Anton | q3.network:
This response also does not reflect the fact of any fraud on the traffic streams and provides no additional supporting information.
Alex:
(attached ChatGPT screenshot)
[/b][/i]
Let’s ask AI what “fraud” actually is. Which part of the screenshot do you disagree with?[/i]
When we asked Stars Partners to provide the same transparency in return, the request was again denied. The only “solution” offered was a 25% payout as a gesture of goodwill, later expanded to 50%, and finally reverted back to **25%**or a 20% lifetime RevShare. None of these options were backed by data or by contractual terms.
Throughout this correspondence, the tone of communication on the advertiser’s side remained inconsistent and, at times, openly unprofessional. The affiliate manager shifted definitions from “fraud” to “motivated traffic” to “low-quality traffic,” while citing ChatGPT as a reference source for terminology instead of using internal compliance documentation.
Our own reports, based on internal analytics, confirmed that all players were real. Each user had unique IP addresses, device IDs, and mobile operators. The traffic originated primarily from ASO and Facebook, and user activity levels corresponded to organic behavior, not to bot or incentivized actions. We provided this data in full.
After these materials were submitted, Stars Partners once again stopped responding. The escalation to senior management resulted in no further progress. The Head of Affiliates eventually joined the chat but did not provide additional evidence or clarification. The only repeated message was that Stars “stands by its position.”
Official statement from Stars Partners
The advertiser’s final message cited an “internal review by the analytics and security departments,” claiming that all traffic from our partner was classified as motivated due to “low player activity and minimal redeposit rate.” No numerical thresholds, comparative benchmarks, or player-level data were attached to this statement.
Their message concluded with three proposed “solutions”:
Full payment if we arrange a video call with our partners to show the funnel in real time.
A 25% payout “as a sign of loyalty.”
A 20% lifetime RevShare if player activity allegedly improves.
The message also contained a paragraph warning us against any public disclosure of the case, threatening marketing, SERM, and legal actions in the event of “reputational damage.”
Our position
Our stance was and remains clear. We are open to discussion when verifiable data is presented. None was provided. The offered 25% “gesture of goodwill” does not compensate for a full-scale campaign that was previously approved and invoiced.All obligations to our own webmasters have been fulfilled, because this dispute is not their responsibility. The disputed sum is not significant for us, but it represents a critical issue for the industry.We consider this case to be a documented instance of unprofessional conduct and lack of transparency.If Stars Partners and its product OceanSpin rely on ChatGPT-based analysis, inconsistent definitions, and post-factum accusations instead of proper analytics, it poses a reputational risk for every partner working under similar terms.This case is closed from our side. The materials and correspondence remain archived as factual evidence.
The advertiser is Stars Partners (ex. Lala.Stars) and the product is OceanSpin. Our first campaign was launched in June and focused mainly on ASO traffic, which was approved in advance under fixed CPA terms with no KPI or retention requirements. Shortly after, without any factual justification, traffic from four independent webmasters amounting to €16,400 was labeled as fraudulent. The accusation was made retroactively, after approval and invoicing, and based solely on “ChatGPT analytics” and generic “activity screenshots.”
Despite this, management refused to provide data or engage in proper review. Requests for a detailed report were ignored, while the entire flow was labeled “partner fraud.”The decision appeared arbitrary, made after the fact, and inconsistent with the advertiser’s own approval and payment confirmation.
Although the advertiser declined to fulfill the payout, we fully compensated our webmasters for the approved traffic at our own expense, as they should not bear the consequences of the advertiser’s internal decisions. For us, this case was not only about payment, but about maintaining trust, accountability, and transparency within our partner network.
→ We are aware that we are not the only partners who have faced such an issue. The market should be informed about this case.
Quote:P.S.
Before publishing this report, we made one more attempt to resolve the conflict directly with representatives of the product. In response, we received threats, an offer to pay 25 percent as a gesture of goodwill, and a request to prove traffic legitimacy by showing full funnels during a video call with our partners, even though the applications in question had already been banned. This situation concerns traffic that had been approved two months earlier.
We were ready to review the situation based on evidence, but no proof of fraud was ever presented. The same webmasters involved in this case have been working with us for a long time and have never been associated with motivated or manipulated traffic. It is also important to note that Stars did not separate the four traffic streams but combined them into one category called “partner fraud.”
The amount in dispute is not critical, but the issue is a matter of principle. We are publishing this report not to recover funds but to highlight unprofessional behavior from the advertiser. When a company declares fraud based on ChatGPT screenshots, demands partners to prove the opposite, and then stops communication, this is not a disagreement. It is a refusal of professional dialogue and responsibility.
Case development and correspondence
After the reconciliation in early August, all volumes were confirmed. The payout for July (€11,100) was approved, and an invoice was issed. Shortly after the payment deadline passed, the advertiser suddenly announced that “fraud/motivated traffic” had been detected and refused to proceed with payment.
No concrete evidence was provided. Instead, we received a single screenshot with basic activity data, which did not demonstrate any signs of fraudulent or incentivized behavior. All further explanations from the advertiser were built around that same screenshot.
Sveta | q3.network:
Hi everyone! Could you please tell me when to expect the July payment?
Alex:
Clarifying the reason for the delay.
The delay is due to detected fraud — motivated traffic.
We are not ready to pay for 28 FTDs out of 51.
(attached screenshot with traffic statistics)
Please send the invoice for 23 FTDs.
Sveta | q3.network:
Let’s first sort this out because we don’t agree with these conclusions.
We need a detailed report specifying which partners, which deposits, and what indicators were used.
[/b][/i]
[b]Alex:[/b]
I sent the report above in the screenshot. What exactly do you disagree with?
[b]Sveta | q3.network:
And what am I supposed to understand from this report? I need to see which conversions or which partner’s traffic you consider fraudulent, for what reasons, and a detailed fraud report is required.
The fact that there are players with minimal deposits — and that’s exactly what I see in the report — doesn’t at all mean that the traffic is fraud or motivated.
Alex:
There are players who made a deposit but never requested a bonus, never played, or never made a withdrawal.
We don’t want to pay for 70% of the players, because by one or several indicators they are classified as motivated.
So these are not real players.
The criteria by which they were identified are listed above.
Sveta | q3.network:
Players who made a deposit but never played or withdrew always appear in the streams, and this has never meant fraud or motivation.
Since when is that considered fraud?
We repeatedly requested a full analytical report or any detailed justification for the accusation. In response, we received direct refusals, stating that “everything has already been provided.” At the same time, the advertiser proposed that we “prove the opposite” by arranging a live video call with our webmasters to show their funnels, despite the fact that the apps involved had already been banned and the campaigns had ended weeks earlier.
[i]Anton | q3.network:
This response also does not reflect the fact of any fraud on the traffic streams and provides no additional supporting information.
Alex:
(attached ChatGPT screenshot)
[/b][/i]
Quote:[i]ChatGPT:Well, this is just denial, nothing more... Although we are presenting everything quite reasonably.
Fraud traffic includes all cases where registration, deposits, or player activity are not genuine and do not bring value to the brand.
Usually, this includes:
[b]Motivated traffic — when users are driven by rewards (cashback, bonuses, gifts) and not by real interest in playing.[/b][/i]
Fake accounts — registrations with false data, multiple accounts, or the use of bots.[/i][/b][/i]
Proxy / VPN usage — substitution of real GEO to bypass restrictions.[/i][/b][/i]
Self-deposits — when the webmaster or their team make minimal deposits themselves to trigger payout.[/i][/b][/i]
Stolen cards or payment fraud — deposits made using stolen cards, hacked wallets, or other illegal sources.[/i][/b][/i]
Low-quality traffic — when users register and deposit but show no further activity (so-called “dead” players).[/i][/b][/i]
Unauthorized sources — traffic from spam mailings, incent schemes, or other non-agreed placements.[/i][/b][/i]
Let’s ask AI what “fraud” actually is. Which part of the screenshot do you disagree with?[/i]
When we asked Stars Partners to provide the same transparency in return, the request was again denied. The only “solution” offered was a 25% payout as a gesture of goodwill, later expanded to 50%, and finally reverted back to **25%**or a 20% lifetime RevShare. None of these options were backed by data or by contractual terms.
Throughout this correspondence, the tone of communication on the advertiser’s side remained inconsistent and, at times, openly unprofessional. The affiliate manager shifted definitions from “fraud” to “motivated traffic” to “low-quality traffic,” while citing ChatGPT as a reference source for terminology instead of using internal compliance documentation.
Our own reports, based on internal analytics, confirmed that all players were real. Each user had unique IP addresses, device IDs, and mobile operators. The traffic originated primarily from ASO and Facebook, and user activity levels corresponded to organic behavior, not to bot or incentivized actions. We provided this data in full.
After these materials were submitted, Stars Partners once again stopped responding. The escalation to senior management resulted in no further progress. The Head of Affiliates eventually joined the chat but did not provide additional evidence or clarification. The only repeated message was that Stars “stands by its position.”
Official statement from Stars Partners
The advertiser’s final message cited an “internal review by the analytics and security departments,” claiming that all traffic from our partner was classified as motivated due to “low player activity and minimal redeposit rate.” No numerical thresholds, comparative benchmarks, or player-level data were attached to this statement.
Their message concluded with three proposed “solutions”:
Full payment if we arrange a video call with our partners to show the funnel in real time.
A 25% payout “as a sign of loyalty.”
A 20% lifetime RevShare if player activity allegedly improves.
The message also contained a paragraph warning us against any public disclosure of the case, threatening marketing, SERM, and legal actions in the event of “reputational damage.”
Our position
Our stance was and remains clear. We are open to discussion when verifiable data is presented. None was provided. The offered 25% “gesture of goodwill” does not compensate for a full-scale campaign that was previously approved and invoiced.All obligations to our own webmasters have been fulfilled, because this dispute is not their responsibility. The disputed sum is not significant for us, but it represents a critical issue for the industry.We consider this case to be a documented instance of unprofessional conduct and lack of transparency.If Stars Partners and its product OceanSpin rely on ChatGPT-based analysis, inconsistent definitions, and post-factum accusations instead of proper analytics, it poses a reputational risk for every partner working under similar terms.This case is closed from our side. The materials and correspondence remain archived as factual evidence.