Yes but since you saw the full text, where the amended/added rules highlighted from the whole set of rules, did the text included all the rules or just the amended/added ones. Taking out the debate whether the 50k rule is valid or not (as i've already mentioned on #205), if the text he accepted included only the rules that were added or changed or they were highlighted in some way, then he doesn't have any case on the ground "i didn't know". You see some companies had a tactic to hide an added rule (those that were tricky and questionable in particular) in a pile of rules and courts (at least in europe) suggested that amended or added rules should be stated clearly so the user is aware of them.......
As for 87k, they had no right to do so and don't see any rule on the private agreement that omer87 posted (when they returned them part of the money) that stated if you break the new deal (which according to omer he didn't) we will confiscate your balance. So if the 87k didn't come up as the excess profit from 1 day of activity, after the new deal was agreed, the answer to the question if Premium Tradings is scam, it's pretty simple and straightforward and is YES.
As for 87k, they had no right to do so and don't see any rule on the private agreement that omer87 posted (when they returned them part of the money) that stated if you break the new deal (which according to omer he didn't) we will confiscate your balance. So if the 87k didn't come up as the excess profit from 1 day of activity, after the new deal was agreed, the answer to the question if Premium Tradings is scam, it's pretty simple and straightforward and is YES.