The player from Netherlands, who had self-identified as a gambling addict, had lost about €10,000 in two days at the casino without any interventions. The player had accused the casino of neglecting its legal duty of care, questioned the game's random outcomes, and claimed it operated without a Dutch license. The player was seeking a full reimbursement. After we reviewed the case, we found that the player had not made any deposits after his self-exclusion request. We also clarified that we could not assist with complaints related to licensing regulations and suggested the player contact the licensing authority directly. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.
The player from Netherlands, who had self-identified as a gambling addict, had lost about €10,000 in two days at the casino without any interventions. The player had accused the casino of neglecting its legal duty of care, questioned the game's random outcomes, and claimed it operated without a Dutch license. The player was seeking a full reimbursement. After we reviewed the case, we found that the player had not made any deposits after his self-exclusion request. We also clarified that we could not assist with complaints related to licensing regulations and suggested the player contact the licensing authority directly. Consequently, the complaint was rejected.
Automatic translation: