Dear BitDice Casino,
After gathering all the necessary information from both sides and numerous internal discussions, I'd like to present our position on this case.
Firstly, the player was able to play the game which was supposed to be restricted for him in the past and he was also able to receive his winnings successfully. Only after the threshold of the withdrawal amount triggered the verification checks, it was discovered, that he was not supposed to play the game from this particular provider. It is safe to assume, that the player was led to believe that there is no issue with playing such game.
Secondly, we were informed by you about concerns regarding usage of a VPN service during the player's session, we strongly believe it was not the case. Main reasons for our conclusion of this fact are insufficient evidence and the fact that the player was able to provide us with a proof, that he is still able to access the supposedly restricted game from his Italian IP address, without using any VPN to this day. This was in contradiction to games from other providers which were restricted for him, as they should be.
Lastly, the player's gameplay choice did not even bring him any unfair advantage to the table and we are convinced that his winnings were made in good faith, before he was confronted with the fact, that this game was supposed to be restricted for him to play.
With all these points stated, we sincerely believe that a fair resolution in this case would be for player to receive his winnings. Our conclusion was made also in accordance with our Fair Gambling Codex, where you can read in detail our recommendations for casinos, which are also relevant in this particular case.
I have also proposed a joint call to both sides involved, in case any clarification would be needed to support the successful resolution of this case.
Dear BitDice Casino,
After gathering all the necessary information from both sides and numerous internal discussions, I'd like to present our position on this case.
Firstly, the player was able to play the game which was supposed to be restricted for him in the past and he was also able to receive his winnings successfully. Only after the threshold of the withdrawal amount triggered the verification checks, it was discovered, that he was not supposed to play the game from this particular provider. It is safe to assume, that the player was led to believe that there is no issue with playing such game.
Secondly, we were informed by you about concerns regarding usage of a VPN service during the player's session, we strongly believe it was not the case. Main reasons for our conclusion of this fact are insufficient evidence and the fact that the player was able to provide us with a proof, that he is still able to access the supposedly restricted game from his Italian IP address, without using any VPN to this day. This was in contradiction to games from other providers which were restricted for him, as they should be.
Lastly, the player's gameplay choice did not even bring him any unfair advantage to the table and we are convinced that his winnings were made in good faith, before he was confronted with the fact, that this game was supposed to be restricted for him to play.
With all these points stated, we sincerely believe that a fair resolution in this case would be for player to receive his winnings. Our conclusion was made also in accordance with our Fair Gambling Codex, where you can read in detail our recommendations for casinos, which are also relevant in this particular case.
I have also proposed a joint call to both sides involved, in case any clarification would be needed to support the successful resolution of this case.
Edited by a Casino Guru admin