The player from Germany had won 1200 euros but had requested a time-out period, during which his account was reactivated prematurely after he answered questions. He lost his winnings immediately after reactivation and requested a refund, arguing that the casino had violated its own policy by allowing account access before the break period ended. The issue was resolved by concluding that the casino's actions did not constitute a violation justifying a refund, as a time-out was a preventative measure and not a strict self-exclusion. The player was unable to provide sufficient evidence of a gambling problem, which led to the closure of the complaint.
The player from Germany had won 1200 euros but had requested a time-out period, during which his account was reactivated prematurely after he answered questions. He lost his winnings immediately after reactivation and requested a refund, arguing that the casino had violated its own policy by allowing account access before the break period ended. The issue was resolved by concluding that the casino's actions did not constitute a violation justifying a refund, as a time-out was a preventative measure and not a strict self-exclusion. The player was unable to provide sufficient evidence of a gambling problem, which led to the closure of the complaint.
Automatic translation: