A quick follow up:
Despite their terms and conditions, which disclaim liability for losses, there are unique circumstances that I feel warrant a thorough review.
Reasons for Refund Request:
Self-Exclusion and Cooling-Off Period Not Honored:
The week before i lost it all , I reached out to request a self-exclusion period, as I was concerned about potential gambling losses. I clearly indicated my intent to avoid further participation and to prevent the risk of losing funds. However, I was not provided with any effective self-exclusion tools, nor was my account limited in response to this request. Without this necessary intervention, I was able to gamble away my winnings and additional funds, which would likely not have occurred had a self-exclusion measure been honored.
Failure to Enforce Responsible Gambling Measures:
Most online casinos prioritize player welfare by offering safeguards like cooling-off periods, reality checks, and session limits. These measures are considered industry standards and are part of responsible gambling obligations, even in jurisdictions with fewer restrictions. By allowing me to continue depositing and losing funds without any intervention, the casino did not take reasonable actions to help protect a player at risk.
Casino’s Duty of Care and Good Faith:
The lack of response to my self-exclusion request indicates a failure to exercise a reasonable duty of care. When I expressed concerns, I hoped the casino would act in good faith to help manage the risk. Instead, I was permitted to play through all my winnings and more. This absence of safeguards allowed the continuation of play in a manner inconsistent with responsible gambling principles, and it ultimately led to significant financial loss.
Unique Circumstances Surrounding My Losses:
Given that I was under medication due to medical issues during this period, my ability to make fully informed gambling decisions was compromised. Casinos often offer tools to prevent impulsive decisions in situations like these, and such tools would have helped mitigate losses.
Responsible gambling practices require that casinos respond to players' requests for help in limiting their gambling. My request signaled that I was concerned about my gambling behavior, particularly in relation to impulsive play and loss of significant funds. Allowing me to continue depositing and playing without offering any protective measure is, in my view, a breach of the casino’s duty of care.
Many reputable casinos offer options such as self-exclusion, locked withdrawals, and cooling-off periods to ensure players can protect themselves from excessive losses. Had Casinoways followed industry standards and implemented my request, I would have been protected from these losses.
For these reasons, I respectfully request a refund of €40,000-€59,000 I believe this request is reasonable, considering my proactive request to limit my gambling activity and the absence of a response from the casino to protect my welfare.
Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal. I look forward to your response and am hopeful for a favorable resolution.
A quick follow up:
Despite their terms and conditions, which disclaim liability for losses, there are unique circumstances that I feel warrant a thorough review.
Reasons for Refund Request:
Self-Exclusion and Cooling-Off Period Not Honored:
The week before i lost it all , I reached out to request a self-exclusion period, as I was concerned about potential gambling losses. I clearly indicated my intent to avoid further participation and to prevent the risk of losing funds. However, I was not provided with any effective self-exclusion tools, nor was my account limited in response to this request. Without this necessary intervention, I was able to gamble away my winnings and additional funds, which would likely not have occurred had a self-exclusion measure been honored.
Failure to Enforce Responsible Gambling Measures:
Most online casinos prioritize player welfare by offering safeguards like cooling-off periods, reality checks, and session limits. These measures are considered industry standards and are part of responsible gambling obligations, even in jurisdictions with fewer restrictions. By allowing me to continue depositing and losing funds without any intervention, the casino did not take reasonable actions to help protect a player at risk.
Casino’s Duty of Care and Good Faith:
The lack of response to my self-exclusion request indicates a failure to exercise a reasonable duty of care. When I expressed concerns, I hoped the casino would act in good faith to help manage the risk. Instead, I was permitted to play through all my winnings and more. This absence of safeguards allowed the continuation of play in a manner inconsistent with responsible gambling principles, and it ultimately led to significant financial loss.
Unique Circumstances Surrounding My Losses:
Given that I was under medication due to medical issues during this period, my ability to make fully informed gambling decisions was compromised. Casinos often offer tools to prevent impulsive decisions in situations like these, and such tools would have helped mitigate losses.
Responsible gambling practices require that casinos respond to players' requests for help in limiting their gambling. My request signaled that I was concerned about my gambling behavior, particularly in relation to impulsive play and loss of significant funds. Allowing me to continue depositing and playing without offering any protective measure is, in my view, a breach of the casino’s duty of care.
Many reputable casinos offer options such as self-exclusion, locked withdrawals, and cooling-off periods to ensure players can protect themselves from excessive losses. Had Casinoways followed industry standards and implemented my request, I would have been protected from these losses.
For these reasons, I respectfully request a refund of €40,000-€59,000 I believe this request is reasonable, considering my proactive request to limit my gambling activity and the absence of a response from the casino to protect my welfare.
Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal. I look forward to your response and am hopeful for a favorable resolution.