The contested amount is in DOGE, but I was not able to find that currency in the drop-down menu.
On April 11, 2025, I deposited 1174 DOGE into my casino account and proceeded to wager an amount exceeding this deposit. When attempting to withdraw 771.78 DOGE, I encountered unexpected restrictions imposed by the operator.
Notably, I did not opt in, nor claim any deposit bonus; yet the operator informed me that a sizeable wagering condition had to be met before I was allowed to cash out. According to customer service, the casino requires players to wager their deposit at least three times on slots or ten times on table/live games prior to any withdrawal. The explanation given was AML (Anti-Money Laundering) reasons.
Industry standards commonly include a one-time wagering condition prior to withdrawal, making this casino's play-through requirement excessive and atypical.
Upon careful review, I discovered an inconspicuous paragraph in the operator's terms of service, buried within clause '10. Anti-fraud policy', stating the requirement of wagering deposits three times on slots or ten times on table/live games. By being placed within the fraud section of the terms rather than being explicitly highlighted, the provision must be willfully concealed to force players to play more than they might have intended to.
Additionally, the casino attributing these wagering requirements to AML measures is illogical and unjustified. Specifically, it makes no sense that table games would require a significantly higher play-through requirement than slots to prevent money laundering.
The only purpose of the covert and excessive play-through provision seems to be so that the casino can make more money.
Despite additional wagering since April 11, customer service has repeatedly informed me that my wagering requirement in absolute numbers has increased rather than decreased, which seems exceptionally strange. Furthermore, verifying the wagering history by myself is impossible beyond April 28, 2025, since the history is limited to showing only the most recently played games.
If a provision in the terms of service is exceptionally disadvantageous for the player (individual consumer), at odds with industry standards, and covertly snuck in within an unrelated section of the terms, that provision has to be considered null and void (as is the view per most countries' contract law).
The contested amount is in DOGE, but I was not able to find that currency in the drop-down menu.
On April 11, 2025, I deposited 1174 DOGE into my casino account and proceeded to wager an amount exceeding this deposit. When attempting to withdraw 771.78 DOGE, I encountered unexpected restrictions imposed by the operator.
Notably, I did not opt in, nor claim any deposit bonus; yet the operator informed me that a sizeable wagering condition had to be met before I was allowed to cash out. According to customer service, the casino requires players to wager their deposit at least three times on slots or ten times on table/live games prior to any withdrawal. The explanation given was AML (Anti-Money Laundering) reasons.
Industry standards commonly include a one-time wagering condition prior to withdrawal, making this casino's play-through requirement excessive and atypical.
Upon careful review, I discovered an inconspicuous paragraph in the operator's terms of service, buried within clause '10. Anti-fraud policy', stating the requirement of wagering deposits three times on slots or ten times on table/live games. By being placed within the fraud section of the terms rather than being explicitly highlighted, the provision must be willfully concealed to force players to play more than they might have intended to.
Additionally, the casino attributing these wagering requirements to AML measures is illogical and unjustified. Specifically, it makes no sense that table games would require a significantly higher play-through requirement than slots to prevent money laundering.
The only purpose of the covert and excessive play-through provision seems to be so that the casino can make more money.
Despite additional wagering since April 11, customer service has repeatedly informed me that my wagering requirement in absolute numbers has increased rather than decreased, which seems exceptionally strange. Furthermore, verifying the wagering history by myself is impossible beyond April 28, 2025, since the history is limited to showing only the most recently played games.
If a provision in the terms of service is exceptionally disadvantageous for the player (individual consumer), at odds with industry standards, and covertly snuck in within an unrelated section of the terms, that provision has to be considered null and void (as is the view per most countries' contract law).