We have noticed that when playing the "VIP Casino Bonus Monthly" you have violated our rule on the maximum allowable bet with an active bonus. Please note that according to our General Terms and Conditions: 1e. The maximum bet with an active bonus is 5 EUR. (Unless otherwise stated in the special conditions for the bonus). The purchase of game features (including but not limited to re-spins) will increase your bet amount. If the player exceeds the maximum bet with an active bonus, Bizzo Casino reserves the right to collect the winnings. If the currency of your account is not specified, the maximum bet amount is equal to 5 euros in your currency. Therefore, we decided to collect the winnings. You are left with the original deposit with which you activated the bonus. Please note that you have accepted our General Terms and Conditions upon registration. ====says customer support ====
My honest view of all of it =======
Your decision to confiscate my winnings is, in my view, based on unfair and inconsistently enforced conditions that were not transparently presented at the relevant decision points. ⸻ MATERIAL CONDITION NOT CLEARLY DISCLOSED AT POINT OF ACTION The alleged 5€ maximum bet rule was not clearly and unambiguously displayed at: the deposit stage where the bonus was selected the bonus activation stage or in a way that prevented misunderstanding during gameplay A condition that can lead to full confiscation of winnings is a material term and must be presented clearly and prominently at the moment of decision. This did not occur. ⸻ FAILURE OF SYSTEM ENFORCEMENT If the 5€ limit is genuinely mandatory, then your system should: prevent bets above 5€, OR issue immediate and unavoidable warnings in real time Instead, your platform: allowed unrestricted betting provided no real-time enforcement and only applied consequences after winnings were generated This creates a situation where enforcement is not preventive but selective, which is fundamentally inconsistent with fair gaming standards. ⸻ SELECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF RULES The third-party payment issue you referenced: occurred weeks prior resulted in no immediate action was not raised at the time and was only used after winnings were achieved This constitutes retroactive enforcement, which raises serious concerns about fairness and consistency. ⸻ FINAL POSITION From my perspective, this is a clear case of: MISLEADING OMISSION OF MATERIAL TERMS FAILURE TO ENFORCE RULES IN REAL TIME RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF RESTRICTIONS AFTER WINNINGS Even under offshore licensing standards such as those of Curaçao eGaming, operators are required to act in good faith and maintain consistent enforcement of rules. ⸻ FINAL DEMAND I am requesting once again the full payment of my withheld winnings. ⸻ FINAL NOTICE BEFORE ESCALATION If I do not receive a satisfactory resolution within 7 days, I will escalate this case without further notice to: your licensing authority (Curaçao eGaming) the European Consumer Centre Network and relevant public complaint and dispute resolution platforms I am prepared to submit full documentation of the case.
We have noticed that when playing the "VIP Casino Bonus Monthly" you have violated our rule on the maximum allowable bet with an active bonus. Please note that according to our General Terms and Conditions: 1e. The maximum bet with an active bonus is 5 EUR. (Unless otherwise stated in the special conditions for the bonus). The purchase of game features (including but not limited to re-spins) will increase your bet amount. If the player exceeds the maximum bet with an active bonus, Bizzo Casino reserves the right to collect the winnings. If the currency of your account is not specified, the maximum bet amount is equal to 5 euros in your currency. Therefore, we decided to collect the winnings. You are left with the original deposit with which you activated the bonus. Please note that you have accepted our General Terms and Conditions upon registration. ====says customer support ====
My honest view of all of it =======
Your decision to confiscate my winnings is, in my view, based on unfair and inconsistently enforced conditions that were not transparently presented at the relevant decision points. ⸻ MATERIAL CONDITION NOT CLEARLY DISCLOSED AT POINT OF ACTION The alleged 5€ maximum bet rule was not clearly and unambiguously displayed at: the deposit stage where the bonus was selected the bonus activation stage or in a way that prevented misunderstanding during gameplay A condition that can lead to full confiscation of winnings is a material term and must be presented clearly and prominently at the moment of decision. This did not occur. ⸻ FAILURE OF SYSTEM ENFORCEMENT If the 5€ limit is genuinely mandatory, then your system should: prevent bets above 5€, OR issue immediate and unavoidable warnings in real time Instead, your platform: allowed unrestricted betting provided no real-time enforcement and only applied consequences after winnings were generated This creates a situation where enforcement is not preventive but selective, which is fundamentally inconsistent with fair gaming standards. ⸻ SELECTIVE AND RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF RULES The third-party payment issue you referenced: occurred weeks prior resulted in no immediate action was not raised at the time and was only used after winnings were achieved This constitutes retroactive enforcement, which raises serious concerns about fairness and consistency. ⸻ FINAL POSITION From my perspective, this is a clear case of: MISLEADING OMISSION OF MATERIAL TERMS FAILURE TO ENFORCE RULES IN REAL TIME RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF RESTRICTIONS AFTER WINNINGS Even under offshore licensing standards such as those of Curaçao eGaming, operators are required to act in good faith and maintain consistent enforcement of rules. ⸻ FINAL DEMAND I am requesting once again the full payment of my withheld winnings. ⸻ FINAL NOTICE BEFORE ESCALATION If I do not receive a satisfactory resolution within 7 days, I will escalate this case without further notice to: your licensing authority (Curaçao eGaming) the European Consumer Centre Network and relevant public complaint and dispute resolution platforms I am prepared to submit full documentation of the case.