Dear Michal,
Thank you for your response.
However, I would like to address two key points that remain unclear and require clarification.
First, regarding consistency in similar cases.
Casino Guru has previously taken a different position in comparable Merlin Casino complaints related to the Friday bonus, where unclear or insufficiently communicated bonus conditions were considered unfair when applied retroactively.
For example:
1. https://casino.guru/complaints/merlin-casino-player-disputes-breach-of-bonus-terms
2. https://casino.guru/complaints/merlin-casino-player-s-withdrawal-has-been-confiscated
In these cases, it was acknowledged that rules which are not clearly presented to the player at the time of interaction should not be enforced after winnings are generated.
In my case, the situation is materially and identically the same:
- The system granted the bonus, indicating eligibility
- The promotion page did not clearly state the restriction being applied
- No technical restriction or warning was in place
- The issue was only raised after winnings were generated
Despite this, I am being treated as if I had violated clearly defined and properly enforced rules, which was not the case in practice.
Given these similarities, the same reasoning does not appear to be applied here.
I would therefore appreciate a clear and specific explanation of what distinguishes my case from the referenced ones, and why a different approach is being taken.
Second, regarding the scope of the investigation.
It remains unclear why aspects such as chargeback activity and gameplay classification are being considered in this case, as they are not directly related to the core issue.
The matter under review is specifically:
- eligibility and qualification for the Friday bonus
- clarity and visibility of the applicable rules
- whether those rules were applied fairly in practice
The reference to chargeback relates to a separate situation and occurred at a later point in time. It does not affect the factual circumstances of this case.
Similarly, "gameplay classification" has not been clearly defined or substantiated, and no explanation has been provided as to how it impacts the application of bonus terms in this situation.
Especially since I've made casino a profit of 3090eur and received accusations of irregular activity and discrepancies in return.
Including unrelated factors in the assessment creates confusion and raises concerns about the objectivity and focus of the review process.
Based on the above, I must also formally reiterate my request for reassignment to a different mediator.
The lack of consistency with previously resolved cases, combined with the inclusion of unrelated factors and the absence of clear, case-specific explanations, raises concerns about the objectivity and direction of the current review.
To ensure a fair and impartial assessment, I believe it is reasonable that the case is reviewed by another specialist.
At this stage, I would appreciate:
- A clear distinction between my case and previously resolved similar cases
- Clarification of why unrelated elements (chargeback, gameplay classification) are being considered
- A focused evaluation based strictly on the actual facts and timeline of this case
I remain open to continuing the process, but I expect a consistent, transparent, and case-specific assessment.
Kind regards,
Vienalga
Dear Michal,
Thank you for your response.
However, I would like to address two key points that remain unclear and require clarification.
First, regarding consistency in similar cases.
Casino Guru has previously taken a different position in comparable Merlin Casino complaints related to the Friday bonus, where unclear or insufficiently communicated bonus conditions were considered unfair when applied retroactively.
For example:
1. https://casino.guru/complaints/merlin-casino-player-disputes-breach-of-bonus-terms
2. https://casino.guru/complaints/merlin-casino-player-s-withdrawal-has-been-confiscated
In these cases, it was acknowledged that rules which are not clearly presented to the player at the time of interaction should not be enforced after winnings are generated.
In my case, the situation is materially and identically the same:
- The system granted the bonus, indicating eligibility
- The promotion page did not clearly state the restriction being applied
- No technical restriction or warning was in place
- The issue was only raised after winnings were generated
Despite this, I am being treated as if I had violated clearly defined and properly enforced rules, which was not the case in practice.
Given these similarities, the same reasoning does not appear to be applied here.
I would therefore appreciate a clear and specific explanation of what distinguishes my case from the referenced ones, and why a different approach is being taken.
Second, regarding the scope of the investigation.
It remains unclear why aspects such as chargeback activity and gameplay classification are being considered in this case, as they are not directly related to the core issue.
The matter under review is specifically:
- eligibility and qualification for the Friday bonus
- clarity and visibility of the applicable rules
- whether those rules were applied fairly in practice
The reference to chargeback relates to a separate situation and occurred at a later point in time. It does not affect the factual circumstances of this case.
Similarly, "gameplay classification" has not been clearly defined or substantiated, and no explanation has been provided as to how it impacts the application of bonus terms in this situation.
Especially since I've made casino a profit of 3090eur and received accusations of irregular activity and discrepancies in return.
Including unrelated factors in the assessment creates confusion and raises concerns about the objectivity and focus of the review process.
Based on the above, I must also formally reiterate my request for reassignment to a different mediator.
The lack of consistency with previously resolved cases, combined with the inclusion of unrelated factors and the absence of clear, case-specific explanations, raises concerns about the objectivity and direction of the current review.
To ensure a fair and impartial assessment, I believe it is reasonable that the case is reviewed by another specialist.
At this stage, I would appreciate:
- A clear distinction between my case and previously resolved similar cases
- Clarification of why unrelated elements (chargeback, gameplay classification) are being considered
- A focused evaluation based strictly on the actual facts and timeline of this case
I remain open to continuing the process, but I expect a consistent, transparent, and case-specific assessment.
Kind regards,
Vienalga