Hello everyone,
thank you for the updates.
Dear jolle33,
I have reviewed your latest explanation and the points you have raised regarding Apple's iCloud Private Relay, the location information shown in the IPQualityScore report, the repeated use of the same IP range during your previous activity, and the fact that the VPN/proxy detection only became relevant when you requested a withdrawal.
At this stage, I consider your explanation reasonable and I believe these points need to be properly addressed by the casino before I can reach a conclusion.
In particular, the distinction between deliberately using a VPN to conceal one's location and a connection being routed through Apple's Private Relay service is important. I would therefore ask the casino to review the player's explanation carefully and provide a specific response to each of the points raised above.
Dear Vauhdikas Casino,
I understand that you have obtained consistent results from multiple VPN/proxy detection tools. However, I would like you to address the actual circumstances of this case rather than simply confirming that the connection was technically identified as VPN/proxy traffic.
The player has provided a reasonable explanation that the connection was through Apple's iCloud Private Relay and that he was physically located in Finland. He also points out that the relevant technical report itself identified Finland, Helsinki and Uusimaa as the location, and that the same IP range appears to have been used repeatedly during previous gameplay before the withdrawal request.
Could you please review these points and explain whether they are consistent with the information available to you?
More importantly, I would like you to clarify what actual prohibited activity you believe the player committed.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the player did access the casino through a VPN or proxy, I do not think that fact alone sufficiently explains why the player's winnings should automatically be confiscated.
For example:
- Was the player attempting to circumvent a geographical restriction?
- Was the player physically located in a jurisdiction from which the casino does not accept players?
- Did the connection allow the player to access games or services that were otherwise unavailable to them?
- Did the player obtain a bonus or promotion that they were not entitled to receive?
- Did the player gain any other advantage as a result of using the connection?
- Was there any indication that the player was attempting to conceal their actual location or otherwise abuse the casino's systems?
In other words, what exactly did the player gain or attempt to circumvent by using this connection?
I am asking this because the mere technical classification of a connection as VPN/proxy traffic does not necessarily establish that the player intentionally attempted to abuse the casino or obtain an unfair advantage. Privacy-related routing services have also become increasingly common, particularly on modern Apple devices, and I believe the circumstances and actual effect of the connection need to be considered.
If the casino's position is that the mere use of any VPN/proxy connection is sufficient to justify confiscation regardless of the player's actual location, intent, whether any restriction was circumvented, or whether any advantage was obtained, please state this clearly and explain how you consider such an application of the rule proportionate in these circumstances.
I would also appreciate your comments on the player's point that the same IP range was apparently used repeatedly during previous gameplay without the account being restricted or the player being warned, while the issue was only acted upon when a withdrawal was requested.
Please review the player's latest statement in full and provide a point-by-point response, particularly regarding the nature of the connection, the player's actual location, the repeated previous use of the same connection, and what specific advantage or restriction the player allegedly circumvented.
Thank you both for your cooperation.
Hello everyone,
thank you for the updates.
Dear jolle33,
I have reviewed your latest explanation and the points you have raised regarding Apple's iCloud Private Relay, the location information shown in the IPQualityScore report, the repeated use of the same IP range during your previous activity, and the fact that the VPN/proxy detection only became relevant when you requested a withdrawal.
At this stage, I consider your explanation reasonable and I believe these points need to be properly addressed by the casino before I can reach a conclusion.
In particular, the distinction between deliberately using a VPN to conceal one's location and a connection being routed through Apple's Private Relay service is important. I would therefore ask the casino to review the player's explanation carefully and provide a specific response to each of the points raised above.
Dear Vauhdikas Casino,
I understand that you have obtained consistent results from multiple VPN/proxy detection tools. However, I would like you to address the actual circumstances of this case rather than simply confirming that the connection was technically identified as VPN/proxy traffic.
The player has provided a reasonable explanation that the connection was through Apple's iCloud Private Relay and that he was physically located in Finland. He also points out that the relevant technical report itself identified Finland, Helsinki and Uusimaa as the location, and that the same IP range appears to have been used repeatedly during previous gameplay before the withdrawal request.
Could you please review these points and explain whether they are consistent with the information available to you?
More importantly, I would like you to clarify what actual prohibited activity you believe the player committed.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the player did access the casino through a VPN or proxy, I do not think that fact alone sufficiently explains why the player's winnings should automatically be confiscated.
For example:
- Was the player attempting to circumvent a geographical restriction?
- Was the player physically located in a jurisdiction from which the casino does not accept players?
- Did the connection allow the player to access games or services that were otherwise unavailable to them?
- Did the player obtain a bonus or promotion that they were not entitled to receive?
- Did the player gain any other advantage as a result of using the connection?
- Was there any indication that the player was attempting to conceal their actual location or otherwise abuse the casino's systems?
In other words, what exactly did the player gain or attempt to circumvent by using this connection?
I am asking this because the mere technical classification of a connection as VPN/proxy traffic does not necessarily establish that the player intentionally attempted to abuse the casino or obtain an unfair advantage. Privacy-related routing services have also become increasingly common, particularly on modern Apple devices, and I believe the circumstances and actual effect of the connection need to be considered.
If the casino's position is that the mere use of any VPN/proxy connection is sufficient to justify confiscation regardless of the player's actual location, intent, whether any restriction was circumvented, or whether any advantage was obtained, please state this clearly and explain how you consider such an application of the rule proportionate in these circumstances.
I would also appreciate your comments on the player's point that the same IP range was apparently used repeatedly during previous gameplay without the account being restricted or the player being warned, while the issue was only acted upon when a withdrawal was requested.
Please review the player's latest statement in full and provide a point-by-point response, particularly regarding the nature of the connection, the player's actual location, the repeated previous use of the same connection, and what specific advantage or restriction the player allegedly circumvented.
Thank you both for your cooperation.