Hello everyone,
after carefully reviewing all the information and evidence provided by both sides, including the bonus history, activation flow recordings, support chat excerpts, and the additional materials submitted by the casino via email, I have reached my final conclusion regarding this case.
Based on the available evidence, I find that the casino has sufficiently demonstrated that the disputed second deposit bonus was not applied automatically, but required an active selection by the player during the deposit process. The provided recordings clearly show that the player had the option to either activate or decline the bonus before completing the deposit.
Additionally, the support chat shared by the casino indicates that the player was aware of the existence of the bonus and specifically discussed the maximum win limitation connected to it. The records provided by the casino are also consistent regarding the activation timestamp, wagering completion, and subsequent application of the maximum payout cap according to the bonus terms.
While I understand the player’s frustration with the outcome, I was not provided with sufficient evidence proving that the bonus was activated without consent or incorrectly applied by the system.
For these reasons, I am unable to conclude that the casino acted unfairly in this case.
As a result, this complaint will now be rejected.
Thank you both for your cooperation throughout the investigation.
Best regards,
Samuel
Casino Guru
Hello everyone,
after carefully reviewing all the information and evidence provided by both sides, including the bonus history, activation flow recordings, support chat excerpts, and the additional materials submitted by the casino via email, I have reached my final conclusion regarding this case.
Based on the available evidence, I find that the casino has sufficiently demonstrated that the disputed second deposit bonus was not applied automatically, but required an active selection by the player during the deposit process. The provided recordings clearly show that the player had the option to either activate or decline the bonus before completing the deposit.
Additionally, the support chat shared by the casino indicates that the player was aware of the existence of the bonus and specifically discussed the maximum win limitation connected to it. The records provided by the casino are also consistent regarding the activation timestamp, wagering completion, and subsequent application of the maximum payout cap according to the bonus terms.
While I understand the player’s frustration with the outcome, I was not provided with sufficient evidence proving that the bonus was activated without consent or incorrectly applied by the system.
For these reasons, I am unable to conclude that the casino acted unfairly in this case.
As a result, this complaint will now be rejected.
Thank you both for your cooperation throughout the investigation.
Best regards,
Samuel
Casino Guru