Vera&John Casino - Pelaajan voittojen nosto on viivästynyt.

Important notice:

Casino Guru will never ask for payments or access to your accounts to complete KYC. If someone claims to be from Casino Guru and does that, do not share any information.

We only contact players through this official complaint thread or via @casino.guru e-mail addresses. Always check the sender’s domain and verify your complaint resolver’s e-mail address by clicking on their avatar visible inside the official complaint thread.

If anything seems suspicious, contact us directly.

Stay safe.

Dear Arfus,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. We are sorry to hear about the issue with your withdrawal and understand your concern. However, please bear in mind that it’s quite usual for withdrawals to take a couple of days or even weeks to get fully processed. This means that it may take some time before your money appears in your account. This delay may be caused by unfinished KYC verification or a high volume of withdrawal requests.
That’s why we advise players to be patient, cooperate fully with casino, and wait at least 14 days after requesting their withdrawals before submitting a complaint.

If your account has been successfully verified, your game history checked, your withdrawal approved by the casino, and you still haven't received your winnings by 14 days since requesting the withdrawal, we will intervene and do our best to help you.
Thank you in advance for your patience and understanding.

Best regards,
Complaints Resolution Center

Hello. This is not about a Delayed payment, The Casino has Illegaly confiscated my Funds. i would like my case to be processed without the waiting period of 14 days. Since its not a typical Delayed withdrawal issue

Thank you for your clarification.

In order for us to properly assess your case, I will need some additional information and evidence from you:

1. Have you completed full KYC verification with Vera&John? Please confirm whether your account is fully verified and if you received confirmation of this.
2. Please provide screenshots of your account showing: Current balance, Withdrawal history, Transaction history around the time of bonus conversion and confiscation
3. Please share all communication you have had with the casino regarding this issue (emails, live chat transcripts, confiscation notice, etc.). You may upload screenshots here or forward them to my email karla.m@casino. guru in one email with attached files.
4. Have you received any official explanation from the casino specifying the exact rule you allegedly breached?

These documents are essential for us to evaluate whether the confiscation was justified and whether we can proceed with the complaint without the standard waiting period.

I look forward to your response.

Karla

My Account is KYC Verified,

Provided Screenshots down below. I also have full Transaction History in Excel downloaded from the casin

Immediately after winning over NOK 7,000 using my bonus balance, I proactively contacted Vera&John live chat to confirm I was not in breach of any terms and to ensure my funds were safe. The agent reviewed my account and informed me only that I needed to complete 30x wagering on my NOK 330 bonus. No breach was mentioned. No restrictions on in-game feature purchases were communicated. No warnings of any kind were given.

I acted entirely in good faith on the basis of that confirmation from the casino's own representative.

I have formally requested a copy of the live chat transcript from 19 February 2026 under GDPR Article 15, which entitles me as a data subject to access all personal data held about me including chat records. The casino has not yet complied with this request. I trust the casino will fulfil their legal obligation under GDPR and provide the transcript, which I will forward to you immediately upon receipt. The transcript will confirm the above account in full.

To last Question. Casinos explanation is added below in Screenshots. I would like to point out their claims are not in accordance to their Own T&C. I Point out i am Inexperienced player and Vera&John is first casino i ever become member of.

Confiscation requires deliberate breach — which the casino cannot demonstrate

Vera&John's General Terms Section 7.2 explicitly states that confiscation is only permitted where a player is found to have been 'deliberately breaching' the terms. Their Promotional Terms Section 8 equally requires conduct amounting to 'bonus abuse, irregular play or fraudulent activity' before confiscation can be applied.

Using a Feature Buy does not meet this standard for the following reasons.

The casino's own software made the Feature Buy available to me without any restriction, warning, pop-up, or error message. The casino's own live chat agent reviewed my account mid-session and confirmed no breach, instructing me only to complete wagering. I followed those instructions exactly.

A player who proactively seeks confirmation from the operator's own representative, is told everything is in order, and follows those instructions cannot be found to have deliberately breached anything.

Buying an in-game feature is not bonus abuse under the casino's own contractual definition

Section 8 of Vera&John's Promotional Terms provides the complete contractual definition of bonus abuse.

The defined activities are: bonus stacking, two-tier betting, covering multiple outcomes to reduce risk, abusing progression slot mechanics, multiple account strategy, and affiliate fraud.

Purchasing a Feature Buy does not fall within any of these categories.

The casino's own contract defines what constitutes abuse and using a standard in-game purchase feature is not on that list. The casino is confiscating NOK 20,000 for conduct their own terms do not define as abuse.

Vera&John's terms contain no specific restriction on in-game purchases with bonus funds

Section 10 of Vera&John's Promotional Terms restricts wagers exceeding €6.25 per transaction. It does not mention in-game purchases, Feature Buys, bonus round purchases, or any similar mechanism. There is no clause anywhere in either their Promotional Terms or General Terms that specifically addresses purchasing in-game features with bonus funds or places any limit on doing so.

This is significant because before submitting this complaint I reviewed other cases on Casino Guru involving similar disputes at other operators. I observed that casinos which legitimately prohibit Feature Buys with bonus funds include this restriction explicitly and clearly in their terms — using specific language such as 'Feature Buy is not permitted during bonus play,' 'in-game bonus round purchases are prohibited when using bonus funds,' or similar wording.

Vera&John have no such language anywhere in their documentation. The industry standard for operators who genuinely intend to prohibit this is to state it plainly. Vera&John did not do this. Instead they are applying a prohibition that does not exist in their written contract and enforcing it retrospectively against a consumer who had no way of knowing it existed.

The absence of this standard industry language in Vera&John's terms is not an oversight that can be corrected after the fact by confiscating a player's funds. It is a drafting failure for which the consumer cannot be held liable."

As you can see. The casino Let me continue to Play with the Money that was not legally considered my Cash Balance, They let me keep playing, and win with those funs. The Winnings went directly into my Cash Account, Look screenshot and only on Withdrawal the Casino Manually confiscated my Money

The game itself clearly and visually distinguishes between BET and BUY they are separate buttons with separate labels in separate colours. My active bet displayed at the bottom was BET: kr2.00. The Feature Buy is a completely separate Pink/Purple button labelled BUY FREE SPINS kr200.00. The casino's own software treats these as two different things. Their terms restrict bet/wagers. Their Terms Dont Mention BUY, or BUYING FEATURES/FREE SPINS The game interface shows these are not the same. The casino cannot now claim they are identical when their own product contradicts that position.

BET/WAGER and BUY Is per definition two different things

Their Own Terms under the Bonus i activated says

"10. The maximum single bet permitted whilst using a bonus is €6.25 on slot and video bingo, slingo, skill games and instant sport games and €25 on table games and live casino. Exceeding this limit will lead to confiscation of any bonus and associated winnings."

No Mention of "BUY" "BUY FREE SPIN" or anything similar. BET and BUY are per Definition not the same, and the Casino can not defend confiscation under the Word BET/WAGER. When what i did was BUY a Feature.

I wish to draw your attention to the first confiscation email I received, which is shown in blue in the attached screenshots. This email is clearly an automated template it was sent without any individual evaluation of my account, and critically, it cites the wrong section of Vera&John's own terms. The email references Chapter 12 as the basis for confiscation. Chapter 12 of their Promotional Terms is titled 'Opt in/out' and contains no confiscation provision whatsoever. The maximum bet restriction the casino relies on is Chapter 10. This error demonstrates conclusively that no human review of my case was conducted before my funds were confiscated.

I also wish to highlight an issue with Vera&John's game interface. At no point during my session did the interface distinguish between Cash Balance and Bonus Balance when displaying credits. There was no visual indicator, warning, or notification when the game began using my bonus funds rather than my cash balance. A player cannot be expected to monitor which balance is being used when the interface provides no such information.

Finally, and most importantly, the bet size displayed on my screen throughout the session was BET: 2 NOK, equivalent to approximately €0.20 well within the limit stated in Section 10. This is what the interface showed me as my active wager. I was acting in complete good faith, having no reason to believe I was in breach of any rule. I then purchased an in-game Feature Buy that the casino's own software made available to me without restriction, warning, or any indication that doing so could affect my funds. Please see the attached screenshot showing the interface as it appeared to me.

I am an new inexperienced Player and i was in Good Faith especially after speaking to the Casinos own Agents in chat after i made the 7000nok with my bonus.

I bet 2NOK and bought the "Bonus free spins" that the Casino made available to me, and allowed me to purchase with the bonus. i was in Good Faith.

Also it clearly said. Bet: 2 NOK, also right over its a button that Says BET 2.50NOK DOUBLE YOUR CHANCED. and Right over there it says BUY FREE SPINS. This is what i did.

Look Article 5 EU LAW

Consolidated TEXT: 31993L0013 — EN — 28.05.2022

"In the case of contracts where all or certain terms offered to the consumer are in writing, these terms must always be drafted in plain, intelligible language. Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail... (2)."

I would like to point to the Terms right under the Activation of the Bonus

"10. The maximum single bet permitted whilst using a bonus is €6.25 on slot and video bingo, slingo, skill games and instant sport games and €25 on table games and live casino. Exceeding this limit will lead to confiscation of any bonus and associated winnings."

As a new player i reasonably thought this meant only the Bet that i choose and that displayed in the interface as BET: 2 NOK(0.20 EUR) Also the green button says "Bet 2.50 DOUBLE CHANCE"

Right over this it says "BUY Free spins" not BET/WAGER

BET a BUY have an obvious two different meanings. and the contract have to

These two words have two different meanings by definition.

I would like to claim my rights under EU LAW "Where there is doubt about the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail"

Instead of continue to try getting away with my money, the casino should look at their Terms and make it reflect what they actually want to practice

Chat Transcripts

The system allowed me to use the bonus buy feature while a bonus was active. There was no warning, no pop-up, and no technical restriction preventing the purchase. The wagering was completed, the funds were converted into real cash balance, and my withdrawal was accepted into processing. Only afterwards was the withdrawal rolled back and my balance manually adjusted.

As a new player, the term "maximum single bet" was not clearly defined to include bonus buy features, particularly when the game interface clearly differentiates between "BET" and "BUY." The lack of clear definition and absence of system prevention created a legitimate expectation that my balance was valid and withdrawable.

Under EU consumer fairness principles, this can create what is called a legitimate expectation of entitlement — meaning a consumer may reasonably believe they are entitled to funds when the system allows full completion, conversion to cash, and withdrawal processing without any warning or restriction.

EU consumer protection rules also require contractual terms to be transparent and drafted in clear, intelligible language. Where ambiguity exists, interpretation should favour the consumer. In this case, both the wording and the system design failed to clearly inform me that a bonus buy would be treated as a single bet exceeding the limit.

If the action truly violated the bonus rules, the system should have blocked it at the violating action happened , rather than allowing full completion and conversion before confiscation.

I believe this raises serious concerns regarding transparency, fairness, and legitimate entitlement under EU consumer law.

Dear Arfus,

Thank you for your cooperation and for providing all the necessary information. I truly appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken to share everything with us so far.

Your complaint will now move to the next stage of our process and be handled by your dedicated Resolver, Michal K., michal.k@casino.guru . This is a standard step in our procedure, as the Resolver will take over communication with the casino directly and manage your case from this point onward.

No action is required from you right now. Your Resolver will reach out through this thread if any additional details are needed. You can rest assured that your case is in very capable hands.

I wish you the best of luck and hope your case will be resolved to your satisfaction soon.

Kind regards,

Karla Mayfly

Thank you Karla i will wait for your Collegue

if you need more from me im available an will respond immidietly

Hello Arfus,

I'm Michal, and I have taken over your complaint. I have reviewed this case, and while I understand you are trying to find any possible way to support your argument. I feel it's important to explain the discrepancy that you are disputing.

Although we believe that any restrictions accompanying gameplay with an active bonus, including the maximum bet, should be automatically implemented by the casino's software to prevent players from unintentionally breaching this rule, however, it is not yet an industry-wide standard, as every casino uses its own platform software. We always strongly advise players to familiarise themselves with the casino bonus policy and the specific rules for any bonus or tournament. You ultimately agree with the rules when you register your account and when you take part in the tournament or claim a bonus. A lack of awareness regarding the rules, sadly, does not constitute a valid justification for non-compliance.

I can agree with you from a user experience point of view that bonus buy features could be mentioned as not allowed in the bonus T&Cs. Multiple other casinos have this defined in their bonus T&Cs; however, the term "maximum single bet" is quite clear in my honest opinion, and it is quite an industry-standard term describing a "maximum single bet amount" that players can place when playing with an active bonus. Could you kindly clarify what aspects of this are unclear to you?

Please know that every licensed casino's rules are reviewed and approved by the appropriate authority. While I have no knowledge of a specific law that says "a bonus buy is a single bet," this classification falls under broader regulatory definitions of what constitutes a "wager" or "bet".

Definition of a Wager: Regulations generally define a wager as an amount of money risked on an outcome. In a bonus buy, you are risking a specific, one-time amount (e.g., $20) for the chance to win during the ensuing bonus round. This fits the standard definition of a single wager.

Furthermore, you have utilised the bonus buy feature on multiple occasions, so we cannot say this was a one-off mistake.

I want to emphasize that I truly understand your frustration with the actions of the casino team. Most people, myself included, would likely feel the same way in your position; however, I'm afraid the casino has not done anything that would not be in accordance with their terms and conditions, to which you agreed to.

Please do not hesitate to inform me if I have missed anything or if there is still something that remains unclear and needs additional clarification.

Thank you Michal. I respect your assessment but would like to address several points directly.

i would like to point out that i am a new player, and did not know what Industry Standard is. The casino is responsible to write their terms so inexperienced players understand them

You acknowledge other casinos explicitly mention bonus buys in their terms, that Vera&John does not, and that you have no knowledge of a specific law classifying a bonus buy as a single bet. These admissions are the core of my case. Under EU Directive 93/13/EEC Article 5 — binding in Norway as an EEA member state — ambiguity in written consumer contracts must be resolved in the consumer’s favour.

BET and BUY are different words with different meanings. A bet is a stake on an uncertain outcome. A purchase is a fixed-price acquisition of a guaranteed product. Vera&John’s terms use the word "bet" exclusively. The words "buy," "purchase," "Feature Buy," or "in-game purchase" appear nowhere in their terms. Their own game software labels these as two separate buttons in two different colours. As a new player I had no possible basis to know that "maximum single bet" included a separately labelled purchase function. Their system permitted it repeatedly without warning, restriction, or error message.

I ask you to address two points your response did not cover:

Post-conversion confiscation. At the time of confiscation my Bonus Balance was NOK 0.00 and my Cash Balance was NOK 15,666.70. No term in Vera&John’s General or Promotional Terms permits confiscation of a converted cash balance. Casino Guru’s own Fair Gambling Codex states casinos may seize "winnings from bonus play" — not converted cash. Bonus play was complete.

Legitimate expectations. At 08:46 — over 30 minutes after the disputed transaction — a Vera&John agent reviewed my account and confirmed everything was proceeding normally. No breach was raised. I completed my wagering in direct reliance on that confirmation.

Finally, if Casino Guru determines the confiscation is valid, I submit that all my deposits must be returned. Vera&John actively targets Norwegian consumers without holding a Norwegian gambling licence. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled explicitly in Case C-77/24 Wunner (15 January 2026) that online gambling takes place where the player resides, that the consumer is entitled to bring proceedings in the country where they live, and that the laws of the player’s country of residence not the operator’s country of licence are the applicable laws. Norwegian law therefore governs this dispute, not Maltese law. The Malta Gaming Authority licence does not shield Vera&John from the consumer protection obligations they owe to Norwegian players under Norwegian and EEA law. This recent CJEU verdict removes any jurisdictional protection Malta-licensed operators may have previously relied upon. If the casino chooses to enforce its bonus terms against me, it must equally accept that I am entitled to the full protection of Norwegian consumer law including recovery of deposits made under a contract that may not be enforceable in the jurisdiction where it was actually performed.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

What is the status of my case?

Its been weeks and Casino Guru have not reached out to the casino for explanation.

Hello Arfus,

Thank you for your detailed response. I have reviewed your additional points carefully and would like to address them to the best of my ability.

On Industry Standards and Term Clarity

You state that as a new player, you could not be expected to understand "industry standards." While I appreciate that perspective, the terms and conditions you agreed to upon registration constitute a binding contract regardless of your experience level. The question is not what you knew about industry practice, but whether the terms themselves were clearly written.

Regarding the term "maximum single bet," we must respectfully disagree that ambiguity exists. A "bet" is defined as an amount risked on a single gaming outcome. When you purchase a bonus feature, you are paying a fixed amount (e.g., 20x your stake) to activate a round of play. That payment represents a single amount risked for the chance to win during that bonus round. It therefore falls squarely within the definition of a single bet. The fact that the game interface uses different buttons for "BET" and "BUY" does not change the fundamental nature of the transaction—you are still placing a wager.

You note that Vera&John does not explicitly mention "bonus buy" in their terms, while other casinos do. Some operators choose to be more explicit as a user experience consideration, but this does not mean the existing term "maximum single bet" is unclear or insufficient. The absence of the word "buy" does not create ambiguity about what constitutes a wager.

On EU Directive 93/13/EEC Article 5

You reference the EU Directive requiring that ambiguity be resolved in the consumer's favour. This principle applies where terms are genuinely unclear. As explained above, we maintain that "maximum single bet" is not ambiguous. The definition of a wager includes any amount risked on an outcome, which encompasses bonus buys. The distinction you draw between "bet" and "purchase" is a semantic one that does not alter the underlying reality: you paid money to activate gameplay, and that payment was subject to the same single-bet limit as any other wager placed during the bonus period.

On Post-Conversion Confiscation

You argue that once funds converted to cash balance, they could not be confiscated. This misunderstands how bonus rules operate. The breach occurred at the moment you placed the bonus buy—a single bet exceeding the permitted limit. That breach invalidated the bonus play entirely. The subsequent conversion to cash balance does not retroactively cure the breach. The casino's right to recover funds stems from the original violation, not from the status of the funds at the time of discovery. The Casino Guru Fair Gambling Codex you tried to reference addresses winnings from bonus play; your winnings derived from bonus play that was itself conducted in breach of the terms. I hope you understand the context.

Additionally, if you believe that my assessment of your case does not align with our Fair Gambling Codex, I would be grateful for a thorough explanation of your concerns.

On the Agent's Confirmation

You state that an agent reviewed your account at 08:46 and confirmed everything was proceeding normally. Customer support agents handle general inquiries and cannot be expected to perform real-time compliance audits on every account they interact with. Their confirmation that your account appeared "normal" from a functional perspective does not constitute a waiver of the casino's rights to enforce its terms once a breach is identified. Reliance on a support agent's general statement does not override the specific contractual terms you agreed to.

On Norwegian Law and the Wunner Case

You raise the recent CJEU ruling in Case C-77/24 (Wunner). Please allow me to clarify what this judgment actually addresses. The Wunner case concerns non-contractual obligations—specifically, tort claims against company directors for offering gambling services without a required local licence. The Court ruled that for such tort claims, the applicable law is that of the player's habitual residence where the damage occurs.

This case does not address the validity of bonus terms, the interpretation of "maximum single bet," or the enforcement of contractual obligations between a player and a licensed operator. The distinction is crucial: your claim arises from a contract (the terms you agreed to), not from a tort. The Wunner ruling does not govern contractual disputes, nor does it automatically render Maltese-licensed operators subject to Norwegian consumer law for all purposes.

Furthermore, the question of whether Vera&John "targets" Norwegian consumers is a separate regulatory matter for the Norwegian Gaming Authority to determine, not us. We are not a licensing authority. The casino operates under a Malta Gaming Authority licence and has structured its services accordingly.

With all this being said, while I understand your frustration, the facts remain straightforward: you accepted a bonus, agreed to its terms, and placed a single bet that exceeded the maximum permitted amount. The system's failure to block the transaction is regrettable from a user experience perspective, but it does not invalidate the rule or entitle you to retain winnings derived from the breach. The terms you agreed to are clear, and the casino acted within its rights to enforce them.

If you believe you have been treated unfairly and wish to pursue this matter further, you may contact the Malta Gaming Authority or seek independent legal advice regarding your options under Maltese law, which governs your contractual relationship with Vera&John Casino.

I wanted to provide you with a clear update on where things stand and help set realistic expectations moving forward.

Given the aforementioned points, I did not see the need to contact the casino yet. They have already conveyed their decision to you earlier, but if you believe there is a possibility they may reconsider, I can certainly enquire about their response.

Dear Vera&John Casino,

Could you please provide your perspective on the situation and clarify the reasoning behind your decision? We would also appreciate knowing whether there is any possibility of reconsideration in this matter.

We would like to ask the casino to reply to this complaint. We are extending the timer by 7 days. If the casino fails to respond in the set time frame, we will close the complaint as ‘unresolved’ which may negatively affect its rating.

I understand the Fresh Verdict from the EU Court of Justice do not apply to my confiscated funds.

I does however apply to my Deposits and losses.

The casino is providing Gambling services to Norwegian customers without a Lissence in Norway. The EU court have decided that it is the domestic laws in the country the player Resides that applies.

Norwegian Law says Gambling is illegal unless its Lissenced by the Norwegian Goverment.

Vera John Casino does not hold Lissence in Norway. Still it does use multiple different Payment Processors to get around the Norwegian Law that BANS Banks from allowing Deposits to Casinos outside of Norway.

The Contract is in this case VOID and my deposits have to be refunded in full.

My case is simlar as the EU Verdicg.

The castino held a Malta Gaming Authority Lissence. But the Player Reside in Austria. The EU Court concluded that it is the Austrian Domestic Laws that apply. not the Laws in Malta where the casino held the lissence

Norwegian Court is not expensive. and the Norwegian Goverment offer very good solutions to Cover Citizens legal fees to sue for damages.

in such a way i can get the State of Norway to cover all my legal fees and court fees to claim for damages directly from Vera John Casinos.

Because of this i suggest the Casino.

1. Refund my money that was confiscated

or

1. Refund my Deposits made.

If the casino does not either return my Confiscated funds or my Deposits.

I will also contact Norwegian Gaming Authorty and ask them to make Norwegian Banks follow the law and block all deposits made to the Casino.

This will cost the casino Alot of money. The have a large amount of Norwegian players. They use specifics Payment Methods to get around Norwegian Goverments Ban on banks allowing deposits to Casinos that are not licenced in Norway. They routinly change Payment Processors to get around this ban,- Which is completly Illegal and as EU court applies. The casino has to follow Norwegian Law when offering gambling services to Norwegian Citizens.

I would also like to point out, i am entitled to the confiscated funds. Becuase their own Chat told me the only thing i had to do was to wager over 30x. And that was after i had made the Free spin buy.

They mentioned nothing about a violation.

Under EU Law a person who can reasonably believe something now belongs to them. Is legally Entitled to it.

... so called bona fide

The chat told me only to Wager 30x after i won the over 7000nok from the BUY Free Spin.

They allowed me to continue playing, then the bonus was converted to Cash Balance. Then they allowed me to continue playing and i then won more.

It was then reasonable of me to belive this money now belonged to me after their own system Converted the Bonus to cash.

I have Self Excluded and have no intention of returning to this casino

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concern with us.

We have reviewed the matter and can confirm that this case has been raised with MADRE. As the situation is now part of an ongoing legal process, we are unfortunately unable to provide further comments or share additional information at this stage.

To ensure that the appropriate procedures are followed, all communication regarding this matter should be directed through MADRE.

Thank you for your understanding.

Kind regards,

Team Vera&John

The casinos response is very lacking.

the legal process is a resonss to the Casinos lack of explanation and review of my complaint.

i ask that the casino gets a negative rating because of this

Dear Vera&John Team,

Thank you for your response. While we certainly would prefer this case to be addressed within our forum, I understand that since this matter has been raised with MADRE. Given that this issue is now involved in a legal process, no information should be disclosed outside the proper channels.

Dear Arfus,

While we would certainly prefer to address this matter on our forum, as mentioned by the Vera&John Team above, we regret to inform you that since you have raised the issue with MADRE, we cannot pursue this case any further. The casino team is unable to share any information or evidence outside of the legal channels and the appropriate authorities. MADRE is the designated Alternative Dispute Resolution Body (ADR) for Vera&John Casino, and you have taken the correct step in escalating your case to them. I encourage you to work with MADRE and await their decision. You still have the option to pursue legal action through the courts in Norway if you genuinely believe your case is justified. Please feel free to do so. In any event, since this matter has escalated to legal issues, we are not the appropriate entity to approach, as this is beyond our capabilities as an independent dispute mediator.

For now, I will temporarily close this case while we await a decision from the regulator. Once the regulator provides an outcome, we will reassess the situation and update this complaint accordingly.

Please keep us informed of any progress or feedback you receive from MADRE or the casino by emailing me at michal.k@casino.guru