The player from Germany had deposited 100 euros, won 4000 euros, but his account was closed due to a supposed duplicate account issue. He had denied this claim, stating it was a misunderstanding since his son had the previous account, which had been closed over a year ago. The player had deposited funds using his son's card, which he claimed he had permission to use. However, we had explained that using a third-party deposit was strictly forbidden, regardless of permission. We also clarified that if both accounts were accessed by the same device, it was considered as multiple accounts. Given these breaches, the casino had the right to close the player's account and void his winnings. The complaint was therefore rejected.
The player from Germany had deposited 100 euros, won 4000 euros, but his account was closed due to a supposed duplicate account issue. He had denied this claim, stating it was a misunderstanding since his son had the previous account, which had been closed over a year ago. The player had deposited funds using his son's card, which he claimed he had permission to use. However, we had explained that using a third-party deposit was strictly forbidden, regardless of permission. We also clarified that if both accounts were accessed by the same device, it was considered as multiple accounts. Given these breaches, the casino had the right to close the player's account and void his winnings. The complaint was therefore rejected.
Automatic translation: