Hi Peter,
My colleague who was originally dealing with this case has recently moved on to greener pastures and i have re-reviewed all the historic information regarding the above.
I would like to clarify a few points here:
1) Complaints@gaminglicences.com is associated with Antillephone N.V. (holder of Curacao Master Licence #8048/JAZ). As such, it would be unlikely that they would respond to a complaint raised regarding a casino which is not registered under that master licence.
2) Our Master Licence holder at the time was Gaming Services Provider N.V #365/JAZ and we have not received any communication from them regarding this case.
3) While the initial communication from the player was with legal@rollbit.com (29 May 24), it was passed over immediately to compliance@rollbit.com and it was the compliance team who were communicating with the player, responding on 04 June 24 and advising that all further correspondence should be directed to them at the compliance inbox.
4) Following a review and evidence available, the compliance team confirmed the decision and provided ample reasoning for that decision on 05 June 24.
5) On 18 June 24, the player formally lodged a complaint with complaints@gaminglicences.com and cc'd in legal@rollbit.com, while failing to include compliance@rollbit.com as advised.
Once a formal complaint is instigated, our teams are understandably stood down and prohibited from commenting on a case until our Master Licence Holder has concluded their review and reached a decision. While in some particular cases, the Master Licence Holder will request additional details and evidence, it is not uncommon for them to carry out the review and reach a decision using the information already available to them, especially when the originating flag comes from one of our reputable 3rd party providers.
This process has been agreed and implemented for several very good reasons which im sure you can acknowledge and appreciate:
Bad actors are continually probing our detection methods (and indeed using sites like casino.guru to help obtain this information) to enable them to circumvent these systems. As such, we do not (and are not required to) provide 'evidence' to any unrelated 3rd parties who do not have a contractual agreement to us with regard to the control and use of this information. We cooperate fully with the regulator and (regularly) provide this additional evidence to our Master Licence Holder and the GSC when requested, as this is a condition of our licence.
6) Our Terms & Conditions enable us to close an account where we suspect foul play or have an account flagged to us by a 3rd party, and in fact we are obligated under our own terms with those 3rd party providers to remove players where they advise of us of suspected foul play.
7) Casino.guru's process of complaint handling in which a complaint may be ruled in the players favour due to 'lack of evidence' disregards both the legal GDPR and legal representation obligations, and also any security concerns of the casino. Rollbit are fully cooperative with the agreed complaints procedure of the licencing authority, a procedure which casino.guru are not party to. We try to be as accommodating as possible in these public forums however expecting 'evidence' to be provided leaves the casino in an often untenable position.
We would invite the player to submit a formal complaint to the correct licencing authority and we will duly respond to any requests, once this has been received. Please also cc in compliance@rollbit.com.
Thanks
Rollbit Legal & Compliance
Hi Peter,
My colleague who was originally dealing with this case has recently moved on to greener pastures and i have re-reviewed all the historic information regarding the above.
I would like to clarify a few points here:
1) Complaints@gaminglicences.com is associated with Antillephone N.V. (holder of Curacao Master Licence #8048/JAZ). As such, it would be unlikely that they would respond to a complaint raised regarding a casino which is not registered under that master licence.
2) Our Master Licence holder at the time was Gaming Services Provider N.V #365/JAZ and we have not received any communication from them regarding this case.
3) While the initial communication from the player was with legal@rollbit.com (29 May 24), it was passed over immediately to compliance@rollbit.com and it was the compliance team who were communicating with the player, responding on 04 June 24 and advising that all further correspondence should be directed to them at the compliance inbox.
4) Following a review and evidence available, the compliance team confirmed the decision and provided ample reasoning for that decision on 05 June 24.
5) On 18 June 24, the player formally lodged a complaint with complaints@gaminglicences.com and cc'd in legal@rollbit.com, while failing to include compliance@rollbit.com as advised.
Once a formal complaint is instigated, our teams are understandably stood down and prohibited from commenting on a case until our Master Licence Holder has concluded their review and reached a decision. While in some particular cases, the Master Licence Holder will request additional details and evidence, it is not uncommon for them to carry out the review and reach a decision using the information already available to them, especially when the originating flag comes from one of our reputable 3rd party providers.
This process has been agreed and implemented for several very good reasons which im sure you can acknowledge and appreciate:
Bad actors are continually probing our detection methods (and indeed using sites like casino.guru to help obtain this information) to enable them to circumvent these systems. As such, we do not (and are not required to) provide 'evidence' to any unrelated 3rd parties who do not have a contractual agreement to us with regard to the control and use of this information. We cooperate fully with the regulator and (regularly) provide this additional evidence to our Master Licence Holder and the GSC when requested, as this is a condition of our licence.
6) Our Terms & Conditions enable us to close an account where we suspect foul play or have an account flagged to us by a 3rd party, and in fact we are obligated under our own terms with those 3rd party providers to remove players where they advise of us of suspected foul play.
7) Casino.guru's process of complaint handling in which a complaint may be ruled in the players favour due to 'lack of evidence' disregards both the legal GDPR and legal representation obligations, and also any security concerns of the casino. Rollbit are fully cooperative with the agreed complaints procedure of the licencing authority, a procedure which casino.guru are not party to. We try to be as accommodating as possible in these public forums however expecting 'evidence' to be provided leaves the casino in an often untenable position.
We would invite the player to submit a formal complaint to the correct licencing authority and we will duly respond to any requests, once this has been received. Please also cc in compliance@rollbit.com.
Thanks
Rollbit Legal & Compliance