Hi angelbooty36,
Sorry, it took longer than expected.
Dear Spinago Casino team,
In Casino Guru we put lots of emphasis on fair gambling. This means that neither casino nor the player should get an unfair advantage. T&Cs of the casino should ensure that players get no unfair advantage over the casino. At the same time, they shouldn't be unfair to the players. You can read more in our Fair Gambling Codex: https://casino.guru/fair-gambling-codex-for-casinos. We also use this as a base for our decisions regarding complaints. The point is to create a safe and user-friendly environment for players even those who don't read the whole T&Cs (very few do) and aren't experienced gamers. The fact is that one account per person is a standard rule in the industry. But not every player is aware of that. The main point of this rule is protection from abusing welcome offers. If a player takes the welcome bonus twice, that is an unfair advantage and we agree that any winnings should be void. However, this is not the case here.
Let us summarize the key points of this case:
- The player opened the second account in good faith, unaware that it was against the rules
- The player didn't take a bonus, so there is no unfair advantage gained
- The player's first account was closed based on their request, it wasn't self-excluded for gaming problem
- The player's second account was fully verified. This is important because at this moment (if not sooner) the casino should have realized that the player already had an account. It's logical for the player to assume that if she passes verification everything is OK.
Considering all of this we believe that a fair approach from the casino would be to pay the player. Even though she unintentionally broke one of the casino terms, there is no advantage gained by that, and the money was won fairly (winnings resulted from her luck, not any special advantage). Therefore we would like to ask casino representatives to take all of the individual specifics of this case into account and reconsider the decision to not pay the player.
According to our internal methodology, if the player won't get paid, the complaint will be classified "against fair gambling" which will lead to a decrease in the casino's rating.
Hi angelbooty36,
Sorry, it took longer than expected.
Dear Spinago Casino team,
In Casino Guru we put lots of emphasis on fair gambling. This means that neither casino nor the player should get an unfair advantage. T&Cs of the casino should ensure that players get no unfair advantage over the casino. At the same time, they shouldn't be unfair to the players. You can read more in our Fair Gambling Codex: https://casino.guru/fair-gambling-codex-for-casinos. We also use this as a base for our decisions regarding complaints. The point is to create a safe and user-friendly environment for players even those who don't read the whole T&Cs (very few do) and aren't experienced gamers. The fact is that one account per person is a standard rule in the industry. But not every player is aware of that. The main point of this rule is protection from abusing welcome offers. If a player takes the welcome bonus twice, that is an unfair advantage and we agree that any winnings should be void. However, this is not the case here.
Let us summarize the key points of this case:
- The player opened the second account in good faith, unaware that it was against the rules
- The player didn't take a bonus, so there is no unfair advantage gained
- The player's first account was closed based on their request, it wasn't self-excluded for gaming problem
- The player's second account was fully verified. This is important because at this moment (if not sooner) the casino should have realized that the player already had an account. It's logical for the player to assume that if she passes verification everything is OK.
Considering all of this we believe that a fair approach from the casino would be to pay the player. Even though she unintentionally broke one of the casino terms, there is no advantage gained by that, and the money was won fairly (winnings resulted from her luck, not any special advantage). Therefore we would like to ask casino representatives to take all of the individual specifics of this case into account and reconsider the decision to not pay the player.
According to our internal methodology, if the player won't get paid, the complaint will be classified "against fair gambling" which will lead to a decrease in the casino's rating.