After several internal meetings regarding this complaint, we have decided to reject it.
Our conclusion stems from the fact that rad234 did not mention his gambling addiction in the chat; he only requested a break. He stated that he didn’t self-exclude due to casino rules. We believe he should have reported his gambling addiction and filed a complaint had the casino confiscated his balance, which the casino confirmed never occurred, and their terms changed shortly after we raised this issue.
We recognize that some confusion may exist, and we offered a resolution to rad234, but he declined and chose to pursue the case instead.
After a year, all casinos using this platform revised their rules to be clearer, which we appreciate; however, rad234 was still not compensated.
The second part of his claim pertains to other casinos operating under the same company, which do not share management and thus do not share their self-exclusion lists. Therefore, they were not aware that rad234 had self-excluded due to his gambling addiction at another casino. Upon being informed, these casinos immediately closed rad234's account. We believe that a central registry for self-excluded players within the same license/operator would be beneficial and could prevent such issues, but this is not standard practice. Consequently, rad234 is not entitled to a refund.
We sincerely apologize, but after a year of dedicated effort and the events that transpired, we have no choice but to reject the case.
After several internal meetings regarding this complaint, we have decided to reject it.
Our conclusion stems from the fact that rad234 did not mention his gambling addiction in the chat; he only requested a break. He stated that he didn’t self-exclude due to casino rules. We believe he should have reported his gambling addiction and filed a complaint had the casino confiscated his balance, which the casino confirmed never occurred, and their terms changed shortly after we raised this issue.
We recognize that some confusion may exist, and we offered a resolution to rad234, but he declined and chose to pursue the case instead.
After a year, all casinos using this platform revised their rules to be clearer, which we appreciate; however, rad234 was still not compensated.
The second part of his claim pertains to other casinos operating under the same company, which do not share management and thus do not share their self-exclusion lists. Therefore, they were not aware that rad234 had self-excluded due to his gambling addiction at another casino. Upon being informed, these casinos immediately closed rad234's account. We believe that a central registry for self-excluded players within the same license/operator would be beneficial and could prevent such issues, but this is not standard practice. Consequently, rad234 is not entitled to a refund.
We sincerely apologize, but after a year of dedicated effort and the events that transpired, we have no choice but to reject the case.