Swiss casino not paying because of apparently "violation of terms and conditions"

[Jbedde73]

My case is now under PAB, so I won't say anything more about this issue for now and will wait patiently for MaxD to update me.

I do can tell that GRA, complaining at AskGamblers, won't work, at least for me in this situation. Hope all ends well though. Crossing my fingers every day.

[vinylweatherman]

Well, the GRA seems to say that it will consider "opinion" rather than "fact" as evidence enough to "convict" a player of being in the wrong.

There is nothing done here to breach the terms, so the terms are NOT "clear" in any sense, so players CANNOT know whether their play will be deemed to be against the rules.

This would NEVER be allowed here in the UK under the "unfair business practices act", as all terms must be both clear, and PRECISE. No room for "in the opinion of" terms that breach both this law, and the "unfair contracts act" whereby a court can simply strike out a clause deemed to be unfair, and make judgement based on what remains.

Gibraltar is NOT part of the EU, so EU protection does NOT apply. The ONLY option therefore is to take the matter to civil court in Gibraltar, which is likely to be far too expensive to pursue unless a very large sum is at stake.

The REAL problem is that the industry want to continue to make the offers appear better than they really are, so avoid using overly restrictive EXPLICIT rules, and go for the "in the spirit of" argument.

They may have won with the GRA, but using "in the spirit of" usually ends up with them in the pit, as happened to Betfair.

This kind of thing will damage them in the long run, because the type of players they are after will see these stories, be completely unable to see what the players did that was so wrong, and believe that the entire industry is a bunch of "rogue businesses" that use offshore jurisdictions to get away with it by being beyond the reach of consumer protection legislation in the players' home country.

[GrandMaster]

Gibraltar is NOT part of the EU, so EU protection does NOT apply. The ONLY option therefore is to take the matter to civil court in Gibraltar, which is likely to be far too expensive to pursue unless a very large sum is at stake.

Gibraltar is part of the EU as a British dependent territory in Europe, but it is outside the customs union and the common agricultural policy. Gibraltar is part of the Southwest England constituency for the elections to the European Parliament.

[vinylweatherman]

Gibraltar is part of the EU as a British dependent territory in Europe, but it is outside the customs union and the common agricultural policy. Gibraltar is part of the Southwest England constituency for the elections to the European Parliament.

What EU laws are they bound by?

What they have done would be against UK consumer protection laws.

This might open an opportunity to take action in the UK courts or those of the players' own country, rather than in Gibraltar.

The fact that the GRA have ruled in the matter means that proper procedure has been followed before taking things to court.

The UK government has often found it's own laws ruled "illegal" in the high court, and been forced to change them. This is usually where different laws conflict with each other, or a law is incompatible with an EU directive that the UK government is required to make law and enforce.

The human rights treaty is what most often leads to the UK government losing these type of cases. So much so that the government is considering watering down, or even repealing, it's implementation.

The GRA could just as easily find it's own regulatory procedures deemed "illegal" due to conflicts with consumer protection directives and laws.

There is a fair bit of confusion over these dependencies and how they fit into the EU model. They seem to have certain "exemptions" granted that means it is hard to work out which parts of EU law applies to them.

This makes it hard for players to know where they stand legally.

[Nifty29]

Are there any real lawyers on the forum that could assist?

[Jbedde73]

got my money back! For interested: Swiss casino changed their terms and condtions into:

11.6 Your use of any real money bonuses is subject to Our review for irregular playing patterns. To ensure fair gaming and the proper use of bonuses, We consider low margin betting, equal betting, zero risk bets or hedge betting to be irregular gaming when deployed to exploit bonuses. Further examples of irregular playing patterns also include, but are not limited to: (i) placing single or multiple bets of a value of fifty percent or more of the bonus on any single game, individual hand, or round, building a balance and significantly changing play patterns (bet size, game types, bet structures etc) in order to meet the bonus release requirement; (ii) placing large bets which result in a substantial gain followed by a drop in bet size equal to or more than seventy five percent of the previous average bet size until the bonus release requirements have been met (iii) if We have good grounds to suspect that you have sought only to exploit a bonus offered by Us in good faith to enhance your entertainment (for example, on acceptance of a bonus, the minimum wagering requirement is met and funds are subsequently withdrawn).

[heador112]

Same terms like Party gaming . Are they connectet ?

[Przecinek]

These are overly complicated terms ....how the hell are you supposed to calculate 75% drop correctly...
Not to mention almost all roulette systems follow rules that require you to drop your bets like this