Casino Complaint Aladdin's Gold Casino locked my account and is refusing to pay

[chuchu59]

Just a quick one. Given that this issue caused a furore last year does the group require you to declare whether you are a full-time student when you register. If not, why not?

 

[Jasminebed]

You are required to check that you have read and agreed to the terms. The condition of not being a student under 25 years of age is item 1 under Player Responsibilities.

We have had the case argued before that high school students are not College or University students, but Club World has not agreed that they are exempt from the no student term.

I don't see the OP having a resolution in their favour unless they took legal action in the appropriate jurisdiction, and I can't see it being viable for such a small amount.

You are young, and it's a very valuable lesson to always read the terms and conditions of any contract you agree to. Many people have learnt this lesson at a much higher cost.

If you do want to play online, there are many other casinos that will accept you if 18 is legal age to gamble for your country. Please read all terms though, because many do not accept players under 21, students or not.

 

[catcat941]

200 withrawl loss ?

man you must be lucky , maby dozens in here are after 12 in a raw sessions of 200 eu losses , maby quit gambling now and rebudjeting when you are 30 . harsh rule and unbelievable , but your in the worst western country for onlinegambling . try viplounge group .slow pay but pay . to americans.

 

[chuchu59]

man you must be lucky , maby dozens in here are after 12 in a raw sessions of 200 eu losses , maby quit gambling now and rebudjeting when you are 30 . harsh rule and unbelievable , but your in the worst western country for onlinegambling . try viplounge group .slow pay but pay . to americans.

VIP lounge? Ya kidding. I faintly recall this one is associated with Virtual. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[greasemonkey]

Many of us here are quick to say "sorry, that is their rule and nonsensical or not it is our repsonibility to abide by it and know it."

but what about the times that these casinos go outside of their rules and implement an FU clause? Sorry, we feel that you were not gambling in the spirit of our bonus or sorry, we think you play like other players and are linked somehow..... there are too many ways for these casinos to get out of paying players. The rule should be that if you accept a bet then pay the winners. Period. These rules are absurd and it is in no way intended to protect any player it is simply a way to get out of paying winners... especially winners that the casino guesses will not be overall losers eventually. It is total BS.

 

[LaHutti]

Many of us here are quick to say "sorry, that is their rule and nonsensical or not it is our repsonibility to abide by it and know it."

but what about the times that these casinos go outside of their rules and implement an FU clause? Sorry, we feel that you were not gambling in the spirit of our bonus or sorry, we think you play like other players and are linked somehow..... there are too many ways for these casinos to get out of paying players. The rule should be that if you accept a bet then pay the winners. Period. These rules are absurd and it is in no way intended to protect any player it is simply a way to get out of paying winners... especially winners that the casino guesses will not be overall losers eventually. It is total BS.

I very much agree with "if you accept the bet, pay the winners".
It's NOT fair, that the casinos put the responsibillity on the players. It should be THEIR responsibillity, that everything is the way they want it, before they take a bet from any player, and once they say "good to go", then they need to pay up.
Makling stupid rules, that they can turn and twist as they please is not the way to do it, and we see more and more of that.

 

[Nifty29]

Many of us here are quick to say "sorry, that is their rule and nonsensical or not it is our repsonibility to abide by it and know it."

but what about the times that these casinos go outside of their rules and implement an FU clause? Sorry, we feel that you were not gambling in the spirit of our bonus or sorry, we think you play like other players and are linked somehow..... there are too many ways for these casinos to get out of paying players. The rule should be that if you accept a bet then pay the winners. Period. These rules are absurd and it is in no way intended to protect any player it is simply a way to get out of paying winners... especially winners that the casino guesses will not be overall losers eventually. It is total BS.

We aren't talking about spirit of the bonus or FU clauses or anything of the kind. The issue also has nothing to do with casinos going outside their own rules. It might be an idea to start a new thread if you want to go over that old chestnut again.

The term may or may not silly, but it is clearly stated right at the top of the page. The OP personally stated they were a student. The OP only decided that they weren't technically a student AFTER reading the terms AFTER their winnings were denied. If they had done so beforehand, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It is the PLAYERS responsibility to read the terms BEFORE they play. Anything and everything that happens as a consequence of NOT doing so is totally the players fault.

You can say the term itself is stupid, but it has no bearing on this case.

"Accept a legitimate bet, pay the legitimate winnings". I agree.

Remember that the OP accepted the terms and conditions when they signed up and that included the student clause. The only thin that it BS is expecting exceptions to be made for people who don't bother to read the rules before they play. It's ok for 99.9% of others so why should software changes be made for people who couldn't be arsed in the first place?

 

[greasemonkey]

Nifty, you are likely correct if we are looking at just this one case on its own. But if you look at the totality of all the legitimate cases then you will see that casinos are adamant about you following their terms precisely and if they can use them to not pay you then they will..... HOWEVER, they also give themselves the right to not follow their terms exactly or precisely if it benefits them. What I am saying is that they cannot have it both ways.

I am also stating that the entire model is backwards. Approval should be done by the casino PRIOR to you playing. That way, rather than looking for reasons not to pay a player they would simply approve a player then pay him upon cashout requests and that would greatly reduce this ridiculous model that we now operate under in which even if you win you are still wondering if your cashout will arrive or if they will find some hidden clause and not pay you.

In other words, if the casino accepts your bet then they should surely pay you if you win and keep your money if you lose. Simple and clear. I don't need to be a lawyer to walk in and gamble at a brick and mortar casino and I should not have to be one on line either. If you accept my risk and bet then assume your risk should you lose and pay the player.

 

[Nifty29]

Nifty, you are likely correct if we are looking at just this one case on its own. But if you look at the totality of all the legitimate cases then you will see that casinos are adamant about you following their terms precisely and if they can use them to not pay you then they will..... HOWEVER, they also give themselves the right to not follow their terms exactly or precisely if it benefits them. What I am saying is that they cannot have it both ways.

I am also stating that the entire model is backwards. Approval should be done by the casino PRIOR to you playing. That way, rather than looking for reasons not to pay a player they would simply approve a player then pay him upon cashout requests and that would greatly reduce this ridiculous model that we now operate under in which even if you win you are still wondering if your cashout will arrive or if they will find some hidden clause and not pay you.

In other words, if the casino accepts your bet then they should surely pay you if you win and keep your money if you lose. Simple and clear. I don't need to be a lawyer to walk in and gamble at a brick and mortar casino and I should not have to be one on line either. If you accept my risk and bet then assume your risk should you lose and pay the player.

In a perfect world, everyone could be instantly verified upon signup via an online casino database or a fingerprint scanner etc. Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect world and it never will be.

Casinos don't implement pre-verification because it turns a lot of players off. We want to signup and play, not sign up and send our docs and wait for some drone to stamp it and have our account unlocked for play.....players will just go elsewhere that they can play instantly. The only way it might happen is if all operators implemented it together, and you can guess how likely that is to occur.

The fact is that things are as they are.....the player IS responsible for reading the terms before they agree to them.

On the other matter, when did CWG "not follow their own terms"? We are talking about a specific casino here so we shouldn't be generalizing.

 

[Tengil]

Everyone seems to have forgotten that he didnt brake any term. He was not in College or Uni nor was he in Högskola or Universitet. If they ment something else like all full-time students then write in the terms. Period. Take some responsibility for your own mistakes like players have to do.
If you are too lazy or mentally challenged to get it then close shop.

Its sickening how some try their utmost to defend Club Worlds roguish action.

 

[ksech]

CWC's student clause is ridiculous, but nothing any player or member here at CM says or does will make them change it. The general concensus agrees this is a stupid clause. They DON'T hide it, it's right there. To continually bicker about it doesn't accomplish anything except to refuel a debate that gets members temporary vacations or banned.

 

[Casinomeister]

Just to give further info: Gymnasium is the European equivalent of High School/prep school which normally goes from the fifth grade to 12th or 13th grade. Students of the Gymnasium are from the ages 10 - 18 or 19. My two youngest are both in the Gymnasium, so I'm pretty familiar with this.

Most of the CWC crew are gone for the holidays, so it may be a few days before any responses come in.

 

[Markus]

Casinos don't implement pre-verification because it turns a lot of players off. We want to signup and play, not sign up and send our docs and wait for some drone to stamp it and have our account unlocked for play.....players will just go elsewhere that they can play instantly.

Unfortunately in most cases this is true, but I do have one counterexample: Totesport Casino. After sign up they immediately lock the player account and request a proof of age before they allow the player to deposit and play (at least at the time I signed up they did it this way). You can see at this example that it does work, because despite this procedure there are players playing at Totesport Casino.

In my opinion Totesport behaves in an exemplary manner in regards to player protection and fairness. All casinos should do it this way, especially if they have a strange student clause like Club World.

 

[LaHutti]

WWhat I don't understand,is why they even have the rule in the first place. If anyone could tell me why, I would dearly appreciate it.
If people are of legal age, what's the big deal ?...and who don't they want playing there next ? Painters ?
It seems very odd to me, and on top of that, discriminating.

 

[anniemac]

The player has to send in ID verification, proof of address - utility bill in his/her name etc, copy of CC used plus a signed authorization. If CC not used, then they ask for account number of webwallet used. Sometimes they ask for a copy of your bank statement also. This process in itself will throw up the first red flag. Could be it did and this is what cause the phone call to become necessary.

Whether the player is a student or not is a moot point if he can't submit verification documents.

Do I think the T&C's need to be changed? Yes I do. There is a big difference in a college student that is 25 or under, living on his/her own and paying his/her own way and a college student 25 or under living in the dorm and gambling away happily on Daddy's money. I absolutely believe that anyone still in high school, gymnasium or whatever you call it should not be able to gambling online, period.

But it really doesn't make a rat's behind because the term is there and we can split hairs all day long.

 

[vinylweatherman]

WWhat I don't understand,is why they even have the rule in the first place. If anyone could tell me why, I would dearly appreciate it.
If people are of legal age, what's the big deal ?...and who don't they want playing there next ? Painters ?
It seems very odd to me, and on top of that, discriminating.

The argument is really about whether an adult is an adult PERIOD, or whether there are certain categories of legal adult that must be treated as legal minors for their own good. CWC consider that young adult students, although legally adult, MUST be protected from their own youthful urges and prevented from digging themselves into a hole by gambling when they have no means of independent support, such as a job. This is the argument presented previously to justify this term, and it's strict enforcement no matter how unpopular.

In law, there ARE categories of adults (over the age of majority) that are granted legal protection. These include those classed as having "learning difficulties", and thus unable to manage their own affairs without help. It also includes the elderly suffering from such degenerative diseases as dementia. Courts grant a power of attourney to someone to manage the affairs of these people, and this can be done against their will. The ONKY difference is that CWC are a private business, and have taken it upon themselves to enforce such protection against one class of adult it believes to be particularly vulnerable to the pitfalls of easy access to gambling products online, which could cause them to be forced out of their studies through losing more than they can afford when they are too young to realise the damage done to their life prospects. Governments also impose regulations designed to protect certain groups of adults, and again this is done against their will.

One argument is whether this right to "nanny" should extend to private business, or be the preserve of elected governments. The only real way to settle this is for a specimen case to go before a court, where the legal arguments can be examined.

There are many anti-discrimination laws that make it illegal to "protect" certain groups, such as women, minority races, religion, gender, and more recently age. I am not aware of any such laws prohibiting discrimination on other grounds, such as occupation, income, etc. In fact, if they had a rule prohibiting over 70's from playing, they WOULD be in a heap of trouble from the UK and EU. The ONLY permitted age discrimination allowed is when it is directed at excluding minors from accessing a product intended for adults.

In terms of intent, a "high school" student gambling is WORSE than a university student gambling, as "high school" is part of the routine education that ALL children are expected to pass through on the way to adulthood, whereas university or equivalent is a choice made by a student to study further, or enter the jobs market right away.

The change to 18 as the age of majority has lead to some of these problems. It used to be 21 in recognition of the feeling that 18 was too young to take on the full responsibilties of adulthood. Social progress lead to it being dropped to 18 in many countries, but there are states in the US where it is STILL set at 21.

Recently, the UK has started moving things the other way. The legal age for buying tobacco used to be 16, but was recently raised to 18. There are also moves to require full time study in "school" to be extended to the age of 18, rather than having the option to leave at 16 and try to get work.

There are those that want some things to go back to being restricted to age 21 or over, although the businesses that make money from such services are going to resist.

Had the minimum age for gambling remained at 21, the vast majority of university students would be under age anyway, as most courses are for 3 years, and cover the ages 18 to 21.

Specifically stating "university or college" rather than leaving it as "full time student" has only allowed these arguments over whether a particular establishment is covered by the term, rather than focussing on the "full time" aspect of the studies which leaves little time to earn a living wage to fully support oneself.

CWC ignored earlier advice to simplify the term by removing this extra information, making it a very simple "no full time students under 25 years of age", regardless of the name or structure of the institution in which the studies were undertaken. After all, the aim is to stop students from gambling away their study allowance, not have them argue over whether they can dodge the rule because of the way their studies are structured.

In many ways, this is a rule that can only be enforced by consent, as the only way they can prove someone is a student is to get them to admit it. As this player failed to read the terms, they walked right into this mess by answering "yes" when asked if they were a student. Had they said "no", there is no way CWC could have proven otherwise without access to enrollment records of all institutions in the country. A student would simply use standard documents such as a passport, rather than send in their student ID card.

The previous student was only caught because they volunteered their student ID card as their photo ID, which alerted the casino to the fact they were a student. Having sent this card in, it was too late to backtrack and claim not to be a student any longer, and it didn't work.

I bet there are many students playing at CWC, but they have not been caught because they have read the terms, and have made sure CWC don't get hold of the wrong documents such as a student ID card. It would take a great deal of costly investigation for CWC to check up on every player between the ages of 18 to 25 in order to catch out those who are students. If they put EVERY such player through such detailed investigation, it will drive them away student or not, as they will feel the "hoops" they are being asked to jump through are ridiculous.

 

[petr1]

We aren't talking about spirit of the bonus or FU clauses or anything of the kind. The issue also has nothing to do with casinos going outside their own rules. It might be an idea to start a new thread if you want to go over that old chestnut again.

The term may or may not silly, but it is clearly stated right at the top of the page. The OP personally stated they were a student. The OP only decided that they weren't technically a student AFTER reading the terms AFTER their winnings were denied. If they had done so beforehand, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It is the PLAYERS responsibility to read the terms BEFORE they play. Anything and everything that happens as a consequence of NOT doing so is totally the players fault.

You can say the term itself is stupid, but it has no bearing on this case.

"Accept a legitimate bet, pay the legitimate winnings". I agree.

Remember that the OP accepted the terms and conditions when they signed up and that included the student clause. The only thin that it BS is expecting exceptions to be made for people who don't bother to read the rules before they play. It's ok for 99.9% of others so why should software changes be made for people who couldn't be arsed in the first place?

You keep forgetting that I didn't break the Terms, I have explained this many times. I didn't "decide" that I'm not a student after reading the Terms.

 

[Nifty29]

You keep forgetting that I didn't break the Terms, I have explained this many times. I didn't "decide" that I'm not a student after reading the Terms.

You told the rep you were a full time student.

You then "re-checked" the terms and "found a rule" about students I.e. you didn't see it the first time, because if you had then surely you would have clarified your status with the casino right?

It really comes down to common sense. Why would Uni and College students under 25 be banned, but an 18yo at high school be just fine? The terms "university or college" were used in the UK/American sense and obviously include other similar types of education. In Australia, high schools are called "colleges" so does that mean that Australian high school students are banned but Finnish ones aren't simply because they call it something different?

Come on.

 

[petr1]

You told the rep you were a full time student.

You then "re-checked" the terms and "found a rule" about students I.e. you didn't see it the first time, because if you had then surely you would have clarified your status with the casino right?

It really comes down to common sense. Why would Uni and College students under 25 be banned, but an 18yo at high school be just fine? The terms "university or college" were used in the UK/American sense and obviously include other similar types of education. In Australia, high schools are called "colleges" so does that mean that Australian high school students are banned but Finnish ones aren't simply because they call it something different?

Come on.

There no common sense in that rule. 18-year old unemployed non-student is allowed to play but 25-year old university student is not?

And by the way, when did casinos start to have common sense?

 

[Jasminebed]

I'm sorry petr, but you broke the terms in the eyes of Club World. I'm no fan of this term, and I tend to agree with you that the term is poorly worded, when it comes to high school students.

Did you read this thread? https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/high-noon-casino-account-closed-student-issue.42566/ This issue was pretty much the same as yours. You can see just how far this student got with his complaint.

There's also a discussion regarding clarifying the student term: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/suggestions-for-the-no-student-clause.41601/, and further discussion here: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/club-world-still-waiting-on-t-c-changes.42045/

A really really long thread regarding another member who was asked for proof of employment because his age caused the casino to suspect he was a student, and the issue is again discussed at length: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/club-world-usa-proof-of-full-time-employment.40969/

One more from quite a long time ago: https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/club-world-no-students-under-21.16930/

If Aladdin's Gold has not returned any deposits you have made, you need to let us know that, and I'm sure you will receive assistance in that regard.

You can see that quite a number of the members here don't favour that term, how it's written and how it is implemented, but we are not the ones running the casino.

You are beating a dead horse. If you really think you have a case, it will have to be taken via legal action, you won't find a resolution here I'm sorry to say.

 

[chuchu59]

There no common sense in that rule. 18-year old unemployed non-student is allowed to play but 25-year old university student is not?

And by the way, when did casinos start to have common sense?

Petr, when did you register at the casino and was there something in the registration form asking whether you are a full-time student?

 

[petr1]

Petr, when did you register at the casino and was there something in the registration form asking whether you are a full-time student?

If I remember correctly, I registered there in the beginning of December and at the same day I made a deposit. If I had not won anything few days ago, I wouldn't even know that I have the right to demand a refund for my deposits.

There was absolutely nothing in the registration form asking if I'm a full-time student.

 

[anniemac]

Chu,

I don't remember if there is a full-time student box but you do have to check the box that asks if you have read the T&Cs and agree to them. Plus by his own admission, he told them he was a student.

Should CWG address this issue more in depth, I believe so. But I don't run the casino. As the saying goes, it is what it is. Leason learned. Read the T&C's in depth before playing. If you don't understand them, ask.

 

[petr1]

Chu,

I don't remember if there is a full-time student box but you do have to check the box that asks if you have read the T&Cs and agree to them. Plus by his own admission, he told them he was a student.

Should CWG address this issue more in depth, I believe so. But I don't run the casino. As the saying goes, it is what it is. Leason learned. Read the T&C's in depth before playing. If you don't understand them, ask.

They made a vague rule with a loophole and after several complaints they are still not fixing it. It's their mistake, not mine, and if we take the rule precisely, I should get paid.

 

[anniemac]

Yes, but had you read the rules before playing, then you would have known this rule was there, however ambiguous. You could have asked for clarification and wouldn't be in this predicament now.

Whether anyone agrees with the rule or its meaning is a moot point. Casinos, whether this particular one, or every other one on the internet, have the right to put in what ever rules they want and interpret them anyway they want to. When you check the T&C box you are agreeing to that.

Just a curiousity question, have you PM'd the Rep here?