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

[Nifty29]

Legal requirements in the UK are irrelevant as CWC are not licensed within the EU. Even if they were, there is no specification in these guidelines that say students over 18 years of age have to be prevented from gambling. This is purely an internal policy of the company, and the buck should NOT be passed to "government" just because the policy has caused some bad PR.

In terms of responsible gambling guidance, the methodology would be to place limits on the amounts that can be deposited, and be on the look out for gamblers going "on tilt" and increasing deposit volumes after a bad session to chase the losses.

The only viable way forward for the OP is to take legal advice and see whether this interpretation of the term can be overturned in a civil claims court. The OP was certainly enrolled in "Gymnaseum", and it will be a matter of whether the clause "college or university" covers this part of the educational system in general, or is specific to institutions that are near exact equivalents.

The OP could also consider the merits of this rule. What if they had played at a different casino (one happy to accept students), but never won. Could they have continued to play and lose, or would this have lead them into financial difficulties as they got in deeper, leaving them relying on chasing down a big win just to dig themselves out of a hole, or even having to cancel plans for further study in order to earn back the lost funds.

Every winner is balanced by a larger number of losers. Some players are lucky, others have long runs of terrible luck, and there are threads here that are essentially tales of woe from players who have had bad luck for a long while, and can't understand what happened to "their turn" for a big win.

CWC is based/located in the UK and are therefore subject to legal action in the UK. It may well be to head off a case where a student loses their college fund gambling and sues the casino for allowing them to play.

I haven't read the legislation, but I can assure you that there are sections regarding responsible service of gambling. Whilst it may not expressly state that students should be banned, CWC stated they were advised by their lawyers to include the no student clause. If you want to argue legalities or legal risks facing CWC you will need to contact them, as neither of us know what the legal opinion was based upon.

Anyway, it is a moot point. The term is there and players agree to be bound by it when signing up. As in law, ignorance is no defence.

Please oh please bring back that fork!!

 

[P.V.]

So the OP didn't read the T & C's, only after he was denied payment. His bad but after the fact he did in fact study/read the T & C's and feels it doesn't apply to him. Maybe so..

If I remember correctly the previous long thread on this subject stated that it was being interpreted by U.K. law and not the licensed jurisdiction of the O.C.. So in retrospect the O.C. is enforcing UK law as there isn't world law, correct?

He's from Finland, so when applying such a rule it needs to apply to him too, his country, not be ambiguous towards other areas around the globe.

Shouldn't it be like this: Any student in any jurisdiction under the age of 25 is not allowed to play at our Web site. The definition of student will be determined by the jurisdiction in which the player resides.

His complaint is Latent Ambiguity IMO as addressed below, even though he didn't read them until after the fact.

A "latent ambiguity" occurs when a contract appears entirely straightforward at the time it's executed but certain facts that were not apparent at the time of execution later make the contract language ambiguous and open the entire contract to multiple meanings. Typically, if both parties (or neither party) knew about the ambiguity at the time of the contract, courts will not enforce the contract unless both parties intended an identical meaning. But if only one party knew about the ambiguity, courts try to enforce the contract in a way that furthers the intent of the party that had no knowledge of it.

"courts try to enforce the contract in a way that furthers the intent of the party that had no knowledge of it."

I'd pay the player and update the T & C's so this never happens again, JMO, FWIW!

 

[vinylweatherman]

CWC is based/located in the UK and are therefore subject to legal action in the UK. It may well be to head off a case where a student loses their college fund gambling and sues the casino for allowing them to play.

I haven't read the legislation, but I can assure you that there are sections regarding responsible service of gambling. Whilst it may not expressly state that students should be banned, CWC stated they were advised by their lawyers to include the no student clause. If you want to argue legalities or legal risks facing CWC you will need to contact them, as neither of us know what the legal opinion was based upon.

Anyway, it is a moot point. The term is there and players agree to be bound by it when signing up. As in law, ignorance is no defence.

Please oh please bring back that fork!!

iNetBet is based in the UK, but they don't have this no student rule.

It is therefore not a "hard" law, but a legal opinion which differs between legal advisors. This is what the courts are for. When differences of opinion arise, the aggrieved party can take the matter to court to seek legal clarification before a judge. Once done, the case forms part of "common law", and may end up setting a precedent.

The UK banks had legal advice that their predatory charges were watertight in law, but when the fight started, they feared allowing any case to go to court, and quietly paid off complainants who they feared were prepared to take it all the way. The fear was not of losing one case, but of setting a legal precedent that would "open the floodgates" and have them paying everybody back.

When it was forced to court, the banks didn't fare as badly as they feared, but this prompted the regulators to start tightening up the rules, and banks having to probe for further loopholes in order to keep the money coming in.

The UK would be a very good place to take this to court now that gambling debts are now enforceable just like any other debt. This would test the certainty of CWC's legal opinion.

Betfair were rumoured to be changing their stance when some players seemed prepared to follow up their threats of court action. They also partially climbed down in the wake of the latest fiasco after punters threatened to take them to court.

CWC later changed the term to remove this possible ambiguity, a fact that would actually help the OP in court, as it could be used to show that CWC were not completely confident they were in the right.

Nothing but a court ruling will make CWC change their mind though, further argument here will make no difference, just as it made no difference the last time.

 

[ksech]

I agree, RETURN THE FORK!
'
As VWM has stated...CWC later changed the term to remove this possible ambiguity, a fact that would actually help the OP in court, as it could be used to show that CWC were not completely confident they were in the right.

Nothing but a court ruling will make CWC change their mind though, further argument here will make no difference, just as it made no difference the last time.


Let him take this to a court then, it will cost him MORE than the $200 he is trying to finagle from the casino. Lest we all be categorized as having a reading comprehension disorder (AGAIN), this is now 16 pages long, with the same thing being repeated over and over and over again. It's difficult not to know what the OP is stating, and personally I find it insulting for him to tell CM to "stay out of it" and to treat members here as if we are all idiots.

There's MY 2 cents

 

[vinylweatherman]

I agree, RETURN THE FORK!
'
As VWM has stated...CWC later changed the term to remove this possible ambiguity, a fact that would actually help the OP in court, as it could be used to show that CWC were not completely confident they were in the right.

Nothing but a court ruling will make CWC change their mind though, further argument here will make no difference, just as it made no difference the last time.


Let him take this to a court then, it will cost him MORE than the $200 he is trying to finagle from the casino. Lest we all be categorized as having a reading comprehension disorder (AGAIN), this is now 16 pages long, with the same thing being repeated over and over and over again. It's difficult not to know what the OP is stating, and personally I find it insulting for him to tell CM to "stay out of it" and to treat members here as if we are all idiots.

There's MY 2 cents

Only $200 - it's hardly worth the bother given the plane fare and hotel expenses. The other case was for a far more substantial sum.

 

[Nifty29]

iNetBet is based in the UK, but they don't have this no student rule.

It is therefore not a "hard" law, but a legal opinion which differs between legal advisors. This is what the courts are for. When differences of opinion arise, the aggrieved party can take the matter to court to seek legal clarification before a judge. Once done, the case forms part of "common law", and may end up setting a precedent.

The UK banks had legal advice that their predatory charges were watertight in law, but when the fight started, they feared allowing any case to go to court, and quietly paid ouff complainants who they feared were prepared to take it all the way. The fear was not of losing one case, but of setting a legal precedent that would "open the floodgates" and have them paying everybody back.

When it was forced to court, the banks didn't fare as badly as they feared, but this prompted the regulators to start tightening up the rules, and banks having to probe for further loopholes in order to keep the money coming in.

The UK would be a very good place to take this to court now that gambling debts are now enforceable just like any other debt. This would test the certainty of CWC's legal opinion.

Betfair were rumoured to be changing their stance when some players seemed prepared to follow up their threats of court action. They also partially climbed down in the wake of the latest fiasco after punters threatened to take them to court.

CWC later changed the term to remove this possible ambiguity, a fact that would actually help the OP in court, as it could be used to show that CWC were not completely confident they were in the right.

Nothing but a court ruling will make CWC change their mind though, further argument here will make no difference, just as it made no difference the last time.

Given we both have the same legal qualifications I.e. none....we can argue about this all night and neither of us will be on the money.

The point is that online casinos can choose who they accept as players. No law says that they have to, and whether other casinos do or not is irrelevant.

 

[petr1]

Just to let you all know, I'm waiting for a final explanation from the Rep to this thread.

I'm not satisfied with an answer that ignores all the arguments. I think many of us can agree this isn't that simple. Why else they had the rule fixed?

 

[anniemac]

Thought Tom had made Club World's stand pretty clear on this. Did I miss something?

 

[Tengil]

Well thanks to this thread we can now coin a new frase in the wonderful world of online gambling. That would be "spirit of the term".

And lastly he dint break the student term as once again in Swedish the term only included Högskola and Universitet, no mention of Gymnasium. And Swedish is an official language in Finland, for example my mother tongue is Swedish. Högskola and Uni is basically the same thing as both gives the same degrees.

And everyones knows that the term has nothing to do with responsible gambling, claiming that is seriously underestimating the intelligence of most of the posters. Cant think that anyone honestly believes that BS.

 

[petr1]

I've sent Tom a PM almost 3 weeks ago. I asked him to reply my post. Apperantly he isn't interested.

BTW, I'm no longer a full-time student.

 

[Antonia1953]

Earlier in the thread, an important point was mentioned. Putting the student issue aside, could you supply required cashout documentation to the casino; driver license, copy of credit card, bank statement, copy of utility bill, etc.?

ABOUT ME
Occupation: student

 

[ksech]

I've sent Tom a PM almost 3 weeks ago. I asked him to reply my post. Apperantly he isn't interested.

BTW, I'm no longer a full-time student.

Well, Tom was probably busy in London for all the casino business for the past few weeks. But, I think he made his stand clear way before the three weeks and I'm pretty sure he doesn't intend to change his mind. And your not being a student now is irrevelant to the issue as you WERE a student when you played.

 

[Tengil]

I've sent Tom a PM almost 3 weeks ago. I asked him to reply my post. Apperantly he isn't interested.

BTW, I'm no longer a full-time student.

Your wasting your time. Even if you didnt break their term you apparently broke the "spirit" of it. That seems to be ok for the majority of the members here

A good casino would have paid you and then changed the term. At least now you know to avoid the whole group in the future.

 

[Casinomeister]

. Apperantly he isn't interested.

And neither are we. You are/were a student. Get over it and move on.