I don't know much about this at all, but surely if a player indicates they wish to use a certain third party for dispute resolution, and the casino don't have any objection, then I think it's wrong if they aren't allowed to.
That's exactly the issue, there shouldn't be a problem. The _real_ problem is that some operators don't like people prying into their handling of players, and they'll use whatever means they have at their disposal to keep it from being something they have to deal with.
See the recent article over at ThePogg --
--for more good details on this. Quick quote to give you an idea:
The problem is that these operators are being entirely disingenuous. Declining to discuss the player’s complaint has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with protecting private information. These excuses are trotted out to avoid scrutiny of practices of the operator, not to protect the player.
The truth is that neither the GDPR nor the Data Protection Act that preceded it create any insurmountable legal barrier to a gambling operator discussing any aspect of a player’s account or activity where the account holder requests they do so.
In fairness I should add that some casinos who direct their players to the designated ADR
and only the designated ADR are not being under-handed about it. Right or wrong -- I'm simply unclear on this -- they are under the impression that the UKGC will require them to defend their reasons for using a non-designated ADR
in each and every instance where they do so. As mentioned earlier, if that's a real and actual impediment put in place by the UKGC -- I need to look into this to know for sure -- then I can only sympathize with a UK licensed casino that decides it's simply not worth the hassle and opts to enforce a "designated ADR only" rule.
So will you now have to reject PABS from UK players? ...
It's not an all-or-nothing thing.
There are certain groups -- usually the large corporatized groups including people like Mr Green, Redbet,
LeoVegas, now BGO, and of course WillHill, Lads, Gala/Coral -- that don't want to deal with anyone but the ADR they have on contract. We know this and either warn those players when they come to us or simply send them directly to the "designated ADR" straight off.
As I've said, a good many other casinos are happy to deal with us regarding UK players and do, though admittedly that list is getting shorter by the day.
And, obviously, it got a lot worse when the GDPR became a part of everyone's lives because (as ThePogg and I have both pointed out) it was another opportunity for casinos to relatively easily obfuscate, misdirect and misinform players as to the rights of access they actually had, or should have.
... the player's choice is being denied just so ecogra [in my view] can get a case fee for every complaint ...
Actually IBAS is by far the largest beneficiary of the ADR system in the UK. They handle many thousands of cases per year -- I seem to remember reading recently that it was 10,000+ in 2018 -- for UK casinos and as such hold something like 90%+ of the complaints "market" in the UK.
The PAB sysytem as I understood it, meant players could do a PAB and if unsuccessful still have the option of going to ecogra, the pab result wasn't binding on the player?
Quite so. AFAIK there is nothing at eCOGRA, or IBAS for that matter, that penalizes a UK player for bringing their complaint to someone else (like us) before approaching them. As far as the UKGC and their approved ADRs are concerned non-approved ADRs simply don't factor into the equation.
There is however a standing rule
among the UKGC's approved ADRs that if
a UK case has been processed and completed by one of them then the others won't "re-open" that case. So as far as the designated ADRs go
(in the UK) you get one shot, after that the next stop is the courts (afaik).
