The fact is that there's absolutely no advantage to the player whether s/he plays in Thailand or Finland. This is nothing more than EuroSlots hiding behind Terms to save some money.
Now, correct if I'm wrong; when accounts were migrated, you didn't ask players to accept the new T&Cs. The email I received asked if I wanted to decline the Terms, and in that case my account wouldn't have been migrated.
My post won't make a difference, but just to let you know, I closed my Euroslots account after reading this thread.
This does not make sense. Why migrate players and then let a few stay behind. Normally, such a move is down to the old casino winding down and eventually closing, so I can't see them keeping it open long term to service a few players who decide to stick with the old. If they intended to keep the old one going, they would leave existing players where they were, but maybe cross market the new offering to them.
According to the casino's argument, they would STILL have voided the win had there already been funds in the account, but the play was made from a forbidden country.
What I find interesting is that casinos take the view that gambling takes place on their servers, not the client's PC. This argument has been used when defending the taking of bets from countries who's own laws forbid online gambling. It is the UK that has now deemed that the gambling takes place on the client's PC, not the servers, and are using this to require operators to hold a secondary UK license. This is being fought with the argument that gambling takes place on the servers, where it is already sufficiently regulated, and therefore secondary licenses are not necessary.
In this case, the casino is supporting the UK argument by saying that the country exclusion is based on location at the time of placing the bet, and not citizenship. Therefore, a player from an allowed country gets bets voided if they are located in a banned country, the bets having been deemed to have taken place illegally at the client's location, rather than legally at the server.
Pity the politicians don't really play, else they would seize upon this case to further justify the logic of the new rules, saying "the industry (EuroSlots) agrees with our view that gambling takes place on the client's PC, so why all the fuss".
It can also lead to a complication where a UK player plays from a country with a different view. Since the UK says bets take place at the location of the player, where a UK player is playing from abroad (where allowed), the UK government is not entitled to it's tax, instead it should be held back and remitted to the country the player is playing from (which in most cases means the casino gets to keep it). As this would save an operator some 15%, and help render the UK scheme so complicated that a clever accountant could neuter the tax provisions, I can't see every operator passing this opportunity by.
The industry is fighting to get the UK government to back down and stick with the current system where they can operate from anywhere in the EU and pay tax at 2% to Malta or Gibraltar, rather than 15% to the UK on UK players and 2% on the rest. The UK government are probably more interested in the taxation possibilities under secondary licensing than player protection.
Euroslots could have many players suffering from this policy, as travel to France, Spain, etc is far more common than to Thailand, and many players face getting caught out if they take their mobile devices with them and happen to play at EuroSlots.
