Resolved GoWild Casino has confiscated my money

[miksaxxx]

I would take them to court.

Like in eu law:
Under the EU rules, the general requirements of the contract terms must be in a good way and the rights and obligations of the parties must be in balance.

Is gowild t&c in balance to the both parties.

Judge will laugh that ( he has fully agreed t&c ) .

 

[thebigs]

So does a player who has breached their apparent rule have their money refunded when this happens or the casino wins if you lose and wins if you win.
I rarely up my bet but if i did and this happened to me i would certainly not allow them to get away with this.
Casino's cannot get away with this and every player who has an account with them should vote with their cash and NEVER play at Go Wild again.

 

[jackanory2279]

Dear,

GoWild Casino have confiscated all my money by claiming that I have breaking a rule by change bet when I played slots.
Are a casino in Malta allowed to have any rules, even if it is brutishly?
The rule they refereeing to is following:

"Forbidden to building a balance and significantly changing play patterns for example bet size, game types and bet structures etc."

This sounds totally crazy to me because all customers are of course from time to time
changing bet when playing slot and it must be customers choice on what to bet each time.
This is obviously a way for them to confiscate customers money if someone win big.

Slot machines allow you to change bet and how come that they then having a rule which opposite not allow you to do so? This rule is also not clear because it say "significant" and "etc".
Then GoWild can themself be the judge and decide when they want to use this rule to confiscate customers money and the customers don't know what rights they have.

All slots are also using a slot random generator so no one can predict the outcome if each slot.

It's also even more strange that they claim this rule on me because I played with more or less same amount on more than hundreds of slot games before I got my biggest win which was on SEK 250.000 ( USD 30.500 ).

Gowild confiscated all my deposits which where on a balance of total SEK 205.000 (USD25.000) and then also all my winnings which where on SEK 112.000 (USD 13.600) which give the total of SEK 317.000 (USD 38.600) as they confiscated.
I where totally broken by this, both finance wise as well as a person and I therefore are now on a 8 weeks rehabilitationcenter for playing addition named "Game Over" in Linköping/ Sweden.

I will also add to this that I never play with any bonus and did not do that here with GoWild, it was just pure deposit money as they took.

Kind regards

Jan Kristiansson

i feel awfull for this guy. if gowild are taking his money based of that term.. specialy if no bonus was used. even if a bonus was used it would still be harsh. unless max bet was broke.

 

[The Dude]

Another unfortunate fall from grace

Well, these guys have pretty much forced my hand. There is no way that an accredited casino can remove winnings from non-bonus play citing "irregular playing patterns". That is absolute rubbish. And the fact that the casino support is confirming that one can play in this manner proves that the management of this casino isn't what it used to be.

Furthermore, the other PAB that went pear-shaped (where the player was told he could bet 20% of his bonus amount, and confiscated his winnings after he did so) hammers home my thoughts on this. They should not be listed as an Accredited Casino.

The lack of discussion on their part really surprises me. I guess they have forgotten about their trials and tribulations they have had here since 2008. What this implies, at least to me, is that they find no value in being an accredited casino at Casinomeister. Their accounts manager even thought it was "not appropriate" to remove them from the Accredited section because their licensing jurisdiction ruled in their favor.

How could I not remove them? Their casino is violating our standards:

• Must not confiscate winnings for vague & unclear reasons, such as “irregular playing patterns” or “bonus abuse”, without specific T&C violations.
• Must not implement terms that can be construed as “unfair” towards the player.

https://www.casinomeister.com/becoming-accredited/

These are rogue terms - I am sure most everyone would agree with me - and not only players, but affiliates and other operators. Enforcing rogue predatory terms = rogue casino.

GoWild's review has been updated: GoWild Casino - Rogue Casino

 

[dunover]

This is a new low for even a crap casino like Go Wild - enforcing rules on how a player spends their OWN money not under bonus WR!!

They don't ever deserve another player signing up after this BS....

Untrustworthy, dishonest and just shite - you'd expect this from an A$$power site, but a Viper one??

 

[bowki]

This is honestly the worst story i ever read about a casino. Im shocked as i used to play there but not in a while and now i will never again.


They deserve to be in the SUPER ROGUE. Unbelievable

 

[The Dude]

...
Untrustworthy, dishonest and just shite - you'd expect this from an A$$power site, but a Viper one??

They are no longer a Microgaming Viper casino - they are multi-platform which makes it difficult for a software provider to get involved.

My guess is that these terms came into effect after the move.

Guilty by association: Wild Jackpots casino review

 

[lockinlove]

Just such gross behavior. I am actually disgusted.

I just went to chat and closed my account for good. I suggest everyone here do the same. This garbage cannot be allowed.

If they dont value accreditation, whatever. They are losing players from here and they seem to forget that there are tonnes of lurkers. I know of people who dont have accounts here and when they look for a casino that interests them, they use the search function to get feedback on said casino. This is not a small community and this will harm their business.

Thankfully, this thread exists

 

[bowki]

Im closing my account right now, as well. They asked for the reason and i told them i cant support a casino that does its business like that. I linked them to the review as well.

 

[maxd]

Not many casinos manage A-list to shit-list in one afternoon.

 

[ThePOGG]

These are rogue terms - I am sure most everyone would agree with me - and not only players, but affiliates and other operators. Enforcing rogue predatory terms = rogue casino.

We'll be following suit later today - Max briefed me on one of the ridiculous terms this group are applying a few weeks ago (rolling WR on busted bonuses over to subsequent deposits) and the other two cases this morning. To be frank either of these complaints can be considered appalling in their own right and I have serious questions regarding whether or not the terms being enforced in the most recent complaint are compliant with EU consumer law.

TP

 

[Nate]

Disgusting behavior from them. I never trusted them. IMPO they have always been shady. This proves it.

Nate

 

[Tirilej]

I spoke with the OP earlier today and he wanted to know what he could do to make them blacklisted. I guess that has already happened

He also wanted to know how he could move forward with this. He's in Sweden like me but I can not give any legal advice, so help is needed.

I guess his Pab is over so he's free to post himself now.

 

[lockinlove]

Im not sure how it all works and im sure others who are knowledgeable will chime in but he needs to take them to court. I dont see how a court wouldnt over turn gowilds thievery.

I would love to see them go down like that. They would most likely have to pay court costs too. Including lawyer fees and such...insanely bad PR. Everything they deserve for being dirtbags

 

[The Dude]

I spoke with the OP earlier today and he wanted to know what he could do to make them blacklisted. I guess that has already happened

He also wanted to know how he could move forward with this. He's in Sweden like me but I can not give any legal advice, so help is needed.

I guess his Pab is over so he's free to post himself now.

My advice to him would to remain cool, calm, and collected. Not to get anyone's hopes up, but to go ape-shit in the fora and social media wouldn't be a wise thing to do.

So far what I have seen from these aggrieved players is that they have been well behaved and patient.

 

[ReggieMac]

I am another whose business will not be going anywhere near this rogue outfit, I have found that bad news travels fast about operations that conduct themselves as poorly as this and I am sure it will bite them sooner or later!

 

[maxd]

I guess his Pab is over so he's free to post himself now.

Quite so, thanks for asking.

 

[dunover]

Not many casinos manage A-list to shit-list in one afternoon.

Yes, a feat only previously achieved by Gerald Ratner in the UK once.

 

[shapesy]

Surely this casino cannot get away with this, its theft and wish i had some advice to give but i dont sorry.

 

[slotplayer]

The irony is the casino is named GoWild.

 

[Jannelova]

Gowild - brutish terms

Thanks everyone for your comments regarding my case about GoWild confiscated my USD 36.000.
Theirs chatsupport are answering people that this term 6:2 are valid only when playing with bonus and that you are allowed to make bet's whatever you want if you put in pure cash as I did. Can they really get away by giving false information to clients and then take customers money, it can't be legal?
Are they blacklisted now or how do I do to achieve that result? It' amazing that they take this risk when they know they are wrong and even more strange that MGA whom shall help and protect customers don't do anything when I asked for theirs help.
Kind regards/ Jan Kristiansson

 

[The Dude]

Thanks everyone for your comments regarding my case about GoWild confiscated my USD 36.000.
Theirs chatsupport are answering people that this term 6:2 are valid only when playing with bonus and that you are allowed to make bet's whatever you want if you put in pure cash as I did. Can they really get away by giving false information to clients and then take customers money, it can't be legal?
Are they blacklisted now or how do I do to achieve that result? It' amazing that they take this risk when they know they are wrong and even more strange that MGA whom shall help and protect customers don't do anything when I asked for theirs help.
Kind regards/ Jan Kristiansson

They are now blacklisted here, and other websites will be doing the same I am sure.

 

[lockinlove]

Thanks everyone for your comments regarding my case about GoWild confiscated my USD 36.000.
Theirs chatsupport are answering people that this term 6:2 are valid only when playing with bonus and that you are allowed to make bet's whatever you want if you put in pure cash as I did. Can they really get away by giving false information to clients and then take customers money, it can't be legal?
Are they blacklisted now or how do I do to achieve that result? It' amazing that they take this risk when they know they are wrong and even more strange that MGA whom shall help and protect customers don't do anything when I asked for theirs help.
Kind regards/ Jan Kristiansson

Keep us updated if you proceed further. We would all like to see them pay for this.

 

[maxd]

Are they blacklisted now ...

As Bryan (aka Casinomeister) said, they are. See here: GoWild Casino - Rogue.

 

[ThePOGG]

Thanks everyone for your comments regarding my case about GoWild confiscated my USD 36.000.
Theirs chatsupport are answering people that this term 6:2 are valid only when playing with bonus and that you are allowed to make bet's whatever you want if you put in pure cash as I did. Can they really get away by giving false information to clients and then take customers money, it can't be legal?
Are they blacklisted now or how do I do to achieve that result? It' amazing that they take this risk when they know they are wrong and even more strange that MGA whom shall help and protect customers don't do anything when I asked for theirs help.
Kind regards/ Jan Kristiansson

Keep a cool head just now as Bryan so sagely advised. Imo this case is fairly clear cut. I would be very surprised if some of the involved parties don't change their position in the relatively near future once a closer look at some of the details of the case is taken. I don't think the conversation behind the scenes is entirely concluded even if GW have forced Bryan's hand regarding their status at CM. Take some deep breaths and as frustrating as this might be I would suggest sitting on your hands and not saying too much for the next week or two.

TP

 

[ThePOGG]

I want to make a quick post regarding the term that GW have used to justify the action they've taken. I haven't read through every post on this thread but I realise there has been some back and forth regarding whether the term should be considered a bonus term or whether, due to its inclusion in the General Terms and Conditions and the fact that it does not specifically mention bonuses, that it can be applied to non-bonus play.

The short answer is that this term is not valid for non-bonus play and here's why:

"v) irregular play, which may include but is not wholly restricted to any one or more of the following types of play: placing single bets equal to or exceeding the limit defined in the terms of the bonus campaigns of the value of the bonus credited to the player account, in advance of the wager requirement for that bonus having been met; using the double-up feature to increase bet values; placing even money bets on Baccarat, Blackjack and Roulette and/or building a balance and significantly changing play patterns for example bet size, game types and bet structures etc."

Look at the two list entries immediately preceding the one the one the operator are relying on:

"using the double-up feature to increase bet values; placing even money bets on Baccarat, Blackjack and Roulette"

Neither of these list entries specify that they are applicable to bonus play, so following the operator's reasoning are applicable to non-bonus play. Do the operator genuinely want us to believe that any player at any time using the Double-Up feature is in violation of rules? What about Baccarat and Blackjack? The primary bets on both these games are even money (you can't play Blackjack without placing an even money bet) as are the Red/Black, 1-18/19-36 and Even/Odd bets on Roulette. Essentially if we accept that these list entries are applicable to non-bonus play, no player can ever play Blackjack, Baccarat or use the Double-Up feature on any game and some of the most common bets placed on the Roulette table would also be prohibited. Clearly these list entries were never intended to be applied to non-bonus play even though they do not specifically state that they are bonus terms. In fact, if the operator were to claim that they were non-bonus terms they are essentially guilty of entrapment as they are inviting players to deposit and play and specifically offering games that no-one is every allowed to play. So every entry in the list from that term other than the very last is specifically, demonstratably, intended to prohibit activity while a bonus is in play. By what logic would the last entry on the list deviate from this pattern? And if we accept that it does it needs to clearly define that unlike the other entries in the list this applies outside of bonus play, which it does not, to make clear its exception to the pattern defined by all other entries on the list.

TP

 

[ternur]

[...]The short answer is that this term is not valid for non-bonus play and here's why:

Look at the two list entries immediately preceding the one the one the operator are relying on:

Neither of these list entries specify that they are applicable to bonus play, so following the operator's reasoning are applicable to non-bonus play. Do the operator genuinely want us to believe that any player at any time using the Double-Up feature is in violation of rules? What about Baccarat and Blackjack? The primary bets on both these games are even money (you can't play Blackjack without placing an even money bet) as are the Red/Black, 1-18/19-36 and Even/Odd bets on Roulette. Essentially if we accept that these list entries are applicable to non-bonus play, no player can ever play Blackjack, Baccarat or use the Double-Up feature on any game and some of the most common bets placed on the Roulette table would also be prohibited. Clearly these list entries were never intended to be applied to non-bonus play even though they do not specifically state that they are bonus terms. In fact, if the operator were to claim that they were non-bonus terms they are essentially guilty of entrapment as they are inviting players to deposit and play and specifically offering games that no-one is every allowed to play. So every entry in the list from that term other than the very last is specifically, demonstratably, intended to prohibit activity while a bonus is in play. By what logic would the last entry on the list deviate from this pattern? And if we accept that it does it needs to clearly define that unlike the other entries in the list this applies outside of bonus play, which it does not, to make clear its exception to the pattern defined by all other entries on the list.

Spot on TG. I also pointed this out earlier:

If they interpret the meaning of the clause to include changing bet size as "irregular play", every single player would be in breach of the terms, It would also make every double up a breach.

Now if the OP already contacted MGA and they rubberstamped this behaviour, it's pretty alarming.

It will most like not hold up in court should the case go that far.

But I still find it extremely troublesome that MGA ok'd this term to be valid and sided with the casino. That was a clear mistake from their part and would be nice to see further info from their reasoning on the matter.

The bottom line is, that if GW don't change their decision, they should be taken to court and this should be a precedent. Casinos seem to rely too much what is written on their T&C and believe their are always valid, no matter how poorly they are drafted. That simply is not true. Contract terms are deemed invalid all the time by the courts and the ambiguity and the burden to prove the validity lies on the one who drafted it -- contra preferentem "interpretation against the draftsman". This is especially true with the contracts where the counter party (here the player) is not in the position to negotiate the terms, they are just presented to be accepted or not.

 

[ThePOGG]

I'd be reluctant to criticise the MGA at this stage for a number of reason.

In the first instance, a quick review of a case like this can easily mislead the reader. They have a clear terms stating that you can't significantly change your bet size and the player has done that. Open and shut. It's only when you deconstruct the situation further than this that the issues start to poke through.

Even Bryan's acknowledged previously that he'd been speed reading and had missed that this was a non-bonus issue. The MGA have a huge workload in terms of complaints. IBAS are probably clocking close to 10k complaints/year and they almost solely deal with the UK market. The MGA deal with pretty much everywhere else and have at least as many licensees. Even with a significant team that's a heavy workload. From experience I can say that it is easy to draw an incorrect conclusion early on in the review of a case and if the complainant doesn't then do a good job of correcting the course an incorrect ruling can be reached.

With no offence intended to the player in question, I'd take a guess that they're not an English as a first language speaker. When trying to convey complex arguments subtleties are often key and working in a second tier language is a significant disadvantage. It's one of the big selling points of a community like this one.

I've worked closely with the MGA for several years now and found their team to be knowledgeable and receptive to discussion and differing points of view. I've yet to be directly involved in a case with the MGA that I haven't found their final position to be fair. I'd suggest that allowing a little time to look over everything again would be appropriate before drawing conclusions

TP

 

[lockinlove]

If MGA are speed reading and not paying attention to cases then they need to get it together and get a grip. This is a huge sum of money and will effect a persons life. If they cant take the time to make a fair and proper ruling then maybe they shouldnt be a gaming commission.

Im all for reviewing cases and keeping a calm head here but the gaming commission shouldnt be making rash decisions if indeed that is what they have done.

They are a gaming commission that is put in place to keep operators in line and protect the players from fraud and if their work load is too much then hire more people.

The player in question has stated they pleaded with the MGA and they still came back with their final answer that the player accepted the terms and nothing can be done.

As of right now, they dropped the ball. Big time.

 

[ThePOGG]

If MGA are speed reading and not paying attention to cases then they need to get it together and get a grip. This is a huge sum of money and will effect a persons life. If they cant take the time to make a fair and proper ruling then maybe they shouldnt be a gaming commission.

Im all for reviewing cases and keeping a calm head here but the gaming commission shouldnt be making rash decisions if indeed that is what they have done.

They are a gaming commission that is put in place to keep operators in line and protect the players from fraud and if their work load is too much then hire more people.

The player in question has stated they pleaded with the MGA and they still came back with their final answer that the player accepted the terms and nothing can be done.

As of right now, they dropped the ball. Big time.

At the present time the MGA are likely still the player's best shot at getting paid. Trashing them without allowing them the time to look again isn't keeping a calm head and suggesting that they should get every decision right first time is to expect a level of consistency and perfection that simply isn't achievable within any human system. Yes you will get a case once in a while that sticks out because it looks like an obvious error, but they stick out because of all the other cases you don't hear about because they got it obviously right.

I know the people that are now reviewing this case. While I'm not in a position to speak for the MGA, based on past experience with this body and the specific people in question, I'd be confident that the right ruling will prevail given time.

I'd also say that if the MGA are in anyway similar to our own system the size of the claim isn't of any relevance to the approach taken - what is a lot of money to one person is inconsequential to others. The attention a claim receives shouldn't be influenced by the amount being contested, but by the nature of the claim otherwise we put in place a system that is weighted in favour of the financially well off.

TP

 

[lockinlove]

At the present time the MGA are likely still the player's best shot at getting paid. Trashing them without allowing them the time to look again isn't keeping a calm head and suggesting that they should get every decision right first time is to expect a level of consistency and perfection that simply isn't achievable within any human system. Yes you will get a case once in a while that sticks out because it looks like an obvious error, but they stick out because of all the other cases you don't hear about because they got it obviously right.

I know the people that are now reviewing this case. While I'm not in a position to speak for the MGA, based on past experience with this body and the specific people in question, I'd be confident that the right ruling will prevail given time.

I'd also say that if the MGA are in anyway similar to our own system the size of the claim isn't of any relevance to the approach taken - what is a lot of money to one person is inconsequential to others. The attention a claim receives shouldn't be influenced by the amount being contested, but by the nature of the claim otherwise we put in place a system that is weighted in favour of the financially well off.

TP

I couldnt disagree more. And I dont think making excuses for them is the right way to go either. They dropped the ball and should be held accountable.

If the MGA cant recognize that $30,000 USD is a substantial amount of money, then they are really going for a loop. And from my experience they do take the amount into consideration. If someone makes a $5 claim the same effort will not go into it if its a 1 million dollar claim.

And I didnt support trashing the MGA or suggest not remaining calm. I would like to see the player appeal and attempt every means necessary.

But this wasnt an open and closed case. The player pleaded with them and MGA stood by their decision. It shouldnt have taken people to email them, including myself to pressure them into looking into it again. I fully believe if it wasnt for this forum and people sending in complaints over their decision. Nothing would be done. But I did my part and made sure I let them know how I feel and let others in the gambling community who arent part of this forum know about the situation. Including some who have a relationship with MGA And I hope it helps the player at least have a chance. If this effort is exhausted then court is the only answer.

If the MGA for some reason decide to overturn their decision, then and only then will I commend them. Not before.

 

[ThePOGG]

If the MGA cant recognize that $30,000 USD is a substantial amount of money, then they are really going for a loop. And from my experience they do take the amount into consideration. If someone makes a $5 claim the same effort will not go into it if its a 1 million dollar claim.

Your approach is taking the view that nothing will change and as such you'll continue to be angry unless proved wrong. As I've stated numerous times, based on knowing the people involved and having worked through other cases with them personally (which provides a direct comparison point for what their views are likely to be), I'm saying that my 'educated guess' at this stage is that the status quo is unlikely to be maintained. You can place as much or as little value in my opinion as you like, but convicting the body before allowing them the chance to fully review what's taken place isn't going to have any positive results. If I'm wrong and nothing changes, I'll man the battlements right alongside you. But there is still room for benefit of the doubt for the present time and I'll continue to give that because I've had to interact with the MGA on a regular basis for years now and have been consistently impressed with their approach.

And with regard to the above - if the approach they're taking prioritises bigger claims then I would describe that as fundamentally wrong. The merit of a claim isn't in how big it is, it's whether it's right or wrong. To one player £200 could be a devastating loss. To another £200 isn't even worth submitting a complaint for. No responsible consumer protection agency could ever be seen to give favour to a claim simply because it was large, or conversely, be dismissive of other claims because they were smaller.

TP

 

[lockinlove]

Your approach is taking the view that nothing will change and as such you'll continue to be angry unless proved wrong. As I've stated numerous times, based on knowing the people involved and having worked through other cases with them personally (which provides a direct comparison point for what their views are likely to be), I'm saying that my 'educated guess' at this stage is that the status quo is unlikely to be maintained. You can place as much or as little value in my opinion as you like, but convicting the body before allowing them the chance to fully review what's taken place isn't going to have any positive results. If I'm wrong and nothing changes, I'll man the battlements right alongside you. But there is still room for benefit of the doubt for the present time and I'll continue to give that because I've had to interact with the MGA on a regular basis for years now and have been consistently impressed with their approach.

And with regard to the above - if the approach they're taking prioritises bigger claims then I would describe that as fundamentally wrong. The merit of a claim isn't in how big it is, it's whether it's right or wrong. To one player £200 could be a devastating loss. To another £200 isn't even worth submitting a complaint for. No responsible consumer protection agency could ever be seen to give favour to a claim simply because it was large, or conversely, be dismissive of other claims because they were smaller.

TP

My view is I hope things change. If I didnt think there was hope, I wouldnt have messaged them nor would I have contacted others I know in the industry.

I agree with your second notion that it is how it should be. Realistically it is not. If someone has a $5 claim it is likely one person looks into with no oversight. If 1 million is involved the MGA will include numerous people and likely higher ups and base a decision on many minds.

I appreciate your view and input and understand why you want to give them a chance. Im a bit different of a person that I expect professionalism and sound decisions the first time. I feel like my comments and criticism is fair and warranted at this point.

With that being said, you and I want the same outcome here. And by you contacting them and getting involved is most appreciated by the community and the player in question. So just because we disagree on the finer details doesnt mean I dont appreciate what you do for the community.

Finally, I cannot see how the MGA stands by their decision after reviewing this case again. Especially given the consensual disagreements thus far. And if its overturned, the people who contacted them showing their displeasure are the real heroes. Here's hoping.

 

[miksaxxx]

Your approach is taking the view that nothing will change and as such you'll continue to be angry unless proved wrong. As I've stated numerous times, based on knowing the people involved and having worked through other cases with them personally (which provides a direct comparison point for what their views are likely to be), I'm saying that my 'educated guess' at this stage is that the status quo is unlikely to be maintained. You can place as much or as little value in my opinion as you like, but convicting the body before allowing them the chance to fully review what's taken place isn't going to have any positive results. If I'm wrong and nothing changes, I'll man the battlements right alongside you. But there is still room for benefit of the doubt for the present time and I'll continue to give that because I've had to interact with the MGA on a regular basis for years now and have been consistently impressed with their approach.

And with regard to the above - if the approach they're taking prioritises bigger claims then I would describe that as fundamentally wrong. The merit of a claim isn't in how big it is, it's whether it's right or wrong. To one player £200 could be a devastating loss. To another £200 isn't even worth submitting a complaint for. No responsible consumer protection agency could ever be seen to give favour to a claim simply because it was large, or conversely, be dismissive of other claims because they were smaller.

TP

Hmm ..MGA.

I have 2 complaints with them. One comed back in 2.5 weeks and favour to casino. Decision was right and i was wrong. I understand it straight away, when they telled me reason. ( later still this Group payed me 6500€ , becouse i founded rule which wasnt in MGA case. So not MGA fould)

Second one is still ongoing 2 months. They sayed in 4 of August that they conclude it in few days . 1 week later they sayed: they are still investigating the case.

I Send them 17 screenshots and showed that casino crystal clear breaked MGA and their own t&c.

Now i just try to stay calm and wait when MGA have concluded the case.

If it is favour to casino, i will take it straight in court. Becouse of my evidence that casino breaked MGA licence rules.

But i am wondering, why it takes so much time to conclude the case in MGA.

If it is favour in casino it is faster, but now it seems to take longer when they know that concluding case to favour of casino is big mistake.

And casino is accredit here. I will tell later when i have final decision from MGA or court.

( I am just wondering how long this case will take time if this pressure wont work..)

 

[ThePOGG]

Second one is still ongoing 2 months. They sayed in 4 of August that they conclude it in few days . 1 week later they sayed: they are still investigating the case.

I Send them 17 screenshots and showed that casino crystal clear breaked MGA and their own t&c.

I don't have any real insight into your specific case but I will speak for my own experience managing complaints. Often what a complainant sees as straight forward becomes a complex mess behind the scenes. It's not simply arguing with an operator to change their mind - often lawyers end up involved and the way terms are interpreted have to be considered. Then you've got third parties that need to be involved - groups like the ASA in the UK and the MCCAA in Malta. Or software providers and white label platform providers.

The players here actually don't get even the vaguest idea of what Max's job entails because CM keeps all the discussion behind closed doors. Even our service with the complaint threads for every complaint does not give even a remotely accurate impression of the amount of time and work that's put in.

And unfortunately all too often when the operator is in the right it's far faster to deal with. My first port of call when a player submits a complaint is to review the rules at the operator. If it's clear that there's been a breach the complaint will never even reach the operator's desk. I understand how that can give the impression of being quick to favour the operator and slow to favour the player, but in truth it's a facet of a simple case versus a complex one. The simple ones are closed with little work.

TP

 

[ThePOGG]

My view is I hope things change. If I didnt think there was hope, I wouldnt have messaged them nor would I have contacted others I know in the industry.

I agree with your second notion that it is how it should be. Realistically it is not. If someone has a $5 claim it is likely one person looks into with no oversight. If 1 million is involved the MGA will include numerous people and likely higher ups and base a decision on many minds.

I appreciate your view and input and understand why you want to give them a chance. Im a bit different of a person that I expect professionalism and sound decisions the first time. I feel like my comments and criticism is fair and warranted at this point.

With that being said, you and I want the same outcome here. And by you contacting them and getting involved is most appreciated by the community and the player in question. So just because we disagree on the finer details doesnt mean I dont appreciate what you do for the community.

Finally, I cannot see how the MGA stands by their decision after reviewing this case again. Especially given the consensual disagreements thus far. And if its overturned, the people who contacted them showing their displeasure are the real heroes. Here's hoping.

Firstly I can't speak to exact MGA policy and of course if there was a $1mil claim it might get a little more double checking especially if it appeared to be in a grey area, but I can say a $30k claim's far from unusual for us and even less notable for the MGA. I know for a lot of people here that sounds like a lot of money but even for our small service we deal with multiple claims a month of that size or larger. I'd also say that I've recently spent at least a dozen hours on a claim of £14. Whether that makes me ideological or stubborn to the point of stupidity is open to interpretation.

I would tend to agree with you - unless there's something that's not come out yet that's significant I see this case as pretty clear cut. Let's see what happens....

TP

 

[miksaxxx]

I don't have any real insight into your specific case but I will speak for my own experience managing complaints. Often what a complainant sees as straight forward becomes a complex mess behind the scenes. It's not simply arguing with an operator to change their mind - often lawyers end up involved and the way terms are interpreted have to be considered. Then you've got third parties that need to be involved - groups like the ASA in the UK and the MCCAA in Malta. Or software providers and white label platform providers.

The players here actually don't get even the vaguest idea of what Max's job entails because CM keeps all the discussion behind closed doors. Even our service with the complaint threads for every complaint does not give even a remotely accurate impression of the amount of time and work that's put in.

And unfortunately all too often when the operator is in the right it's far faster to deal with. My first port of call when a player submits a complaint is to review the rules at the operator. If it's clear that there's been a breach the complain will never even reach the operator's desk. I understand how that can give the impression of been quick to favour the operator and slow to favour the player, but in truth it's a facet of a simple case versus a complex one. The simple ones are closed with little work.

TP

Thanks for clearing up what goes behind the scenes.

I thinked it is mess like you tell.

In my case operator dont want pay ( this is answer which i get from MGA. ). So maybe operators lawyer or someone is still arguing with MGA what their decision is.

 

[Nicola]

Just catching up with this thread, very shocked by the behavior of GoWild.

Had a long chat with them a few weeks ago (affiliate manager) about their expansion plans and they have just secured a UK licence and are set to launch GoWild.co.uk next month.

Will blacklist them on all my sites in advance, absolutely no way to treat punters

 

[Jannelova]

Gowild - Confiscated my SEK 300.000

Thanks a lot cocochanell, Jazzy, Nicola, Tirilej, Bryan, Max and everyone else whom have giving me support and help in my case. I have been totally devastated and now for the first time here in Casinomeister get some help and support in my case. This forum are really really fantastic! You can't understand how much I appreciate this site and all support as I got here.
Go wild have not answered my mails at all with all my questions on why and MGA did give me cold hand. Gowild only sent theirs attached link with theirs strange rules and told me that I have made significant change of betting, nothing more.
It's fantastic that you all do this for a friend you don't even know as a person.
I would appreciate even more if you later on Jazzy give me some legal contacts and ideas for my case if you find some.

You are all amazing!

Kind regards/ Jan Kristiansson

 

[Jasminebed]

A disgrace not just for GoWild but all Maltese licence holdhers and the MGA

I appreciate the help that Maxd and CM have tried to give this player.

Unfortunately it was to no avail.

Here we have a player that has shown restraint and politeness throughout.

The decision of the MGA is awful IMO, and a slap in the face to all the reputable casinos here operating out of Malta.

I'd like to ask if any of the Maltese members or reps would contact the OP to suggest possible legal counsel, as it appears this may be his final recourse, having exhausted all other reasonable options.

If you don't want to contact him directly, I'd be happy to pass along any suggestions without saying the source if you prefer to contact me. If my near decade decade here does not speak enough to my trustworthiness and discretion, I spent a decade as a legal secretary and was cleared to Top Secret when working for the Department of National Defence as a civilian employee.

While I cannot speak for Maxd or CM, I would hope they would do they same.

If your own house counsel has a conflict, they will inform the player.

My first job as a legal secretary involved a lot of motor vehicle litigation. We only had one client that was an insurance company, and had no problem suggesting a few alternate firms to take a case that presented a conflict of interest if our client was the defendant. Ditto for a firm I later worked for that represented a major hospital for potential malpractice cases.

Such rogue terms and behaviour on the part of GoWild calls your whole industry into disrepute.

 

[Tirilej]

When reading The Poggs's and lockinlove's discussion about MGA I was under the impression that they had been contacted and asked to revaluate this case again. Maybe I misread it and they can't do such a thing. It can't be their final decision though because it would really make them look as bad as Go Wild.

So for you with some insight in MGA, are they contacted or can the OP contact them again? It would be the easiest way to go.

It's really laughable GoWilds reason. One of them ''He started to bet $6 raised to $10 and then suddenly changed to $8 and won $3k''.
So he was guilty of winning

 

[KasinoKing]

I've worked with Go Wild for many years, and even had a meeting with their top bods in Amsterdam just 2 months ago: I'm 99.9% sure they are going to do their best to make this right.

Unfortunately the "roguing business" kicked off at the start of the weekend (Friday) and my guess is the bosses weren't in the office, or were otherwise unaware or unable to deal with this over the weekend for some reason. Let's see what happens today/tomorrow...
Of course, it may be too late to fully repair, as so much damage has already been done

KK

 

[The Dude]

I've worked with Go Wild for many years, and even had a meeting with their top bods in Amsterdam just 2 months ago: I'm 99.9% sure they are going to do their best to make this right.

Unfortunately the "roguing business" kicked off at the start of the weekend (Friday) and my guess is the bosses weren't in the office, or were otherwise unaware or unable to deal with this over the weekend for some reason. Let's see what happens today/tomorrow...
Of course, it may be too late to fully repair, as so much damage has already been done

KK

I was in touch with them all last week, and they had every opportunity to do the right thing. They had made these decisions weeks ago, so it's not like this would have been any surprise to them.

 

[maxd]

When reading The Poggs's and lockinlove's discussion about MGA I was under the impression that they had been contacted and asked to revaluate this case again. ...

I had asked for their thoughts on the case late last week. AFAIK they haven't got back to us yet, though I suspect this has escalated to the point where we're not the only people they're talking to about this.

 

[miksaxxx]

I appreciate the help that Maxd and CM have tried to give this player.

Unfortunately it was to no avail.

Here we have a player that has shown restraint and politeness throughout.

The decision of the MGA is awful IMO, and a slap in the face to all the reputable casinos here operating out of Malta.

I'd like to ask if any of the Maltese members or reps would contact the OP to suggest possible legal counsel, as it appears this may be his final recourse, having exhausted all other reasonable options.

If you don't want to contact him directly, I'd be happy to pass along any suggestions without saying the source if you prefer to contact me. If my near decade decade here does not speak enough to my trustworthiness and discretion, I spent a decade as a legal secretary and was cleared to Top Secret when working for the Department of National Defence as a civilian employee.

While I cannot speak for Maxd or CM, I would hope they would do they same.

If your own house counsel has a conflict, they will inform the player.

My first job as a legal secretary involved a lot of motor vehicle litigation. We only had one client that was an insurance company, and had no problem suggesting a few alternate firms to take a case that presented a conflict of interest if our client was the defendant. Ditto for a firm I later worked for that represented a major hospital for potential malpractice cases.

Such rogue terms and behaviour on the part of GoWild calls your whole industry into disrepute.

I have wondered how it goes..

Question is , if he needs to go to court. Is it just "op against gowild " or is it " op against gowild and MGA "

Becouse MGA should have put gowild to pay this thing..

I cant see any reason why op would loose this case. It is simple justice and also i thing gowild t&c breaks eu-law to consumers.

 

[maxd]

I've worked with Go Wild for many years, and even had a meeting with their top bods in Amsterdam just 2 months ago: I'm 99.9% sure they are going to do their best to make this right. ...

Keep in mind that there is a considerable amount of "make it right" required here, including:

• predatory rules concerning wagering requirement roll-over.
• their bogus ruling against a player who bet 20% of his bonus: they shot him down because they said "up to 20%" meant "less than 20%" which is what they changed their Terms to now say but they refused to revisit their ruling.
• this recent fiasco of applying the "bet change" rules to non-bonus play.

My point is -- and I stress that this is just my opinion -- that their Terms and actions against players have become increasingly predatory over the last several months or so. I don't believe for a second that this is just a little slippy-poo with cut-and-paste on the Terms. There is motive behind these actions against players and that has to change significantly for the "make this right" to be worth a damn.

 

[Tirilej]

I had asked for their thoughts on the case late last week. AFAIK they haven't got back to us yet, though I suspect this has escalated to the point where we're not the only people they're talking to about this.

The more people telling MGA to take this case again the better chance of making them see how important it is, so I guess that's a good thing.

No licensed casino should get away with acting like Go Wild has done, and several times. It has to stop now or they should simply lose their license!

 

[lockinlove]

When reading The Poggs's and lockinlove's discussion about MGA I was under the impression that they had been contacted and asked to revaluate this case again. Maybe I misread it and they can't do such a thing. It can't be their final decision though because it would really make them look as bad as Go Wild.

So for you with some insight in MGA, are they contacted or can the OP contact them again? It would be the easiest way to go.

It's really laughable GoWilds reason. One of them ''He started to bet $6 raised to $10 and then suddenly changed to $8 and won $3k''.
So he was guilty of winning

I personally cant confirm that. I have absolutely no pull and am just a poster. All I did was send them a complaint, link them to this thread and express my disappointment to them. I then asked a couple of people who have worked with them before and know a couple of people at the commission personally to ask them to look into it or at least bring it up and they assured me they did.

But I did get from thepoggs responses that he knows of people at the MGA who are reviewing this case again.

 

[ThePOGG]

But I did get from thepoggs responses that he knows of people at the MGA who are reviewing this case again.

I want to limit what I say here, but yes I have spoken to one of the complaint team about this case and they've told me they didn't want to comment on it until they were up-to-speed. I will also say that the status of a complaint (closed etc) has not mattered in the past when I've looked to discuss an issue with them.

TP

 

[Jasminebed]

I want to limit what I say here, but yes I have spoken to one of the complaint team about this case and they've told me they didn't want to comment on it until they were up-to-speed. I will also say that the status of a complaint (closed etc) has not mattered in the past when I've looked to discuss an issue with them.

TP

Has the OP been advised in any manner that they are giving this case a review?

Is there a formal appeal procedure if one is not satisfied with an MGA ruling?