Bogus Complaint Intercasino does not pay me

[maxd]

PAB received, I'll process it tomorrow morning.

@ Tobster : Please ensure that you have read and understood the Pitch-A-Bitch FAQ. It is required reading for all PABers. Among other things the FAQ details your responsibilities in the PAB process (section 3.11), including NOT posting on our forums about your issue while the PAB is in progress.

If you know and respect the FAQ things should proceed smoothly.

 

[Finn]

They are relying only on term 16, nothing else, so i dont understand why u compare my case to this thread.

Even if the CS rely just on that, it is probably because they don't know when that clarification was added, and can't be bothered to point all the other sections that ban using of any extra software that tampers with normal casino-pc interaction and sections that ban providing of false identity information.

My point is that not everything that is banned by terms and conditions is done in specific examples. Even if the acronym VPN was not mentioned in old terms and conditions, it was probably banned under old terms and conditions because of what the use of VPN is.

Using VPN involves VPN software. When you use VPN when playing at casino, you use a software to conceal your real IP from casino. Usually all casinos have T&Cs that ban anykind of tampering with the normal PC-casino interaction with any extra software and terms than ban providing false identification information. So use of VPN would be banned under most casinos' terms and conditions even if the word VPN is not mentioned.

VPN in private use has been usually associated with creating false identification information to avoid getting nailed for piracy or getting around country restrictions, so casinos haven't felt it necessary to mention it separately, but have thought that the general bans on providing false information and software tampering are enough. This trend of over-use of VPN for supposed extra security is relatively new, and it would be nice if more casinos added mention of VPN to terms and conditions, but most Terms and conditions ban VPN implicitly even if the actual word doesn't appear there.

 

[patricius]

A possible definition of retroactivity:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Just to remember what another member said above about an open PAB: "And once you submit it you should make no more comments about the complaint until it is settled or it can affect your case. ".

Regards to all.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Even if the CS rely just on that, it is probably because they don't know when that clarification was added, and can't be bothered to point all the other sections that ban using of any extra software that tampers with normal casino-pc interaction and sections that ban providing of false identity information.

My point is that not everything that is banned by terms and conditions is done in specific examples. Even if the acronym VPN was not mentioned in old terms and conditions, it was probably banned under old terms and conditions because of what the use of VPN is.

Using VPN involves VPN software. When you use VPN when playing at casino, you use a software to conceal your real IP from casino. Usually all casinos have T&Cs that ban anykind of tampering with the normal PC-casino interaction with any extra software and terms than ban providing false identification information. So use of VPN would be banned under most casinos' terms and conditions even if the word VPN is not mentioned.

VPN in private use has been usually associated with creating false identification information to avoid getting nailed for piracy or getting around country restrictions, so casinos haven't felt it necessary to mention it separately, but have thought that the general bans on providing false information and software tampering are enough. This trend of over-use of VPN for supposed extra security is relatively new, and it would be nice if more casinos added mention of VPN to terms and conditions, but most Terms and conditions ban VPN implicitly even if the actual word doesn't appear there.

Scare marketing is being used by some VPN vendors in order to convince users that they NEED this extra layer of "security" on top of anti virus, firewall, etc. It doesn't help that thanks to Wikileaks it has emerged that a number of former tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories about "big brother" snooping on ordinary citizens have actually been true all along.

VPN is also used as a means to enforce the original specifications of the internet against the efforts of vested commercial interests who want to bugger it up for their own ends. It's only "piracy" because these commercial interests have defined the term's meaning, not because it actually IS something bad in all cases.

I don't think the VPN vendors are being honest with their customers about the NEGATIVE consequences of using this "security enhancing" product, as it enhances the security of one party at the expense of the security of another.

 

[maxd]

Based on good evidence that the casino's Term prohibiting the use of VPNs well pre-dates the OP's time at the casino we conclude that the casino's actions against the OP are fair and fully justified.

Those in doubt should check the same resource the OP used: Wayback. Look at Intercasino's Terms dated 26 March 2014. Clause 16 of the Terms is clearly there and most definitely prohibits VPNs. The fact that the June and July snapshots on Wayback show something different appears to be a failing of Wayback. It is very odd that the Terms are hacked off right at the point where the previous Terms showed a divider.

The debate about VPNs notwithstanding the OP violated the Terms, Terms that are common to most casinos in the business. Stupid mistake or sloppy fraudster, either way the axe fell and rightly so.

 

[The Dude]

I'm surprised it went this far. The "no VPN" term has been there for the past couple of years. The Wayback machine is not infallible. It doesn't archive everything - sometimes pages get truncated or skipped. But this term appears at least back in 2012:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Bottom line is never ever use a VPN when logging into a service that is limited to certain jurisdictions. There are obvious requirements between a casino and its licensing jurisdiction.

 

[petro]

That concluded with a very strange twist in the story.
Maybe it was just a flaw in the wayback machine, it could have been hacked even.

 

[Tobster]

Based on good evidence that the casino's Term prohibiting the use of VPNs well pre-dates the OP's time at the casino we conclude that the casino's actions against the OP are fair and fully justified.

Those in doubt should check the same resource the OP used: Wayback. Look at Intercasino's Terms dated 26 March 2014. Clause 16 of the Terms is clearly there and most definitely prohibits VPNs. The fact that the June and July snapshots on Wayback show something different appears to be a failing of Wayback. It is very odd that the Terms are hacked off right at the point where the previous Terms showed a divider.

The debate about VPNs notwithstanding the OP violated the Terms, Terms that are common to most casinos in the business. Stupid mistake or sloppy fraudster, either way the axe fell and rightly so.

First i want to thank you for your effort talking to the casino in my case. You are offering free help to players which is really nice, so i appreciate that eitherway.

Unfortunatly i find the way you are arguing stunning. Basically u are saying the screenshots before june and july in waybackmachine are legit, but the screenshots from june and july, there mustve been sth that went wrong or the machine didnt work well. really?? Like if its in the interest of the casino the machine is acceptable as evidence, but when its not, it must be a bug and cant be accepted? By the way, i knew the casino would come up with something like that, saying waybackmachine is not reliable, since it is the only evidence i can get a hold off. They know without this i have no chance of proving it. This is sad.

How could this ever be a bug? Like all terms and conditions of june and july screenshot are there, but only the last ones are missing, like someone copied them out or how could this ever be a bug? I guess its pretty obvious whats going here, but saying it out loud probably isnt a good idea, everyone can think for themselfs.

Anyway, thanks to everyone that participated in this thread. I will take my next steps now and keep fighting for my money.

If anyone knows a way to find proof about the terms and conditions of the 26th of june on intercasino PLEASE pm me

 

[The Dude]

...

If anyone knows a way to find proof about the terms and conditions of the 26th of june on intercasino PLEASE pm me

What I was getting at earlier is that the Wayback machine is a useful tool - it is not 100% fool proof. Some pages may be incomplete or truncated. The licensing jurisdiction would have all copies of each and every terms and conditions page. You could contact them for this. We didn't since the Way Back machine confirmed that section 16 of their terms has existed for a least 2 years.

 

[patricius]

The PAB ended. The result was ok because, IMHO, it resulted in the question of the wayback machine validity. And in this case it goes both ways. Honestly I hopped a compromise was attained. That was not the case.

Sometimes I ask myself how many people play at online casinos ( how many read the T & C fully?! ) and play trough proxies, tunneling, vpn, etc. and the casinos accept the money they lose and no money is returned, besides knowing the place ( IP address ) they are playing from...

If I make a connection to a site/internet address the same is traceable - even if to a VPN, etc. So If I as a player use a VPN there are ways to trace If I´m "tunneling" an address or not from the start. Since player deposit.

Many universities, workplaces, etc. only allow internet access trough them ( VPN, proxies, etc) . And not all casinos have SSL secure access ( and that also is not fully secured ) and if casinos want people to play everywhere ( tablets, smartphones, etc. ) they must adapt to time, and not the opposite.

Most sold tablets are Wifi only, and most people use Wi-fi in hotspots. Those change IP frequently and many times are protected trough VPNs ( a VPN is also used in corporate communication networks to secure data and avoid leakage). So I think I will only play online at home. And even there my SP changes IP sometimes ( dynamic IP are for regular/home costumers). Fixed IP are for companies.

Even some casinos won´t allow the creation of password longer than x characters, or with wildcards, minimizing OP protection.

In the link bellow you can check if your connection is trough a proxy and many more helpful info. Use it before playing online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Regards to all.

 

[Beravek7]

So the player identified himself through all possible ways yet he was not paid because he made a mistake (clearly unintentional) of using VPN service? Hmm... Anyway I am glad for Intercasino and congratulate them on inventing more new ways of increasing their casino's overall house advantage!

 

[The Dude]

So player identified himself through all possible ways yet he was not paid because he made a mistake (clearly unintentional) of using VPN service? Hmm... Anyway I am glad for Intercasino and congratulate them on inventing more new ways of increasing their casino's overall house advantage over players!

Ok - we get it - you're pissed because your PAB failed. But you've become a troll. Either knock it off or take a hike. Thank you.

 

[Beravek7]

Ok jokes aside, it looks like the OP somehow sneaked into the past and changed the things there. Reminds me of "Back to Future" Spielberg's blockbuster.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The PAB ended. The result was ok because, IMHO, it resulted in the question of the wayback machine validity. And in this case it goes both ways. Honestly I hopped a compromise was attained. That was not the case.

Sometimes I ask myself how many people play at online casinos ( how many read the T & C fully?! ) and play trough proxies, tunneling, vpn, etc. and the casinos accept the money they lose and no money is returned, besides knowing the place ( IP address ) they are playing from...

If I make a connection to a site/internet address the same is traceable - even if to a VPN, etc. So If I as a player use a VPN there are ways to trace If I´m "tunneling" an address or not from the start. Since player deposit.

Many universities, workplaces, etc. only allow internet access trough them ( VPN, proxies, etc) . And not all casinos have SSL secure access ( and that also is not fully secured ) and if casinos want people to play everywhere ( tablets, smartphones, etc. ) they must adapt to time, and not the opposite.

Most sold tablets are Wifi only, and most people use Wi-fi in hotspots. Those change IP frequently and many times are protected trough VPNs ( a VPN is also used in corporate communication networks to secure data and avoid leakage). So I think I will only play online at home. And even there my SP changes IP sometimes ( dynamic IP are for regular/home costumers). Fixed IP are for companies.

Even some casinos won´t allow the creation of password longer than x characters, or with wildcards, minimizing OP protection.

In the link bellow you can check if your connection is trough a proxy and many more helpful info. Use it before playing online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Regards to all.

Well, this just shows how inaccurate geolocation is. I have the SAME IP address as yesterday, probably because I haven't turned the modem and router off, yet instead of CORRECTLY being located to Bracknell, this site erroneously has my IP address in POOLE, which is not even in the same COUNTY! It's about 100 miles away, but this was more than the 60 miles away that once tripped out my Neteller account for not looking as though I was not logging in from home (I wasn't, but with dynamic IP, it should not have made the difference).

For some, 100 miles could put them in a completely different COUNTRY. It's less than 30 miles from Dover to France, and this has certainly happened to mobile device users, and resulted in a big bill for "foreign use" even when they were using their device on the south coast of England.

Now, if mobile internet can't be told apart from VPN use, or come to that, work and university internet, then the current system could become unworkable unless casinos give up on the idea of "play on the go" and insist that people ONLY play from home, on their own internet connection, and it being the same connection they used to register the account.

 

[maxd]

The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.

 

[Tobster]

The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.

I understand what you mean. I agree that the waybackmachine is no 100% proof since it could be broken or the site not working correctly maybe, however we both agree i guess that it is way more likely that its not broken, works like its supposed to and the terms actually havent been there in june and july like shown in the waybackmachine like im said since the beginning, right? And im talking about significantly more likely, hard to put it in numbers, but like 99% the machine actually works fine and 1% the website doesnt funtion right etc, sth like that. I saw it with my own eyes when i signed up, those terms just werent there, i know my personal opinion doesnt matter, but i hope u can understand why im so persistent about this.

On another hand i never confirmed that i used vpn. When they asked me what internet service provider and type of connection i use, this is what i answered:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

After i sent that email saying i might have used vpn, their answer was directly your account has been terminated, you violated the terms and conditions. They took it as a fact right away that i used vpn, even tho i never said i actually did! Yes it is more likely that i used vpn, but theres still a decent chance i didnt, since it happened many times before that i forgot to turn on the vpn before opening the browser.

Immediately terminating my account based on the fact I may have used a VPN, seems, at best, a ridiculously harsh line to take. would the casino have taken this line if I had lost? or I had a small amount in my account? it seems to me the casino took this line because my account was a significant (to me) amount and this was enforced purely to benefit/profit the casino. they asked me for all kindsof IDs, upto notarised documents, which I took the time to go and get AND PAY FOR, before this decision was taken. I truly, wholeheartedly appreciate the effort the guys at CM have taken into looking into this for me, please don't think I am ungrateful. I quote Max: "the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it." - it really strikes me that a casino with such an apparently good reputation can take such a stern line over what was an honest answer to what I felt was an innocent question. if I was devious, or a "poor fraudster" I would obviously have known to say "no I did not use a VPN". I did not. I answered honestly and said I wasn't sure.

and now I think about it: why did they ask me this particular question about the VPN AFTER asking me to get (and receive and review) my notarised documents? Surely a request for notarised documentation should be the final request, considering the customer has to take time, effort and money to acquire this. I feel like they were just setting me up at every turn so they could find ANY reason to terminate my account and default my winnings.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.

They must also have been absolutely certain that they were in the right, else it would have been a big risk on their part to bluff and think the OP or yourself would fold, rather than contact the LGA for the formal date stamped copy.

The OP could always do this, and prove either way whether the wayback machine got it wrong, or whether the casino bluffed it's way through a lie. Casinos know full well the consequences of lying to Max or Bryan, and getting caught, so this is why I believe they must have been 100% certain to have simply dismissed the evidence from the wayback out of hand.

 

[patricius]

Timing is all and bellow Tobster sentence resume it well:

"and now I think about it: why did they ask me this particular question about the VPN AFTER asking me to get (and receive and review) my notarised documents? Surely a request for notarised documentation should be the final request, considering the customer has to take time, effort and money to acquire this. I feel like they were just setting me up at every turn so they could find ANY reason to terminate my account and default my winnings. "

Even the classification of the complaint as "bogus" disturbs me regarding the word meaning:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

A non-accepted complaint or not ending in favor of the OP should be called other thing: reserved, unnacepted, lost, closed, etc.


And if presented solely the fact of the LGA ( or any away/distant jurisdiction regulator ) is any kind of "assurance" for me is not enough ( just google players complaint and malta government enquiries to LGA itself to take your conclusions ). In gambling ( and in particular online gambling ) there are no sacred cows.

So as a gambler ( online and B & M ) this case was a valuable lesson.

Thanks to all.

 

[petro]

I saw it with my own eyes when i signed up, those terms just werent there, i know my personal opinion doesnt matter.

I wouldn't classify that as "personal opinion." I would define an opinion as something that is without evidence. (Seems to be the best definition.)

If you saw it with your own eyes that is evidence. But it's only evidence for you.
Your word as well counts for something; it's evidence.

Have a look at this thread here: Link Outdated / Removed

Unless I'm hallucinating the spins on Red Hot Devil did.

It would be good if someone else could confirm what I'm saying.

Usually our senses are pretty reliable evidence but they are not infallible.
I'm not saying you didn't see what you saw. I'm only pointing out the possibility that you could be mis-remembering like I did in that thread.

They must also have been absolutely certain that they were in the right, else it would have been a big risk on their part to bluff

I was going to mention this as well except I would have left out the "absolutely certain" part as I'm pretty sure that's not possible.

 

[Tobster]

Dear Max/Casinomeister

I am respectfully asking that you remove "Bogus Complaint" from the title of this thread. I don't feel there's anything bogus about it and that I have a geniune complaint:

I complied with all of Intercasinos requests which were quite long, including a request for notarised documents which I paid for. Only after they reviewed and accepted these documents did they ask this question about whether I was using a VPN, which I answered honestly and said I didn't know. Why are they asking for notarisation and pictures of ID and everything if their plan was to ask this question and void my account anyway? As soon as I sent this answer my account was immediately closed and balance witheld. That seems a little heavy handed for an "I don't know", doesn't it? Especially since all of my info had already been reviewed and accepted.

Is this really a bogus complaint, or fair? They asked for everything short of my DNA, and when I answered one question honestly without either an affirmative or negative statement they jumped on it. They just refused to talk to me about it and all and basically gave me the middle finger, all over an answering a question with an I don't know? Looking back now, it really looks to me look they were just hoping to catch me on anything.

Im just really amazed I have been dealt with so harshly, but I guess it's because I got "lucky" and won so much. I am really trying to be respectful but I am quite upset and angry and just looking for help

 

[maxd]

My vote is that your request be declined.

I don't believe you used a VPN accidentally, I don't believe that the Terms were fubar'd when you signed on, I don't respect the way you gave selective information from Wayback, and I don't give much credence to your complaints about the documents. I am responsible for the "Bogus Complaint" prefix on your thread, I believe it is appropriate and I believe it should stand.

My suggestion would be for you to use "Report Post" on your request and leave it to Bryan to make the final call.

 

[Tobster]

My vote is that your request be declined.

I don't believe you used a VPN accidentally, I don't believe that the Terms were fubar'd when you signed on, I don't respect the way you gave selective information from Wayback, and I don't give much credence to your complaints about the documents. I am responsible for the "Bogus Complaint" prefix on your thread, I believe it is appropriate and I believe it should stand.

My suggestion would be for you to use "Report Post" on your request and leave it to Bryan to make the final call.

Max, I am disappointed you don't believe anything. How did I give select info on wayback? I just gave all the information I could find on wayback around the timeframe i signed up, i thought those were valid, i would never have imagined that someone would call this proof non valid because the site might be broken. I HONESTLY don't even know if I used a VPN and i never said anything about accidently, i often use vpn intentionally while in the internet, because my friend, who is a programmer, advised me to do so to protect myself while online. I dont know anything about this stuff, but if he says that it must be true. I don't know what I can do to prove my case about this. I am also unsure what is actually being implied here. if I was lying, I would've said I wasn't using one, surely? You don't give much credence about complaints about documents? I'm not sure I fully understand (I'm german my English isn't 100%) but you're saying it doesn't matter they asked for notarised stuff that I went out and paid for, accepted them, then asked more questions?

I want to do anything to prove myself, i could even travel to intercasinos headoffice and meet with the manager, so he can see me in person if that helps.

 

[stokes]

My first thought after reading the thread was that thank God I don't play at Intercasino.

I have made the same mistake (I believe) several times since I have been playing online. I work from home 2 times a week and use company VPN which has IP address from other country. Sometimes during my breaks or after my work I played without logging out from VPN.

I have never had issue about it. No notarized document was ever requested and I was paid 2-4000 USD a couple of times without hassle.

Of course my casino has term against VPN usage, but I think they would only use it against any player if they had any credibility problem with the player's ID. This should not be a question here after providing notarized documents.

 

[bigjohn]

My first thought after reading the thread was that thank God I don't play at Intercasino.

I have made the same mistake (I believe) several times since I have been playing online. I work from home 2 times a week and use company VPN which has IP address from other country. Sometimes during my breaks or after my work I played without logging out from VPN.

I have never had issue about it. No notarized document was ever requested and I was paid 2-4000 USD a couple of times without hassle.

Of course my casino has term against VPN usage, but I think they would only use it against any player if they had any credibility problem with the player's ID. This should not be a question here after providing notarized documents.

Notarized documents don't show where the playing took place. That is the point of not using any VPN service (I'm not saying the OP did) when playing on-line.

The question of what particular instances to apply the T&C's is a moot point, players should always assume that the casino will interpret their terms to the letter as they are justified in doing.

I don't know what happened in this case but the CM PAB decision has been rendered and I really don't think Intercasino has any need to hold back player winnings for no reason as the OP has suggested.

 

[chayton]

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

Actually that's an interesting tidbit of information. Personally I quite like the fact that a casino licensee can't just change the terms and fudge about WHEN they changed them. I wonder if other licensing jurisdictions have the same type of term and keep those records? If so that would settle a lot of the complaints where a player said "That term wasn't there when I played."

@ the OP, The term was obviously there before the time you played and again after. If you sincerely think you're in the right, why don't you contact the LGA? It's possible that there was a glitch when whoever uploaded that file and maybe the LGA record will prove you right.

Of course if the LGA record proves the term was there the whole time, then you'll have to suck it up and move on. But either way, you'll get your answer. There's nothing to be gained by complaining about it here, Max has done all he can, and your next step should be the LGA.