Sorry for not being around to help you out. I can't type on my phone
They never delete any thread and it's good it's here if anyone else from Sweden needs help with these casinos.
It's just that you need to stop posting if you PAB
Macaroni vs Cherry limited
- Thread starter Macaroni
- Start date
Sorry for not being around to help you out. I can't type on my phone
They never delete any thread and it's good it's here if anyone else from Sweden needs help with these casinos.
It's just that you need to stop posting if you PAB
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Location
- the land of snow and maple syrup
staff are loathe to delete threads but Trilej offered some great advice going forward
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
PAB received and in progress. Thread title changed because spamming the hell out of the forums is a piss-poor way to go about solving problems, not to mention a violation of our Forum Rules
Oh joy
Just saw this thread now. It can be create complexities when you are operating many brands under many different licenses, wich many times at least partly is because acquisitions like in Cherry case, you buy new brands including their playerbase and licenses. There can be some challenges in historical informations about self-exclusions or other rulings when these are in different platforms and licensed.
Anyway, even there are multiple MGA licenses which only are connected to brands under same license, there wouldn't be that huge work for operator to make sure player who reach support and advise about gambling problems and ask to be excluded from all possible sites, that support would take that request and forward to compliance/RG team to see if player have accounts registered in any brands under any licenses and would extend self-exclusion to them.
It's not demand of MGA to extend self-exclusion to other license even "inhouse", but for responsible operator that would be something to do. These other licenses are not fully own companies which wouldn't have any possibility to communicate to each others when problem gambler is detected to extend exclusion to all possible licenses where player have accounts.
Under SGA i believe bank id is used which should make it 99.89% sure that you are not able to play any site under SGA when you register to Spelapaus.
In beginning of the year there were challenges to companies when SGA license came active, which might partly be causing these "surprises" for casinos that they didn't realize everything what would be possible etc... but for now they all should have practices in place to avoid these happening. Not having great knowledge what Cherry is operating under what license but in general, if you are running site which have Swedish name and been historically been targeting to Swedish players a lot, find it pretty strange if there is decision made to leave site under MGA license instead of SGA like it would make more sense when regulation is clearly made to help Swedish to be regulated market and all Swedish gaming would be under SGA.
Wouldn't see many Euroepean licensed casinos accepting UK players under MGA license which would be pretty similar. Hope everything is more clear today than early this year and great to hear OP been able not to gamble, keep up the good work!
Anyway, even there are multiple MGA licenses which only are connected to brands under same license, there wouldn't be that huge work for operator to make sure player who reach support and advise about gambling problems and ask to be excluded from all possible sites, that support would take that request and forward to compliance/RG team to see if player have accounts registered in any brands under any licenses and would extend self-exclusion to them.
It's not demand of MGA to extend self-exclusion to other license even "inhouse", but for responsible operator that would be something to do. These other licenses are not fully own companies which wouldn't have any possibility to communicate to each others when problem gambler is detected to extend exclusion to all possible licenses where player have accounts.
Under SGA i believe bank id is used which should make it 99.89% sure that you are not able to play any site under SGA when you register to Spelapaus.
In beginning of the year there were challenges to companies when SGA license came active, which might partly be causing these "surprises" for casinos that they didn't realize everything what would be possible etc... but for now they all should have practices in place to avoid these happening. Not having great knowledge what Cherry is operating under what license but in general, if you are running site which have Swedish name and been historically been targeting to Swedish players a lot, find it pretty strange if there is decision made to leave site under MGA license instead of SGA like it would make more sense when regulation is clearly made to help Swedish to be regulated market and all Swedish gaming would be under SGA.
Wouldn't see many Euroepean licensed casinos accepting UK players under MGA license which would be pretty similar. Hope everything is more clear today than early this year and great to hear OP been able not to gamble, keep up the good work!
All the casinos in the group casinostugan.com, cherrycasino.com, comeon.com, eurolotto.com, euroslots.com, folkeautomaten.com, getlucky.com, mobilautomaten.com, mobilebet.com, norgespill.com, suomiautomaatti.com, suomikasino.com, sveacasino.com
Found this earlier today posted on trust pilot lots having similar problems. I posted it on another thread strangely the thread has gone missing. The company does take its RG seriously!
Found this earlier today posted on trust pilot lots having similar problems. I posted it on another thread strangely the thread has gone missing. The company does take its RG seriously!
Attachments
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
Similar threads
