Oh goody! My online casino account got robbed... 😎

[maxd]

... So there are definite positives and negatives here, but to reward the casino with a higher rating because of this is very wrong in my opinion.

Why, exactly?

I see problem => bit of a gaff from Support re "talk to your bank" => rep on the job, makes it right => OP is happy.

Without speculating on matters none of us have insight into what exactly is the problem?

And from my POV pointing to the card issue is premature because exactly no one has any details on that, what the normal procedure is _exactly_, and what if any were the systems in place (or should have been in place) that failed, etc. Yes it looks bad, I think we all agree on that, but is it, really? Jury is still out IMO.

And at the risk of boring everyone by repeating what's already been said: in the VAST majority of cases like this the casino says "tough beans, change your password" and sweeps the issue off the table, literally. Clearly that is terrible Customer Support and -- happy days -- that's not what happened here.
Not. What happened. Here.

At the very least a casino should be judged by what they do and IMO the record here speaks for itself.
So "yeah, kick 'em for doing a good thing!" seems a bit amiss to me.

YMMV, obv.

 

[satchnz]

Why, exactly?

I think I’ve made it abundantly clear why, but it seems you have made your mind up on this so there is little else I can say.

In my opinion this is not making the CM rating system any more trustworthy. I’ve come around to the opinion that the wrongs and rights probably cancel each other out and maybe the rating should stay as is. It would however be very disappointing to see their rating increase due to this episode.

 

[dunover]

I think I’ve made it abundantly clear why, but it seems you have made your mind up on this so there is little else I can say.

In my opinion this is not making the CM rating system any more trustworthy. I’ve come around to the opinion that the wrongs and rights probably cancel each other out and maybe the rating should stay as is. It would however be very disappointing to see their rating increase due to this episode.

Gotta disagree there - this issue is becoming more prevalent and of all the cases reported in threads on CM this has had easily the most favourable and fast resolution. Ask @lockinlove what she would have thought about getting the same result from G(sc)amdom!

 

[cheekymonkey]

My own perspective [as a UK player] is that a UKGC casino should now be the safest place to play for a UK player. Yeah, hacks happen everywhere and in all industries of course, sites are hacked, accounts are hacked, but the bottom line here is that someone must be held responsible and surely in this case, it's the casino. They verify us through KYC, ensure we are not using credit cards, ensure we are not using debit cards in someone else's name, check our address and name matches up, all that stuff. All financial transactions are vetted by them and they've vetted us for this exact purpose, no fraudulent transactions.

If I was unfortunate enough to be in the OP's position, I wouldn't have worried at first as I would have expected the casino to sort it out and re-credit my account, albeit after an investigation - abnormal IP addresses, login history and stuff like that. There's no two ways about it and if they didn't, I would be totally disgusted to be perfectly honest. Their site was hacked, so surely it's their responsibility.

Anyway that's just my tuppence worth, FWIW. Glad the OP got his money back and in all fairness to the casino, he got it back extremely quickly.

And just for the record - copied and pasted from their T&C's - I'm guessing other casinos list the same, actually I just checked another popular one and yes, they declare almost the same:

3.2. The Player chooses a personal password and a username for his Player Account. It is the Player's own responsibility not to share this information with any third party. The Player will be responsible for all actions on and related to the Player Account, even if carried out by a third party. XXXXXXXXX is under no obligation to refund funds in any such situations.

Sooooooooooo ultimately and in defence of the casino, they did not have to refund at all.

Frightening....keep changing those passwords or make them as difficult as possible!

 

[maxd]

Im not saying there score should be dropped, but I don't think it should be increased because they have returned stolen funds because someone was able to withdraw to a non-approved method

I think this is the crux of it, what was the point of failure and why? Which is why I've asked VS to discuss it with us so we DO have more insight into that specific issue. I've said this several times already, not sure why that isn't being heard.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I think this is the crux of it, what was the point of failure and why? Which is why I've asked VS to discuss it with us so we DO have more insight into that specific issue. I've said this several times already, not sure why that isn't being heard.

I think perhaps the issue is around talking about raising VS's CM score when the single biggest question around what happened here is still unanswered.

Like, if someone set my house on fire and then only agreed to call the fire department after I complained about them on a public forum and even then said it was a 'goodwill gesture', I don't think I'd be falling over myself to give them a 5 star review on Trip Advisor.

 

[maxd]

Yeah, I realised there was maybe a clarity problem here. To clear that up:

• no change to VS Score based on the events under discussion in this thread has yet been initiated.
• IMO the question to be answered is "what was the point of failure and was that VS's fault in any way?"
• if the answer is "yes, but they made good by their actions with the player" then I think we're at neutral on the Score: mistake made and dealt with properly = no Score change.
• if the answer is "no, but they did good by the player anyway" then I think that is a clear net positive for the casino and I would look at a Score bump for them.

My strong opinion is that is a forest full of casinos that are only in it for the deposits and treat players like their personal ATMs any casino that does good, above and beyond what the law forces them to do, should be recognised and rewarded for it. Hence the Score bump if such is deserved.

 

[deanparkr]

I wonder alot about what responsibilities casinos have.

Lets say a player has funds removed from their casino balance. Either by withdrawal, play or otherwise. The player is certain they didn't withdraw or play those funds.

The player talks to the casino who then reply "the account is your responsibility and as per our terms we will not refund."

The casino can take that position as per typical terms. But... what if the loss of funds is the result of casino liability due to bugs in software. The player can never prove that.

It seems like one big get out clause for the casino that they can just declare the players balance as "players issue". Should casinos not be made to prove more comprehensively to a player the situation. Like in Lemon's case. I know we are not privy to the detail, but I hope Lemon was satisfied with explanations presented. I really do hope VS take up the Casinomeister offer to discuss it in more detail with CM team. We don't and nor should we know all the details but it would be re-assuring if after a discussion with CM team, that CM felt satisfied. That would go a long way, and a big plus for VS. (for me anyway!)

Coming back round to VS I am having this play out in much smaller scale. I have some battle buys on my account. I did not buy them. VS says I did. I say I didn't. I have played since 2018. I know I didn't buy them.

How do I know its my account security vs software bug.

Or if it is security how does a player/casino prove it was players liability. Was the players password compromised or did a malicious actor breach the server/database. How is that proven or dis-proven?

Sorry for waffling but I think what I am trying to get to is, terms and conditions like this:

The Player will be responsible for all actions on and related to the Player Account, even if carried out by a third party. XXXXXXXXX is under no obligation to refund funds in any such situations.

Seem to lacking nuances. What if it appears a "third party" did something but actually it was software bug where wrong players actions are assigned to wrong players account. Or what if a card is added to a players account for withdrawal by exploit of a bug/security issue, that by-passed normal checks.

Casinos can too easily make declaration it was players fault it seems like.

 

[2Slots]

I can understand both sides of the discussion.

Player finds money withdrawn to unknown account and is basically told by casino to deal with it themself until they come on here and post about it at which point the money is returned as a 'goodwill gesture'.

Even if the account was compromised due to the password the withdrawal to an unknown account is still concerning and shouldn't be able to happen.

From our perspective as players seems it was only resolved because the situation has generated bad publicity on a well known forum after the casino initially didn't care.

I had to do the same years ago over a mis-sold warranty. After getting nowhere with the company I joined a forum just to ask about the issue and it got resolved straight away because I didn't know the company was active on there. The 'goodwill gesture' reason annoyed me even more because it made out like I was wrong about the issue and only got the correct outcome because I had posted on a popular forum.

The review score change is understandable too in a way.

The review model here has an element that involves this site being a vehicle for resolving these types of issues so I can see why they might want to bump the score as it seems the issue was resolved due to it being posted here.

A large chunk of the score is 'responsiveness to complaints' which I take to mean in relation to this forum/PABs not how the casinos deal with direct ones.

Complaint/issue posted here is resolved by casino would be seen as a positive from casinomeister's perspective but maybe not from the neutral perspective.

Rating System Explanation - Casinomeister

 

[maxd]

Lets say a player has funds removed from their casino balance. Either by withdrawal, play or otherwise. The player is certain they didn't withdraw or play those funds.

The player talks to the casino who then reply "the account is your responsibility and as per our terms we will not refund."

Yup, seen it a good many times, even in the case of a mass breach where it was very difficult indeed to imagine how any of that was the fault of the players. To make a long story short, middle and bottom tier casinos usually take the "your problem, so sad" approach while upper tier casinos are more pro-active about it and typically do something to ease the players pain.

Can it be used as a catch-all, "too bad for you", get-out-of-jail-free card by disreputable casinos? Yes, absolutely! Been there seen that, in various forms. BUT -- and this is not a small thing -- there are usually ways to sniff out what really went on, or at least enough of it to know whether the casino is full of BS.

The trouble is that these days the cases of legitimate security breaches -- mass or individual -- are very much on the rise. People think that AI is just out there to spread goodness and light but we can assure everyone here that it is being used by both the white hand and the black hat guys. Fraud is up to pandemic proportions these days and AI is very much responsible for a good portion of that. In other words expect your piggy bank to get broken into if you don't take measures to see that it is not.

 

[deanparkr]

In other words expect your piggy bank to get broken into if you don't take measures to see that it is not.

I guess this comes back to also needing casinos to offer extra tooling as well. Eg 2FA, Passkeys or other things to help players increase security posture.

Look forward to VS and other upper tier casinos implementing it ASAP.

It was interesting to read on earlier posts about crypto casinos offering it. Think the mainstream ones need to play a bit of catch up.

 

[Jono777]

Geez someone change the channel lol..

Get all points raised BUT the in the main....

The casino resolved quickly and amicably. Other players have had a preemptive "Heads Up" / "Just in case"

OP is sorted and happy

Most cases casino 'X' would just refer you to their T&C's and make no further contact.

 

[maxd]

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Remember that it's always a convenience vs security thing with most mainstream casinos. From what I understand it's a constant battle to balance player security with the inconvenience imposed by adopting said security measures. Too much security hassle and you lose players, too many security problems and you get pummelled for being lax. There are no definitive answers AFAICT, it's a "choose your pain" situation.

 

[interlog]

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Remember that it's always a convenience vs security thing with most mainstream casinos. From what I understand it's a constant battle to balance player security with the inconvenience imposed by adopting said security measures. Too much security hassle and you lose players, too many security problems and you get pummelled for being lax. There are no definitive answers AFAICT, it's a "choose your pain" situation.

Surely 2FA is a prerequisite these days. With most institutions that handle your money you have no choice but to have some form of secondary authentication before they let you into your account.

Casinos handle your money too so I would expect the same standard of security