Stake.com - Lawsuit, Breach of TOS, Refund of Net Losses and Nonexistent Compliance
- Thread starter edondoko
- Start date
When I mentioned a takedown, I wasn’t saying I’d take the post down in exchange for money. What I meant was that if a settlement included an NDA, this post wouldn’t be able to stay up—that’s just how NDAs work. The removal could come from me or even the casino itself. It’s the same idea as the PAB process, but since Casinomeister has already stated that Stake isn’t responding to PABs, I didn’t bother filing one before the case I currently have open.
Honestly, I don’t expect Stake to respond, even if regulatory bodies step in. They clearly don’t care about complaints or investigations at this point. Instead, they’ve adjusted their policies to prevent cases like this in the future, which—ironically—is something I wanted them to do anyway.
That said, I don’t see why this post should be removed. This thread is an important resource, especially for Swiss players who might want to file complaints or for anyone dealing with similar issues. There may not be many in my exact situation, but I know for a fact I’m not the only one.
Of course, if a civil lawsuit or criminal investigation by the ESBK moves forward, then removing this post might become necessary. That investigation hasn’t started yet, but it will once I send in the relevant documents.
Also, just a heads-up—I translate everything using ChatGPT, so if anything sounds off, that’s probably why. If something isn’t clear, just ask, and I’ll do my best to explain.
If your motives are helping others then I dont understand why settlements are even being mentioned. Also what proof do you have that a criminal investigation will be launched upon your reporting of the matter? I know in the UK if you report matters to the UKGC its up to them whether or not they action.
I stand by my statement that @maxd should consider whether this thread is inline with the forums rules and ethos given the tone and nature of the OPs posts.
I stand by my statement that @maxd should consider whether this thread is inline with the forums rules and ethos given the tone and nature of the OPs posts.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2024
- Location
- Scotland
I'd agree it's pretty agenda-y (Rule 1.11). Up to the staff to decide whether or not it crossed the line.
I understand your concerns about the thread, but I don’t see a valid reason for its removal. Ultimately, that decision is up to the staff, and I’ve already reached out to them about it—so let’s see how they respond.
Regarding proof—what exactly do you want to see?
Stake sent me an email stating that if I intend to file a criminal complaint against them, they will require evidence from me to initiate an investigation. According to the GSG, StGB, and statements from the ESBK (which you can find online), they take these matters seriously—especially when it involves redirecting winnings from gambling losses toward AHV or other public interest funds instead of allowing foreign operators to profit from them.
They could have been fined 500K just for advertising to Swiss players, so allowing a Swiss player to lose 40K in net losses on their platform is a significant amount that could have otherwise partially contributed to AHV. To be clear, the ESBK won’t intervene regarding my losses. They stated that if I wanted to, I could file a civil lawsuit against the operator, but from their perspective, all deposits, winnings, and losses are considered illegal and would be subject to confiscation if an investigation were to begin. Which I would probably be able to claim in civil lawsuit after that with a valid verdict. I don’t know exactly how they would enforce this, but I’m fairly certain they could freeze Stake’s accounts within two business days by contacting their payment providers or whatever. Do with that information as you will.
Regarding proof—what exactly do you want to see?
Stake sent me an email stating that if I intend to file a criminal complaint against them, they will require evidence from me to initiate an investigation. According to the GSG, StGB, and statements from the ESBK (which you can find online), they take these matters seriously—especially when it involves redirecting winnings from gambling losses toward AHV or other public interest funds instead of allowing foreign operators to profit from them.
They could have been fined 500K just for advertising to Swiss players, so allowing a Swiss player to lose 40K in net losses on their platform is a significant amount that could have otherwise partially contributed to AHV. To be clear, the ESBK won’t intervene regarding my losses. They stated that if I wanted to, I could file a civil lawsuit against the operator, but from their perspective, all deposits, winnings, and losses are considered illegal and would be subject to confiscation if an investigation were to begin. Which I would probably be able to claim in civil lawsuit after that with a valid verdict. I don’t know exactly how they would enforce this, but I’m fairly certain they could freeze Stake’s accounts within two business days by contacting their payment providers or whatever. Do with that information as you will.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Location
- Durham, NC
You claim you fully accept your losses, but you are also seeking to recover them. Which is true?
Would you be taking this course of action had you won a large amount and they paid you? I'm not trying to defend a casino I know nothing about. I simply find your intentions very confusing.
Last edited:
To clarify my intentions:
- Make this case as public as possible to push Stake to acknowledge it or defend themselves.
- Recover my losses, whether through a settlement, a civil lawsuit, or any other legal means—if possible.
- Ensure Stake.com no longer accepts Swiss players, except for those intentionally bypassing restrictions with false information (which is mostly resolved with their KYC2 enforcement).
As for helping other players, why wouldn't I? Even while mentioning reimbursement or a settlement, this case serves to highlight clear breaches of regulation. Hopefully, with this being addressed, Stake will enforce the correct rules, preventing this from happening again.
Regarding your question about big wins:
What do you consider "big"?For me, a 25K withdrawal would have been a great win, but my largest withdrawal never exceeded 5K, as far as I remember. Overall, I was always at a net loss. That said, this part is irrelevant. Even if they had paid me millions, those winnings would have been confiscated anyway by regulatory authorities once investigated. So why wouldn't I want my deposits back instead?
Does this make sense? Apologies if some of my statements were unclear. I write everything in German and then use ChatGPT for translation, so there may have been some grammatical errors or misinterpretations along the way.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2024
- Location
- Scotland
Neither of these things will happen. They do not benefit from doing either. It's a waste of their time from their point of view.
Seems like that job is already done, not sure when and whether or not your crusade has anything to do with it. Swiss IP is blocked, when doing KYC2 as you mention, switzerland is blocked (I cannot press forward while having the country selected).
The crux of your reasoning relies on the fact that stake would have confiscated from you if you had won a large five figure withdrawal. Whilst it is possible and maybe even likely, it's not a guaranteed outcome. Many players in your position have gotten away with it even with large withdrawals. Whilst it was illegal, you were treated fairly during your play and you only argue that you wouldn't have been had you have had a significant win.
As you were already verified, it's possible even doing smaller withdrawals of a large balance might have increased the chances of getting it out. Whilst Stake are guilty of a lot of bad things, they shouldn't be penalised for a theoretical action that you only assume they would do.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2015
- Location
- Near Newcastle
I noticed that if you sow the bold letters in the above post together from last to first it spells out a secret message in Romansh
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2024
- Location
- Scotland
I would never encode a message into one of my posts, I definitely just accidentally hit the bold button a bunch of times
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2017
- Location
- United kingdom
Switzerland is banned but you can register from any of the casino's allowed countries using VPN with details of a country that's on their banned list and complete your KYC using Swiss docs.
Nothing wrong with that IMO - what if i'm Swiss but live in Brazil? Also, it would be plain stupid from the casino's business model to ban me - the same as if those fake casinos here started telling UK players that we don't accept British passports and bills, and there is plenty of Slingo games on Betfred too..
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2024
- Location
- Scotland
That screenshot is from the General section. Seems like preventative stuff was only included in the verification part.
I do think anyone who obfuscates their IP and then subsequently fakes information should expect to run into issues. With the new measures, how exactly would one verify a swiss proof of address (KYC3) when they can't select it as a location? Is it the case that after KYC2 you are able to deposit and withdraw without issue?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2017
- Location
- United kingdom
See your screenshot above. You can't select Switzerland as your location/country - but you don't need to select it if you're in Brazil, Ireland, or any other country they accept players from. All they see is your IP and device tech info e.g usr agent, windows, mac, etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2024
- Location
- Scotland
And if you do that you are lying, which is my point.
From what you are saying it sounds like - as someone who has never used stake - that they don't really do KYC3 and you just need to lie about your address whilst doing KYC 1/2 to get full site functionality.
The point I was trying to make is that whilst accessing the site and whilst verifying, you are hit with two roadblocks that you have to circumvent and it's made clear you aren't supposed to be playing.
From the sound of it, if they don't do KYC3 and actually get the player to prove their address then they've probably hole in procedure open to make it so people can still illegally play from certain countries using a VPN. From the sound of it some stuff has been added since the OP signed up but it's all a bit futile if proof of address KYC is not requested
Thank you all for sharing such valuable insights in this thread. It's been really enlightening!
As @mulven pointed out, many players face roadblocks that clearly signal they shouldn't be playing. In my case, though, I didn't encounter any of those. Even after the supposed changes, it seems my account may have slipped through the cracks, or maybe the country tab in their system was left blank. This has led them to believe my account isn't restricted.
I'm honestly puzzled as to why I wasn't blocked earlier, especially after I submitted my documents thinking I was in the clear. It was only after that I found my account had been blocked. I really don't get it. Now, my options seem limited to discussing this here, filing a complaint with the ESBK, and possibly considering a civil lawsuit against them.
I really hope that this doesn’t affect too many other players like me. To be honest, I think only about 30% of players who go through something like this actually take the time to pursue it or learn about local laws and breaches.
It’s almost amusing that a casino of this size struggles with compliance to the point where they just copy and paste responses and call it a day. Yet, I guess it's not all that surprising, especially since I noticed that Casinomeister has a warning about them not responding to any player complaints or inquiries (please correct me if I’m wrong).
As @mulven pointed out, many players face roadblocks that clearly signal they shouldn't be playing. In my case, though, I didn't encounter any of those. Even after the supposed changes, it seems my account may have slipped through the cracks, or maybe the country tab in their system was left blank. This has led them to believe my account isn't restricted.
I'm honestly puzzled as to why I wasn't blocked earlier, especially after I submitted my documents thinking I was in the clear. It was only after that I found my account had been blocked. I really don't get it. Now, my options seem limited to discussing this here, filing a complaint with the ESBK, and possibly considering a civil lawsuit against them.
I really hope that this doesn’t affect too many other players like me. To be honest, I think only about 30% of players who go through something like this actually take the time to pursue it or learn about local laws and breaches.
It’s almost amusing that a casino of this size struggles with compliance to the point where they just copy and paste responses and call it a day. Yet, I guess it's not all that surprising, especially since I noticed that Casinomeister has a warning about them not responding to any player complaints or inquiries (please correct me if I’m wrong).
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
It is very much NOT your place to say who is or isn't welcome to respond to your posts, that’s a moderator’s job and we'll thank you to leave that to us.
At this point I must ask you to (re)read the Forum Rules . I’ve already dealt with three violations in these posts of yours here and I’m not even half way through. Follow the Rules or hit the road, simple as that.
Again, read the Rules: posts don’t get “taken down” for those reasons or pretty much any other. Once they’re up, they’ve up unless they are spam, hate mongering or one of very few other reasons. And please look into NDAs before you continue making assumptions: it’s your freedom to discuss the issue from that point on that will be muzzled not our forum content pre-dating your signature.
Casinomeister is not your billboard to ride rough-shod over people that disagree with you or casinos that haven’t protected you from yourself. If you imagine that your sanctimonious references to laws and legal procedures is impressing anyone you are mistaken. If you have an issue post it in plain words, spare us the pointless references to higher authorities, and get to the point. And read the ****ing Rules!
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
- Max
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Location
- New Zealand
Seems a bit of a harsh. It's not unreasonable to request people to refrain from getting personal imo.
I'm curious about your opinion as to what is likely to happen with cases like this though. Will casinos begin to see more consequences for turning a blind eye when accepting players from certain jurisdictions?
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Yes, well, for someone who hasn’t bothered to read the basic rules of this forum and has stacked up a fistful of violations in this one thread, I’m less than impressed when they start telling our membership what posts are and are not welcome.
Respect the house rules and you’ll be treated with respect. Assume that these forums are here for you to do with as you wish and sufficient pressure will be applied to dissuade you of that misconception.
From what I can see the fact is that the OP has more than one case on the go with precisely the same MO: “I am innocent because you let me play”. At the very least that is a gross abdication of personal responsibility. In our experience with Complaints the vast majority of such cases are most definitely not an instance of casino failures but of players trying to game the system and bully casinos into returning deposits as a means of obvious personal gain. That is not a particularly popular position to take here at Casinomeister. There certainly are cases where the casino has been lax and sloppy but when a player comes out of the gate touting such-and-such regulations and so-and-so legalese they are almost always the ones to be suspicious of, IMHO.
That said I’m not here to defend Stake, for obvious reasons.
- Max
Last edited:
I sincerely appreciate the time and space given to discuss this matter, and I want to start by apologizing for any forum rules I may have unknowingly broken. That was never my intention, and I completely understand the importance of respecting the guidelines in place. I’ll make sure to be more mindful moving forward.
I also want to clarify that I’m not here to dictate who can or cannot respond to my posts. If my wording came across that way, I truly regret it. My goal was simply to keep the discussion constructive and avoid unnecessary personal attacks, but I see now that I could have phrased it better.
Regarding my case, I understand that personal responsibility plays a role in gambling decisions, and I’m not trying to shift all the blame elsewhere. However, my main concern remains that regulatory breaches occurred, and I believe it’s worth discussing—both for myself and for other players who may find themselves in similar situations.
That being said, I acknowledge that I could have structured my arguments more clearly without over-relying on legal references. I’ll make an effort to communicate my points more concisely and in a way that respects the forum’s expectations.
Again, I truly appreciate the feedback, even if it’s been tough to hear at times. I value this discussion and will do my best to engage in a way that aligns with the forum’s standards.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
Excellent, it sounds like we understand each other, thank you.
As to the Rules violations I respectfully remind you that when you signed on here you declared that you would read and respect the house Rules. It is your responsibility to ensure that you do, regardless of what your mother tongue is. If you can’t read them you need to find a way to get them reliably translated. Machine translation can be woefully unreliable which is why we always have, and continue, to recommend that a person do it for you instead.
As to "My goal was simply to keep the discussion constructive and avoid unnecessary personal attacks”: I say again, that is a moderator’s job, leave it to the moderators. It is not your place to decide if someone is out of line or not, or what is or is not acceptable. If you have a problem with someone’s post then Report it (in the bottom of the offending post) and the moderators will do what is necessary.
- Max
As to the Rules violations I respectfully remind you that when you signed on here you declared that you would read and respect the house Rules. It is your responsibility to ensure that you do, regardless of what your mother tongue is. If you can’t read them you need to find a way to get them reliably translated. Machine translation can be woefully unreliable which is why we always have, and continue, to recommend that a person do it for you instead.
As to "My goal was simply to keep the discussion constructive and avoid unnecessary personal attacks”: I say again, that is a moderator’s job, leave it to the moderators. It is not your place to decide if someone is out of line or not, or what is or is not acceptable. If you have a problem with someone’s post then Report it (in the bottom of the offending post) and the moderators will do what is necessary.
- Max
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Location
- UK
UKGC makes a statement that Stake will be leaving UK
You do not have permission to view link
Log in or register now.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2024
- Location
- Scotland
Apparently, according to the BBC, this is following an collaboration/sponsorship they did with a pornstar called "Bonnie Blue".
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Location
- Pictland
I think the guys at Stake must have been stuck in a time warp and emerged without realising they’d skipped 20 years. The stuff they get up to is more 2005 than 2025. Of course some might argue that that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but Stake does tend toward the slippery end of sleazy in my experience.
- Max
- Max
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Location
- UK
Well, it's turned out to be a very expensive lesson - learning that the world has jumped forward 20 years without them.
Similar threads
