hultman2

It's the same as max bet breach...yes, it's against the terms. But tell me this? Why do casino allow you to exceed the max bet, why do some allow you to play restricted games? Again....to safeguard them...well, if they want safeguarded then why not use the technology at their disposal to do so. They donlt because they can trot out the old terms breached, should you beat the house...
 
Some casino's are excellent in how they manage the genuine 'mistakes' - they void the winnings from the spin, they offer a second chance (Trada casino being one of the equitable and ethical out there in doing this)...some use it as a way of confiscating all the funds. 
 
What i've found as a player is that if i play at a decent place, make a genuine mistake that they can see, I'll be OK. 
 
We all have thoughts on this - i get that terms are there for a reason but it's a sad day when common sense and fairness falls by the wayside. 

I agree to an extent....not everyone is clued up....i think it's reasonable that a person who, whilst having a coffee and decides to sign up via their wifi (not recommended as it's frequently unsecure!), doesn't necessarily think 'oh, public wifi, same IP address, better not!'
 
It's there as a rule to protect casinos. But i'd be very disappointed if a casino adopted a literal, hard, enforcement of their terms especially if they were assured these were two different people. Case by case basis would provide the best remedy - as in my case above.
 
I'm not a contract lawyer but there are the principles of equity in it - i think a court, having seen how the casino knew it was 2 different person but yet was still a breach, may not necessarily come down on the side of the casino despite it being a term. We'll probably never know though as few cases go that far.
 
But lets think of why the term is there in the first place....player fraud. We greedy individuals have our part to play. Can't remember the stats but there is by far more player fraud on the go that any rogue casino - just to give it context and maybe show why casinos adopt this approach...

At some degree you have accepted their ruling when you regard their evidence as adequate and the matter as "solved". I have quoted three recent threads below where none of the players seem to have opened multiple accounts themselves. Ip addresses are mostly dynamic and there is a very high probability that your current ip has been used by a player before. I am fed up with these kind of horrible rulings and it seems the casinos can do pretty much what they feel like regarding payment issues. If the casino rules would prohibit the use of the same internet browser as another user, do you consider it a legitimate claim for confiscation of winnings?
 
https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/n1-casino-bonus-winnings-removed-due-to-duplicate-accounts
 
https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/n1-casino-unfairly-accused-of-having-multiple-accounts
 
https://www.askgamblers.com/casino-complaints/n1-casino-refuse-to-pay-4000eur

I've witnessed many threads recently regarding N1 Casino and their bonus rules claiming they don't allow two accounts using the same ip address. However, as anyone with any knowledge whatsoever about ip configuration would know, ip addresses are reused in a timely fashion within the bounds of dynamic ip setup. Some internet providers more commonly reuse ip addresses than others but since your current ip most likely have been in use multiple times before you use it, the bonus terms in N1 Casino are very likely to put users in breach of the terms. As I can see it in the threads I've analyzed, N1 Casino and hence the Askgamblers mods, are allowing this juridically weak argument for closing down winning accounts in a subjective and horrible matter. It would be great if the players at least could KNOW how to follow the rules, either by showing more specific evidence in such threads or not allowing accounts be played at or created by the same ip address.
 
I've never heard of any losses returned to the player due to multiple accounts and I guess we'll never see any...