spirit_123

Well, maybe a few remarks. Forgive me for leaving out the personal details. On the rest: I never made the point that I didn't break the T&C, I also told that I made significant winnings. That being said: I did not leave out details to misguide you. If I knew they where relevant, I would have told you. I do apologize if you feel misguided.

Thousands, but it is really not about the money anymore. I do believe this is unfair. To complement this statement: I would be happy to limit a claim to a declaration for justice, which means nothing more but the court ruling whether these T&C are invalid. It would not constitute in a reimbursement or whatsoever.

No I agree on that. It is quite a step. However, I really do think these terms are really unfair and I would like to see a courts opinion on the matter.

No, I would center the case around this topic: As I said before the term of a max bet level does not even creates an imbalance, it destroys the balance. Because it would virtually always result in a win for the casino if violated either on purpose or by mistake. Therefore, if a casino would like to impose such terms they can in numerous ways, but not in their T&C. As said earlier there are a number of other issues to cover, so yes: I would gladly give it a shot.

Well, this is basically my point. A couple of things: 1. Within the EU a clause which would never result in the loss of the casino and only in a win for a casino would be considered as unfair. I quoted the appropriate regulation in a post before. I mean this is the school book example. Should a casino really say this is such an important rule for us they should have all kinds and whistles in place to alert a player when he is violating the T&C. At least to the extend possible, which they are very well in this case, it is basically the same mechanism as wagering limits in the part of responsible gaming. With regards to the T&C, I am not really sure whether I entirely agree: See for instance point 25: Now it can't be the same as just winnings. Because: See for instance: I could give a number of instances why there is a difference. Though I appreciate your explanation a lot, it remains unclear to my when a winning contributes to the bonus and when not. From an asset-law perspective it would be an interesting thought that one could play with real money and would get bonus money in return. (With regard to the dual structure: you lose, you lose cash, you win, you get restricted money back). This seems more likely in a leveled situation. So, all in all. I would gladly refer this to a court. Especially when it is an industry standard to do it this way. I asked them if we could settle for a court or jurisdiction as it is a waste of everyone's time to fight over competences, however they failed to reply yet.

Yes, but i still can interpret that in different ways: when is a winning attributed to the bonus. If I recall your opinions correctly this would be all winnings. So the text should read: These terms are by default void: Well it is hard to find which court they would be applicable to rule on this matter, but yes, I'll give it a shot.

Well, I don't know. ADR Resolutions mostly won't be published. Maybe if this kind of thing it is a good thing to have a public Court ruling on the matter.

Well, I just needed to find an article to explain the principle, but it is included in EU-legislation and is does specifically address Bussiness to Consumer relations. See also artice 3 of this directive: Therefore I am quite sure these T&C would never held up in a European Court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem, this is part of an EU-regulation on T&C and therefore valid in all EU-Member States

Just on a general remark, this is a clear violation of the law (if any: the law of every EU member state). The rule basically is: if T&C are open to interpretation, the interpretation of the one who did not write the T&C (in this case: the player) is binding.

Yes, it is BitStarz, which has a certificate of excellence here.

Thanks for the replies. Yes, I don't use bonuses ever, because all of the "interesting" terms. I will describe exactly what happened: I deposited a fair amount which could have given me a bonus of €1000. This I did not want to have. Immediatly after I deposited another fair amount and by mistake I got a bonus of €100. I did not realise that. (The total amount was not a round number, which I just overlooked). I started playing and made some good winnings, wanted to withdraw and saw that I could only withdraw my initial €1000. I immediatly went to the chat and asked whether they could cancel my bonus. This was not possible because, so I had to wager it. So I did (by the rules). I lost some money, but still. Then I withdrew. I day later I got the message: your winnings have been forfeited, because you violated the bonus terms. Which I technically did, before realising I had a bonus. I really find this completely unfair, basically for two reasons. 1. I never used the bonus money. My balance has always been far above €100. I could really see no harm in cancelling the bonus at a later stage, as the money was never used at all. Should I have "touched" the money, that would be something different. 2. A more general point is: should a player ever violate the terms of conditions of the bonus, the result would be that the casino can never lose. In the best (for the player) case they don't have to pay out winnings. In the worst case, the player loses his money and the casino wins. I would say this is completely unfair and would justify severe actions from the casino to ensure a player does not violotes (either by mistake or on purpose) the T&C. So, I mean technically they may be right, but I find it ridiculous unfair. Is this industry practice?

Hi all, I recently had a quite horrible experience at a casino. I played in an online casino and by mistake I added a bonus. But allright, that happens. When I found out I had a bonus, I wished to cancel the bonus. This would result, according to the casino is the loss of all winnings. I am not familiar with bonuses, so I am just asking: how does this work? According to the casino: if you play with an active bonus and you lose money, then it comes from your own money. However, if you win money, then all the winnings are contributed to the bonus. This is, according to the casino, an industry standard. Is this true? I am just curieus.

Hi all, I recently had a quite horrible experience at a casino. I played in an online casino and by mistake I added a bonus. But allright, that happens. When I found out I had a bonus, I wished to cancel the bonus. This would result, according to the casino is the loss of all winnings. I am not familiar with bonuses, so I am just asking: how does this work? According to the casino: if you play with an active bonus and you lose money, then it comes from your own money. However, if you win money, then all the winnings are contributed to the bonus. This is, according to the casino, an industry standard. Is this true? I am just curieus.