Jump to content
icon Ag awards
icon
Notifications
Login
  • Member Statistics

    166457
    Total Members
    273566
    Most Online
    Klaudyna00
    Newest Member
    Klaudyna00
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

EveryMatrix sued for not paying excluded player!


raverbabe

Recommended Posts

I saw this on another forum, not sure if it has been discussed here as yet but I haven't seen it mentioned and feel it is surely of interest to all players here.

 

So, a player who signed up at an EveryMatrix casino around 18 months deposited and went on to win £625 before requesting a withdrawal which was subsequently declined on the basis that the player had previously excluded from a seperate site within the EveryMatrix group. The player argued with the casino that they were unaware the other casino was part of the same group and that it was unfair for their deposit and bets to be accepted if they never had any chance of winning.

 

Now I hear of this situation coming up a ***** of a lot these days, especially with respect to EveryMatrix because of their policy of only performing KYC once a player requests a withdrawal. On this particular occasion the player refused to accept the casino's reasoning that it was impossible to verify all players upon signup and begun a claim with the county courts here in the UK, eventually obtaining a judgement against the casino for the full £625 plus legal costs.

 

If you have had winnings denied by an EveryMatrix casino due to self excluding from a different casino within their group, will you be considering having another go at claiming what you believe you are owed by the company as a result of this judgement? This surely sets a huge precedent for players in the future and might well cause many casinos to start verifying players before they can start to play, at least here in the UK?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that particular page on the UKGC site applies primarily to players who manage to play at the same casino they previously self excluded from. It's a bit more complicated in the case of a player having winnings confiscated at a different casino which they weren't aware belonged to the same operator. All the same, that page is wholly inadequate I would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some casinos should maybe do more to make players aware that by using the self exclusion option they are flagging themselves as a problem gambler as the comment that "players self-exclude for all sorts of reasons" on this page just goes to show there are many who don't totally understand what they are getting themselves into. I also have never used the self-exclusion feature and probably never will, I don't fancy getting into one of these knots in the future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
  • Create New...