Dear user, let me say that despite understanding your feelings, no demands will work on the forum. As you can see, all your posts are public, but I see nothing concrete I could respond to in the way you conceptualized the last post. In that case I believe my previous information remains the same:
"I understand what you are saying, but sadly, just as I mentioned earlier, we at Casino Guru Complaint Resolution Center cannot challenge the casino and support your claims. Your request could not be approved the way you formed it. More details should be sent via email. Here on the forum, we do not address formal requests or set complaints, I'm sorry.
Maybe if you aim to reach a sort of settlement with the casino, it would be better to inform their side in the first place."
I cannot assist you since here on the forum, we do not investigate; we talk. Investigations and assessments are solely made through the complaint process, which is fact-based.
I hope we can avoid accusing each other of being unobjective.
Your complaint was rejected but just as I shared here publicly a few days ago, the reason was clearly stated in the longer version: "I also understand your proposal to complete a live video verification. While this may appear to be a reasonable solution from your perspective, and I can agree with this, I also find the casino's position understandable and reasonable. Before considering any alternative verification methods, it is entirely appropriate for the operator first to require that the standard verification requirements be satisfied, as the casino explained above. This approach is fully consistent with common industry practices and the operator's KYC/AML obligations.
After carefully reviewing all of the information and explanations provided by both parties, I cannot conclude that the casino's position is unreasonable. The requirement to verify the account holder based on information and evidence that corresponds with the registration details is consistent with standard KYC and AML practices across the online gambling industry. Although I appreciate your explanation that the discrepancies might have resulted from honest mistakes, players are always responsible for ensuring that the information entered during registration accurately reflects their legal identity.
In light of the above, I am unable to conclude that the casino has acted unfairly by refusing to amend the account details or complete the verification based on the information currently available. Accordingly, I have no reasonable grounds to ask the casino to deviate from its verification procedures in this case.
By registering an account, you accepted the casino's Terms and Conditions and assumed responsibility for complying with them, just as every other player is expected to do.
Taking into account all of the above, and the fact that this situation resulted from inaccuracies in the information provided by you during your account registration, I have not identified any conduct on the casino's part that would be contrary to its Terms and Conditions, established industry standards, or our principles of fair gambling.
Accordingly, I have no grounds to challenge the casino's current stance, and this complaint will now be closed as Rejected."
In my opinion, the mediator explained the nature of the problem more than transparently, and it's understandable that we cannot force the casino to act the way you demand.