Hej der.
For at være ærlig er dette en almindelig fejlfortolkning af messekonceptet. Eksemplet med butiksejere er også upræcist, fordi de regler, du accepterede, da du registrerede din konto på kasinoet, specificerede, hvilke lande der var forbudte. Jeg vil sige, at der ikke er en sådan aftale, hvis nogen går for at købe cigaretter.
Som det fremgår af klagen, ville du ideelt set ikke engang være i stand til at besøge hjemmesiden. Desuden var kasinoet uvidende om din oprindelse, fordi verifikationen er den eneste metode, der bruges til at bekræfte en spillers bopælsland.
Vi anerkender, at dette er en meget negativ brugeroplevelse, men vi kan ikke holde kasinoet ansvarlig for det. De fleste spillere, der føler, at de skal kompenseres for det, de med rette har mistet, søger typisk juridisk rådgivning. For at være ærlig, understøtter vores holdning ikke ideen om tilbagevirkende kraft at refundere tab i disse situationer, fordi det ville være uretfærdigt over for andre spillere, og det understøtter også ideen om, at spil uden risiko for at tabe ikke er befordrende for sikrere spillevaner.
Jeg kan dog se, hvorfor dit synspunkt er anderledes end vores. Jeg er ikke sikker på, om en ærlig forklaring kunne gøre det anderledes.
Hey there.
To be honest, this is a common misinterpretation of the fair concept. The shopkeeper example is also imprecise because the rules you accepted when registering your account at the casino specified which countries were prohibited. I would say that there is no such agreement if someone goes to buy cigarettes.
As stated in the complaint, ideally you would not even be able to visit the website. Furthermore, the casino was unaware of your origins because the verification is the only method used to confirm a player's country of residence.
We acknowledge that this is a very negative user experience, but we cannot hold the casino accountable for it. Most players who feel they should be compensated for what they have rightfully lost typically seek legal advice. To be honest, our stance does not support the idea of retroactively refunding losses in these situations because that would be unfair to other players and it also supports the idea that playing without the risk of losing is not conducive to safer gambling habits.
I can see why your viewpoint is different from ours, though. I am not sure if an honest explanation could make that different.