Galactic Wins Casino - Spelaren begär en full återbetalning av insättningen.

Hi,

I have self-blocked myself on Bookasino through their responsible gaming tool on January 12, 2021, I received a confirmation from there that the block is valid for 5 years.

I started playing again after a long break, and opened an account at Galacticwins casino.

After losing about €10,000, I stopped and realized that this site is from the same operator as Bookasino, so I asked them to return my deposits, referring to the conditions of their license for responsible gaming:

It is clearly stated on the MGA website:

A player can self-exclude across all brands which a Licensee offers on request. When a Licensee operates multiple brands with a separate registration for each, and a player requests a self-exclusion for any reason other than responsible gambling issues , the Licensee can apply the self-exclusion solely to the brand where the request was made.

If the request has been made due to problematic gambling, the player must be self-excluded from all brands which the Licensee operates, regardless of whether the player holds an account with that brand.

When players request a self-exclusion due to problem gambling issues, the Authority encourages Licensees to emphasize with players that they should also exclude any accounts they hold with all other Licensees, and that they make use of the available blocking software to prevent access to gambling sites.

So this is in English because it's clearer.

In other words, I have blocked them through the responsible gaming link, which means that they have to follow my blocking on other pages they manage as well.

When I created an account on the bookasino website in 2020, I made a small typo in my user data, i.e. I accidentally put a different letter as the last letter of my first name than it really is, otherwise all the information on these accounts is exactly the same, e-mail, phone, etc.

But that little typo shows that they have my information in the same system, because in the e-mails coming from them, my name has been created in their system with a misspelled name, and when I receive an e-mail from the Galacticwins site, that typo appears in those e-mails, even though I didn't write it wrong in the Galacticwins information.

That is, they have the information according to which my account should have been blocked immediately, of course if I had won a large amount, they would have justified the cancellation of the winnings with that sister site's game ban.

I made a complaint and today I got a reply that of course they don't refund deposits, citing that I haven't banned myself from each of their pages individually, but after using their responsible gaming tool to ban myself from games, and when I interpret that Mga instruction, it becomes clear in violation of their license terms.

For some reason, I can't make an official complaint about this to the MGA website, but I will as soon as the website is up and running.

I do not recommend Green feather online limited operator's sites to anyone, they violate the terms of responsible gaming and grossly exploit those with gambling problems.

I am sending separately the evidence and email discussions regarding this matter.

Moi,

Olen tehnyt itselleni Bookasinoon heidän vastuullisen pelaamisen työkalun kautta itsesulun 12.1.2021, sain sieltä kuittauksen että sulku on voimassa 5 vuotta.

Sorruin jälleen pelaamaan pitkän tauon jälkeen, ja avasin tilin Galacticwins kasinoon.

Hävittyäni n.10000€ lopetin ja tajusin että tämä sivusto on saman operaattorin kuin Bookasino, joten pyysin heiltä talletuksieni palautusta vedoten heidän lisenssin ehtoihin vastuullisesta pelaamisesta:

MGA:n sivuilla on selkeästi sanottu:

A player can self-exclude across all brands which a Licensee offers on request. When a Licensee operates multiple brands with a separate registration for each, and a player requests a self-exclusion for any reason other than responsible gambling issues, the Licensee can apply the self-exclusion solely to the brand where the request was made.

If the request has been made due to problematic gambling, the player must be self-excluded from all brands which the Licensee operates, irrespective of whether the player holds an account with that brand.

When players request a self-exclusion due to problem gambling issues, the Authority encourages Licensees to emphasise with players that they should also exclude any accounts they hold with all other Licensees, and that they make use of the available blocking software to prevent access to gambling sites.

Tämä siis englanniksi, koska on selkeämpi.

Eli olen tehnyt heidän vastuullisen pelaamisen linkin kautta eston, joka tarkoittaa että heidän on noudatettava estoani myös muilla heidän hallinnoimilla sivuilla.

Kun tein bookasinon sivuille tilin vuonna 2020, niin tein pienen kirjoitusvirheen käyttäjätietoihini, eli laitoin vahingossa etunimeni viimeiseksi kirjaimeksi eri kirjaimen kuin se on oikeasti, muuten näiden tilien kaikki tiedot on ihan samat, sähköposti, puhelin yms.

Mutta tuo pieni kirjoitusvirhe osoittaa että heillä on minun tiedot samassa järjestelmässä, koska heiltä tulevissa sähköposteissa heidän järjestelmään on luotu minun nimi väärinkirjoitettuna, ja kun saan Galacticwins sivustolta sähköpostia, niin tuo kirjoitusvirhe näkyy niissä posteissa, vaikka sitä en ole kirjoittanut väärin Galacticwins tietoihin.

Eli heillä on tiedot minkä mukaan minun tili olisi pitänyt estää heti, tietenkin jos olisin voittanut ison summan niin olisivat perustelleet voittojen peruutusta tuolla sisarsivun peli-estolla.

Tein valituksen ja tänään sain vastauksen että eivät tietenkään palauta talletuksia, vedoten siihen että en ole sulkenut itseäni pois jokaiselta heidän sivulta erikseen, mutta kun olen käyttänyt heidän vastuullisen pelaamisen työkalua itseni sulkemiseen peleistä, ja kun tulkitsen tuota Mga:n ohjeistusta, niin siinä tulee selkeästi ilmi heidän lisenssi-ehtojen rikkominen.

Jostain syystä en pääse tekemään virallista valitusta asian suhteen Mga:n sivustolle, mutta teen kyllä sen heti kun sivusto toimii.

En suosittele kenellekään Green feather online limited operaattorin sivustoja, he rikkovat vastuullisen pelaamisen ehtoja sekä käyttävät peli-ongelmaisia törkeästi hyväkseen.

Lähetän erikseen tätä kyseistä asiaa koskevat todisteet ja sähköposti keskustelut.

Dear Casinoguruhelp,

Thank you very much for submitting your complaint. I’m sorry to hear about your problem. I have checked the Responsible Gaming section of Boo Casino, and this is what I found (here):

Self-Exclusion

You may choose to exclude yourself from our site for a longer period of time, including an unlimited exclusion.

Once the Self-Exclusion period ends, your account will automatically be reactivated and you will then be able to access your account. You may request for a Self-Exclusion to be removed prior to it’s expiry, however the 7 day cooling-off period will apply. The account will be re-activated on the original expiry date or after the 7 day cooling off period, whichever is the earliest.

If you do exclude yourself from our site, you will be removed from all marketing communications for the period that you are excluded. (Please note that it may take up to 48 hours for all our marketing databases to be updated.)

To exclude yourself from our site, please click here.

Unfortunately, there’s not written that all your accounts in other casinos of the same owner will be blocked or self-excluded automatically. Please understand that if you self-exclude yourself from one casino it doesn’t necessarily mean that you are protected on all the other associated websites. Could you please advise if you have requested a self-exclusion from Galactic Wins Casino directly?

If there's any relevant communication, please forward it to petronela.k@casino.guru.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Petronela

Hi,

that's why I put those MGA statements about it, I've used the responsible gambling tool to close the account

(responsible gambling).

And in that MGA text that I put in my complaint in English precisely because of this, it is clearly stated that the operator is not obliged to close other pages managed by them, if the self-closing concerns other than responsible gaming.

"player requests a self-exclusion for any reason other than responsible gambling issues"

I understand very well if I have asked myself via email or chat that my account be closed and I do not mention responsible gaming, then this complaint would be unfounded and I would not have done it.

But I would also like to emphasize that I have used the responsible gaming tool on their pages to get myself banned, as far as I can tell, these were created by the supervising authority as tools for problem gambling.

Here the casinos try to evade their responsibility, below is a link where it is also said that when a player closes his account, it is important that the casino informs in the confirmation message that the closure is not related to a game problem and when the player uses stronger "Self-exclusion" game account blocking, it is a tool for responsible gaming.

https://www.mga.org.mt/faqs/remote-gaming-what-is-the-difference-between-a-general-account-closure-a-self-exclusion/

Many casinos have probably relied on this very issue and I believe that many players have the right to get their deposits back, I don't know if anyone has an MGA interpretation of the matter, I would like to see if anyone has one.

Moi,

siksi laitoin nuo MGA:n lausunnot asian suhteen, olen käyttänyt vastuullisen pelaamisen työkalua tilin sulkemiseen

(responsible gambling).

Ja tuossa MGA:n tekstissä jonka laitoin valitukseeni englannin kielisinä juuri tämän takia, siinä on selvästi mainittu että operaattori ei ole velvollinen sulkemaan muita heidän hallinnoimiaan sivuja, jos itsensä sulkeminen koskee muutakuin vastuullista pelaamista.

"player requests a self-exclusion for any reason other than responsible gambling issues"

Ymmärrän kyllä hyvin jos olen pyytänyt itselleni sähköpostilla tai chatissa että tilini suljetaan ja en mainitse vastuullista pelaamista, niin silloin tämä valitus olisi aiheeton ja en sitä olisi tehnyt.

Mutta korostan vielä että olen käyttänyt heidän sivujen vastuullisen pelaamisen työkalua itseni sulkemiseen, nämä ovat käsittääkseni luotu valvovan viranomaisen toimesta juuri ongelmapelaamisen apuvälineiksi.

Tässä kasinot yrittävät kiertää vastuutaan, alla linkki missä vielä sanotaan että kun pelaaja sulkee tilinsä, on tärkeää että kasino ilmoittaa vahvistusviestissä että sulkeminen ei liity peliongelma ja kun pelaaja käyttää vahvempaa "Self-exclusion" pelitilin estämistä, se on vastuullisen pelaamisen työkalu.

https://www.mga.org.mt/faqs/remote-gaming-what-is-the-difference-between-a-general-account-closure-a-self-exclusion/

Moni kasino on varmaan vedonnut juuri tähän asiaan ja uskon että monella pelaajalla on oikeus saada talletuksensa takaisin, en tiedä onko jollain olemassa asian suhteen MGA:n tulkintaa, haluaisin nähdä jos sellainen jollain on.

Hi,

and here is a link to the terms of the license regarding the protection of the player, I picked up a couple of points from there which are not followed in my case, for example:

https://www.mga.org.mt/licensee-hub/compliance/player-protection/

"Where multiple brands are operated, with separate registration, the operator must inquire whether the exclusion request is for all brands. However, the operator may apply a self-exclusion on the requested brand only"

Although it is said here that the operator can still use self-exclusion for one brand, before that it is clearly said that when a player takes on "Self-exclusion", he must be asked if it applies to all the operator's brands.

So the operators blatantly violate this.

Operators must have effective and regularly updated policies and procedures to promote responsible gambling. These shall factor in the products offered, and any emanating risks. Such policies shall include a variety of measures to detect and identify problem gambling, and any actions or behavior that indicates that a player is at risk of developing gambling problems.

When concerning behavior is identified, the operator is obliged to take effective steps to address this, and to prevent exacerbation of existing or developing problems. Operators must retain evidence that the relevant policies and procedures were followed, and a record of any investigations conducted, the decisions taken, and any responsible Gaming player interactions conducted .

The minimum criteria which operators must consider when ascertaining the existence of gambling-related harm include:

The amount and frequency of deposits and, or wagers

The use of multiple payment methods

The reversal of pending withdrawals

Communication-based indicators such as increased player complaints and bonus requests

Use of responsible Gaming tools

The above are the minimum required factors to consider when determining the existence of gambling problems, however licensees are encouraged to employ mechanisms which take into consideration other factors, such as:

The number of declined or failed deposits

Late-night play and any increase in late-night play

The players age

Average daily stake

Reinvesting 'big wins'

Proximity of deposit attempts to payday

Increase in the number/variety of games played

Number of deposits during Gaming sessions

Customer only uses 'no-deposit bonuses' for gameplay

Operators must ensure that employees who deal with responsible gaming-related matters, or general player interactions, are routinely and appropriately trained in responsible gaming procedures. Employees must be qualified to look out for any players demonstrating signs or indications of gambling-related harm.

I don't think that very many of the casino operators follow these rules given to them, I encourage everyone dealing with the same problem to copy that text and ask them to ask the casinos for data showing that the gaming problem has been addressed on their behalf.

Moi,

sekä tässä on linkki lisenssin ehdoista pelaajan suojeluun liittyen, poimin pari kohtaa sieltä mitä ei esimerkiksi minun tapauksessa noudateta:

https://www.mga.org.mt/licensee-hub/compliance/player-protection/

"Where multiple brands are operated, with separate registration, the operator must enquire whether the exclusion request is for all brands. However, the operator may apply a self-exclusion on the requested brand only"

Vaikka tässä sanotaan että operaattori voi silti käyttää itsensä sulkemista yhteen brändiin, mutta sitä ennen selvästi sanotaan, kun pelaaja ottaa itselleen "Self-exclusion", niin häneltä pitää kysyä koskeeko se kaikkia operaattorin brändejä.

Eli operaattorit rikkovat tätä räikeästi.

Operators must have effective and regularly updated policies and procedures to promote responsible gambling. These shall factor in the products offered, and any emanating risks. Such policies shall include a variety of measures to detect and identify problem gambling, and any actions or behaviour that indicates that a player is at risk of developing gambling problems.

When concerning behaviour is identified, the operator is obligated to take effective steps to address this, and to prevent exacerbation of existing or developing problems. Operators must retain evidence that the relevant policies and procedures were followed, and a record of any investigations conducted, the decisions taken, and any responsible gaming player interactions conducted.

The minimum criteria which operators must consider when ascertaining the existence of gambling-related harm include:

The amount and frequency of deposits and, or wagers

The use of multiple payment methods

The reversal of pending withdrawals

Communication-based indicators such as increased player complaints and bonus requests

Use of responsible gaming tools

The above are the minimum required factors to consider when determining the existence of gambling problems, however licensees are encouraged to employ mechanisms which take into consideration other factors, such as:

The number of declined or failed deposits

Late-night play and any increase in late-night play

The players age

Average daily stake

Reinvesting ‘big wins’

Proximity of deposit attempts to payday

Increase in the number/variety of games played

Number of deposits during gaming sessions

Customer only utilises ‘no-deposit bonuses’ for gameplay

Operators must ensure that employees who deal with responsible gaming-related matters, or general player interactions, are routinely and appropriately trained in responsible gaming procedures. Employees must be qualified to look out for any players demonstrating signs or indications of gambling-related harm.

En usko että kasino operaattoreista kovinkaan moni noudattaa näitä heille annettuja sääntöjä, kannustan kaikkia saman ongelman kanssa tekemisissä olevia kopioimaan tuon tekstin ja pyytämään että kysyvät kasinoilta datan mistä näkyy että peliongelmaan on puututtu heidän puolesta.

I understand your point of view. Unfortunately, I still didn't receive any supporting evidence that you informed Boo or Galactic Wins Casino about your gambling problem.

Here is the confirmation from Boo Casino that your account has been blocked for 5 years.

Self-exclusions due to gambling problem are usually permanent. Do you have any relevant communication that would clarify the issue, please? Thank you in advance.

Hi,

thanks for the answer, although the answer did not take a position on the license conditions I presented.

I do understand the point of view that you should send an e-mail with the information that "Self-exclusion" concerns the game problem, but when you read my reasons for the matter, in the "player protection" section of the MGA license, the casino also has responsibility and, above all, the measures prescribed by the authorities which apply to the game problem and to that intervention.

When using the "Self-exclusion" game account closure, which can be selected via the responsible gaming link, according to the license, the casino must ensure that the ban in question does not apply to problem gambling, in my case at least this was not asked, so I would like the operator to provide an e-mail as proof of which issue was asked?

Remote Gaming :

What is the difference between a general account closure and a self-exclusion?

When a player requests an account closure this means that should the player wish to reopen the account later, they may do so simply by requesting this from the customer service team. While general account closures can be requested for many different reasons or no reason at all, it is important that the Operator confirms with the player that the closure request has not been made due to gambling issues or problematic gambling . Probing a player's Responses during this conversation is recommended to ensure that the Operator is entirely satisfied that the closure request is not related to gambling harm.

While an account which has simply been closed can be reopened later upon request, if the player Mentions problematic gambling or any issues related to their control of their gambling, the Operator must set a self-exclusion on the account. The self-exclusion can be for either a definite or indefinite timeframe, dependent on the player's request, the information provided by the player, and the Operator's discretion, which only extends as far as increasing the self-exclusion timeframe. The Operator must never apply a self-exclusion for a Shorter timeframe than the player's request, nor attempt to persuade or induce a player to set a Lesser timeframe.

A self-exclusion is different to a general account closure, as a self-exclusion is a responsible gambling tool which prevents a player from gaining access to the account for either a set timeframe, or indefinitely. If a self-exclusion is set, the account can only be reopened once the exclusion has expired, or on the Player's request, at the operator's discretion. Self-exclusions are designed to allow players to take a break from gambling, with the further security that there are additional steps to reopen the account.

Many operators do not block the player's account permanently, for many the longest time is exactly 5 years.

As a person with a gambling problem, after losing a lot of money, and at the point when I want to prevent my gambling through their responsible gambling link, by taking the longest "Self-exclusion" game account ban, it doesn't necessarily occur to me that I should send an email about it separately, and when the operator confirms that the game account closed, but does not ensure that the game account is closed due to a game problem and does not specifically mention in the confirmation that the closure is not related to a game problem, although this is clearly stated on the MGA website that they must do this, so I would like to ask where is the casino's responsibility with reference to the license?

In several similar discussions on this site, a person with a gambling problem simply cannot answer the complaint when all responsibility is transferred to the player and evidence is requested that the gambling problem has been mentioned somehow, and the casino is not asked to provide evidence that the data collected from the player does not indicate a gambling problem and the casino has intervened in the matter when problem gambling the criteria are met according to the license terms.

Moi,

kiitoksia vastauksesta, vaikkakin vastauksessa ei otettu kantaa minun esittämiin lisenssi ehtoihin.

Ymmärrän kyllä sen näkökulman että pitäisi lähettää sähköpostilla tieto että "Self-exclusion" koskee peliongelmaa, mutta kun luette minun perustelut asiaan, niin MGA:n lisenssin kohdassa "player protection" on myös kasinolla vastuu ja ennenkaikkea viranomaisen määräämät toimenpiteet mitkä koskevat peli ongelmaa ja siihen puuttumista.

Kun käytetään vastuullisen pelaamisen linkin kautta valittavaa "Self-exclusion" pelitilin sulkemista, lisenssin mukaan kasinon on varmistettava että kyseinen esto ei koske ongelmapelaamista, minun kohdalla tätä ei ainakaan kysytty, eli haluaisinkin että operaattori esittää tästä sähköpostin todisteena missä asiasta on kysytty?

Remote Gaming:

What is the difference between a general account closure and a self-exclusion?

When a player requests an account closure this means that should the player wish to reopen the account later, they may do so simply by requesting this from the customer service team. Whilst general account closures can be requested for many different reasons or no reason at all, it is important that the Operator confirms with the player that the closure request has not been made due to gambling issues or problematic gambling. Probing a player’s responses during this conversation is recommended to ensure that the Operator is entirely satisfied that the closure request is not related to gambling harm.

Whilst an account which has simply been closed can be reopened later upon request, if the player mentions problematic gambling or any issues related to their control of their gambling, the Operator must set a self-exclusion on the account. The self-exclusion can be for either a definite or indefinite timeframe, dependent on the player’s request, the information provided by the player, and the Operator’s discretion, which only extends so far as increasing the self-exclusion timeframe. The Operator must never apply a self-exclusion for a shorter timeframe than the player’s request, nor attempt to persuade or induce a player to set a lesser timeframe.

A self-exclusion is different to a general account closure, as a self-exclusion is a responsible gambling tool which prevents a player from gaining access to the account for either a set timeframe, or indefinitely. If a self-exclusion is set, the account can only be reopened once the exclusion has expired, or on the Player’s request, at the operator’s discretion. Self-exclusions are designed to allow players to take a break from gambling, with the further security that there are additional steps to reopen the account.

Usea operaattori ei estä pelaajan tiliä lopullisesti, monella se pisin aika on just sen 5 vuotta.

Peliongelman omaavana ihmisenä hävittyäni paljon rahaa, ja siinä vaiheessa kun haluan estää pelaamiseni heidän vastuullisen pelaamisen linkin kautta, ottamalla itselle pisimmän "Self-exclusion" pelitilin eston, niin ei siinä välttämättä tule mieleen että pitäisi laittaa asiasta sähköposti erikseen, ja kun operaattori vahvistaa että pelitili suljettu, mutta ei varmista pelitilin sulkeminen peliongelmaan ja ei erikseen mainitse vahvistuksessa että sulkeminen ei liity peliongelmaan, vaikka tämä lukee selvästi MGA:n sivuilla että heidän täytyy tehdä näin, niin haluaisinkin kysyä missä on kasinon vastuu lisenssiin viitaten?

Useassa samanlaisessa keskustelussa tällä sivustolla peliongelman omaava ihminen ei vaan jaksa vastata valitukseen kun kaikki vastuu siirretään pelaajalle ja pyydetään todisteita että peliongelma on mainittu jotenkin, ja ei pyydetä kasinoa esittämään todisteita että pelaajasta kerätty data ei viittaa peliongelmaan ja kasinon toimesta asiaan ollaan puututtu kun ongelma-pelaamisen kriteerit täyttyvät lisenssiehtojen mukaan.

Hi,

to add to the discussion the casino in question and their operator's actions where they should not have a MGA license due to fraudulent activity.

While playing, I received an email from their VIP host, which of course I didn't read right away, I read it after playing.

The VIP host had added a bonus to my account without my approval, and had put the conditions that must be followed regarding the bonus.

If you think about it from the point of view that I had won a large amount, then the casino would have denied the win and justified it as a violation of the bonus terms, which, based on the discussions, they brazenly take advantage of, even though I have not requested or accepted the bonus.

The activity is fraudulent and I would hope that your respected site would blacklist the operator in question.

Upon request, I will send a screenshot of the email, where the bonus is placed and the conditions are explained afterwards.

I've played on their site without bonuses, except for the €7 offer bonus, which doesn't affect the overall picture, but I couldn't get rid of it even when I tried for the first deposit.

Moi,

lisätäkseni keskusteluun kyseistä kasinoa ja heidän operaattorin toimintaa, jossa heillä ei pitäisi olla MGA:n lisenssiä petollisen toiminnan vuoksi.

Sain kesken pelaamisen heidän VIP-isännältä sähköpostia, mitä en tietenkään lukenut heti, luin sen pelaamisen jälkeen.

VIP-isäntä oli lisännyt tilinneni bonuksen ilman minun hyväksyntää, ja laittanut perään ehdot mitä täytyy noudattaa bonuksen suhteen.

Jos ajatellaan asiaa siltä kannalta että olisin voittanut ison summan, niin casino olisi evännyt voiton ja perustellut sen bonus-ehtojen rikkomiseen, mitä keskustelujen perusteella he käyttävät röyhkeästi hyväkseen, vaikka en ole pyytänyt tai hyväksynyt bonusta.

Toiminta on petollista ja toivoisin että teidän arvostettu sivusto laittaisi kyseisen toimijan mustalle listalle.

Lähetän pyydettäessä sähköpostista kuvakaappauksen, missä bonus on laitettu ja perään on selitetty ehdot.

Olen pelannut heidän sivuilla ilman bonuksia, lukuunottamatta 7€ tarjousbonusta, mikä ei vaikuta kokonaiskuvaan, vaan sitä ei saanut pois vaikka yritin ensimmäisen talletuksen kohdalla.

I want to emphasize once again that the 5-year block placed on your account strongly indicates that you did not disclose any gambling problem. If you possess any additional supporting evidence, please promptly forward it to petronela.k@casino.guru. Otherwise, I will regrettably have to dismiss your complaint.

Hi,

I have filed a complaint with mga about this case due to its diversity.

Moi,

olen tehnyt mga:lle valituksen tästä tapauksesta sen monimuotoisuuden vuoksi.

I understand, Casinoguruhelp. I hope they will be able to assist you with this issue.

Since we haven't received any supporting evidence that you requested self-exclusion due to a gambling problem and since you contacted the Licensing Authority already, I will close this complaint as "rejected". Nevertheless, if you receive any statement from the MGA and wish to update your complaint, please let me know at petronela.k@casino.guru. Wish you the best of luck and thank you for your understanding.