Исполнение Pokerstars. Судя по всему, оплата не является добровольной (Страница 97)

So the provider who finances the process is called Tom Oarrow

Also der Anbieter der den Prozess finanziert heißt Tom Orrow

Hello, dear players!

while browsing Casino Guru News I literarily stumbled across an article titled "Austrian court orders player to reimburse an unlicensed gambling operator".

Do you know the ruling of the court? These articles are only available in English, so I was wondering if it would be okay if I posted the text here so that anyone can use the built-in auto translator.

This is an unexpected turn of events, in my opinion:

"The Austrian Supreme Court has come up with a surprise ruling that essentially allows an unnamed unlicensed gambling operator to seek and reclaim winnings paid out to an Austrian player in what must be one of the most peculiar such cases in Europe. There are a few caveats to observe, however, as reported by multiple industry sources.

Although similar cases have sprouted all over the place, with courts usually finding it appropriate for illegal operators to be on the hook and order them to repay winnings to players, the reverse has just happened in Austria.

Austrian courts side partially with unlicensed operator against player

The particular case covered by the Supreme Court concerns an unnamed operator that was based in Malta, offered gambling products to Austrian players, but did not have a license to do so.

A player who won €7,152.71 between May and July 2020 will now have to repay the operator, with the court acknowledging the operator’s complaint – that the market was illegal at the time when the player had gambled, and the winnings must be forfeited.

The player had deposited €22,000 and by July, they had amassed €29,100. Yet, the player will not be reimbursing the operator for the full €7,152.71 and will have to pay €626.60 to cover the operator’s legal fees instead.

The decision is surprising, not least because the operator in this case had acknowledged that it had operated without a license in the country, which makes it illegal.

This argument has held well in places such as the Netherlands, where before the new regulatory regime, unregulated operators were targeted with stiff penalties and the local regulator, the Kansspelautoriteit, has shown no relent in its pursuit of purported culprits.

But the Supreme Court has another goal in mind, as its decision seems to send a clear message to local players who may engage in offshore or unlicensed gambling, rather than sticking to the local monopoly.

Side with the player, and you invite the gambling addiction court to argue

In other words, the decision may serve as an example of what would happen to players personally if they were to engage in gambling that is not regulated by the country.

The court also explained that if players were the only ones asking back for their losses in the unregulated market, it would increase the risk of addiction as it would falsely instil the idea that gamblers can gamble without risk, and further argued that either of the two parties, that is to say, player or operator, can question the "contract," i.e. unregulated gambling, and seek their money back.

This is so because both parties had acted illegally, the court specified. The gambler has 14 days to comply with the order. Interestingly, in a previous case involving loot boxes, an Austrian court ordered Valve to repay €14,000 to a player who had spent the money on acquiring digital goods in Counter-Strike, a popular video game by the company."

(source: https://casino.guru/news/gambling-industry/austrian-court-orders-player-to-reimburse-an-unlicensed-gambling-operator--5608 )

Considering the primary subject matter of this thread, I believed you wished to talk about this relevant topic.

Hello!

I can understand this ruling completely, because it goes both ways. As soon as the losses are to be refunded, the illegal operator does not have to pay out any winnings, or can demand them back, but only the winnings that are higher than the deposits. Both have played illegally, so a player has no right to his winnings.

Hallo!

Dieses Urteil ist für mich völlig nachvollziehbar, denn es geht in beide Richtungen, sowie die Verluste zurück zu erstatten sind,muss der Illegale Betreiber keine Gewinne auszahlen,bzw. kann diese zurückfordern, wohlgemerkt,nur die Gewinne,die über den Einzahlungen liegen. Beide haben illegal gespielt,somit hat ein Spieler auch kein Recht,auf seine Gewinne.

In this case, only deposits were claimed without first deducting the withdrawals.

That's why I don't understand the outcry behind it - of course the casino will sue you back. There is a lot of media propaganda going on here - no normal person or PF only sues for deposits (without deducting the withdrawals first)

Bei diesem Fall wurden nur Einzahlungen geklagt, ohne davor die Auszahlungen abgezogen zu haben.

Deshalb verstehe ich den aufschrei dahinter nicht - natürlich klagt dich das Casino dann zurück. Hier wird viel Medienpropaganda betrieben - kein normaler Mensch bzw. PF klagt nur Einzahlungen (Ohne davor die Auszahlungen abzuziehen)

Hello!

In this case, it seems that the casino actually sued the player. The verdict was announced at the end of June.

I'm surprised that we haven't read anything about this yet. Perhaps the argument of the defendant's lawyer was not good, a ban on participation was never mentioned and this should really come into effect because the player was deliberately deceived, the legality of the game was suggested and the player could not have known that it was illegal. This ruling is definitely an isolated case and no reason to worry. The casinos will not come one after the other and sue for winnings that have been paid out.

https://ris.bka.gv.at/Document.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Fachgebiet=&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&Spruch=&Rechtsgebiet=Undefined&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&JustizVerscheidsart=&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&GZ=8Ob21%2f24g&vonDatum=& ToDate=06.08.2024&Norm=&ImRisSeitFromDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=631abfc7-d87f-490f-8ffb-f7715b 21cbb5&Document number=JJT_20240626_OGH0002_0080OB00021_24G0000_000

Hallo!

in dem Fall war es offenbar wirklich so, dass das Casino den Spieler verklagt hat. Das Urteil wurde bereits Ende Juni verkündet.

Mich wundert es, dass davon noch nirgends zu lesen war. Ggf. war die Argumentation des Anwalts der Beklagten Partei nicht gut, es wurde nie eine Komdiltionssperre angesprochen und diese müsste eigentlich zum tragen kommen, da ja der Spieler bewusst getäuscht wurde, die Legalität des Spiels suggeriert wurde und der Spieler nicht wissen konnte dass es illegal ist. Dieses Urteil ist definitiv ein Einzelfall und kein Grund zur Sorge. Die Casinos werden nicht der Reihe nach antanzen und ausbezahlte Gewinne einklagen.

https://ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Fachgebiet=&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&Spruch=&Rechtsgebiet=Undefined&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&JustizEntscheidungsart=&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&GZ=8Ob21%2f24g&VonDatum=&BisDatum=06.08.2024&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=631abfc7-d87f-490f-8ffb-f7715b21cbb5&Dokumentnummer=JJT_20240626_OGH0002_0080OB00021_24G0000_000

@Radka

The casino that sued the player is Bet365

Bet 365 has a rating of 8.9 on your website.

Bet365 offered illegal gambling, a player won and was then sued by Bet365. How can a rating of 8.9 be justified and what effect will this have on the rating? The casino is obviously dubious.

@Radka

Dae Casino das den Spieler geklagt hat ist. Bet365

Bet 365 hat auf eurer Website eine Bewertung von 8.9.

Bet365 hat illegal Glücksspiel angeboten, eine Spielerin hat gewonnen und wurde dann von Bet365 verklagt. Wie rechtfertig sich dann eine Bewertung von 8.9 bzw. welche Auswirkungen wird dies auf die Bewertung haben? Das Casino ist offensichtlich unseriös.

I figured out the same thing. As I saw in other comments on social media, "Two can play this game." 🙂. I'd say it fits.

I have a different opinion.

The casinos pretend to be legal, but then sue the player who won and claim that the offer was illegal. In return, however, they do not pay the judgments against them. Do you think that is fair, dear Radka? That is absolutely mafia-like behavior and absolutely dubious!

Ich bin da anderer Meinung.

Die Casinos gaukeln Legalität vor, klagen dann aber den Spieler der gewonnen hat und berufen sich auf die Illegalität des Angebots. Im Gegenzug zahlen sie aber die Urteile gegen sich nicht. Finden Sie das Fair, liebe Radka? Das ist absolut Mafiöses Verhalten und absolut unseriös!

Hi there.

Feel free to use the reply button, please.

I believe the explanation is that we concentrate on fairness rather than applying solely the legal aspect as attorneys. Actually, this is quite the part many people from heavily regulated countries dislike the most.

Have you ever heard about the Fair Safety Codex 👈? That's literally it.

Just imagine what you call illegal, we liken to sort of a restricted countries. Our point of view focuses on a fair chance to play and not being punished later.

"It is not acceptable to let players gamble if a casino knows that they are from a restricted country and if the casino plans to refer to the rule about restricted countries whenever a player requests their first withdrawal. This is completely against the rules of fair play, as the casino is knowingly letting a player wager money without a chance to actually win something in return.

Many casinos claim that this is difficult or impossible to implement into their systems, but it is simply about comparing the player's country of residence with the list of restricted or allowed countries; therefore, we do not consider it to be that difficult on a technological level."

Naturally, I am aware that attorneys would take a different tack. I believe that this is the difference.

There is only one horrendous difference, namely that the losses clearly outweigh the benefits and therefore more rulings are made in favor of players, but the casinos are now also considering paying out pure winnings after deducting the losses. Nevertheless, the casinos mostly have only themselves to blame. Since 2009, the first ruling by the European Court of Justice that their platforms are illegal without a license from the country and a consumer does not need to know, or in principle has to find out, whether the platform in question has a license from the respective country or just the EU license.

Es gibt nir einen horrenden Unterschied,das nämlich ,die Verluste deutlich überwiegen ubd deshalb mehr Urteile zu gunsten von Spielern gefällt werden, sich aber die Casinos wohl mittlerweile auch überlegen, reine Gewinne,nach Abzug der Verluste noch auszuzahlen. Trotzdem sind die Casinos ,meistens selber schuld gewesen. Seit 2009 ,erstes Urteil EuGH,das ihre Plattformen, ohne Lizenz, des Landes illegal sind ubd ein Verbraucher,nicht wissen muss,oder sich prinzipiell schlau machen muss,ob diejenige Plattform,eine Lizenz des jeweiligen Landes hat,oder halt nur die EU Lizens.

Dear player!

I brought this matter here so you have something to discuss related to the topic. I'm not here to explain the verdict or vote for any involved party because I'm not familiar enough with the case.

Also, I am a bit hesitant to act like a law expert because I'm not.

Feel free to express your opinion on that. Just don't expect some sort of judgement from me.

Some people feel provoked by this.

Manche fühlen sich davon provoziert.

Illegal online gambling is getting more and more out of control. Since Austrian and German players can now claim back their gambling losses in Malta casinos without much effort, more and more casinos with a license from Curaçao are opening their doors. The real owners usually remain hidden. The tricks used against players are becoming more and more brazen. A lawyer from Curaçao is now taking decisive action against these companies.

Curaçao as a stronghold for mafia online casinos

If you take a closer look at new online casinos, you will quickly notice that a Curaçao license is usually used. There are four so-called master licenses, issued by Antillephone or Curacao-eGaming, for example. The licensing bodies are not the state itself, but companies that resell the license they receive as sub-licenses. There are currently only minimal requirements to obtain such a license: the payment of manageable annual fees and the fulfillment of extremely low requirements.

So-called trust companies take care of setting up the necessary companies, bank accounts and applying for licenses. The total costs are low. For around 15,000 euros you can have the required company structure, the gambling license and the bank accounts in Curaçao and, for example, Cyprus, where the money from the gambling customers ends up in another company. The business model of the active trust companies is: secrecy. In most cases, a managing director appears in the company register who is appointed by the trust company itself - at the request of the real owners. They remain anonymous. Finding out who is actually acting as the ultimate owner behind an online casino is practically impossible. The number of cheated players is constantly increasing. Those affected cannot expect help from official bodies. The cheated players are left alone with their problems. At least almost, because a lawyer in Curaçao fights tirelessly for players all over the world who have been cheated by Curaçao casinos.

Dirty tricks & fake games

The anonymity of the people involved brings with it many risks for gambling customers. The real owners feel safe and often act unashamedly with this protection from revealing their own identity. Customers are often fobbed off with questionable methods when making withdrawals, and documents that are supposedly required are arbitrarily requested in order to deny withdrawals. Existing account balances are simply frozen or deleted for incomprehensible reasons. Companies that operate largely operate as they please. In most cases, they do not have to expect any consequences. Gambling in Curaçao is still not properly regulated, there is a lack of supervision, and complaints to the licensing authorities often go unanswered.

The operators' tricks are by no means limited to delaying payouts. The provider Rabidi NV, for example, which operates a large number of different casino brands with a Curaçao license, sometimes uses copies of Novomatic/Greentube and Play'N Go games. These games, which are popular with players, look like the originals, but they are copies. This copy is not recognizable to the average consumer. Only when looking at the technical details does it become apparent: the games are loaded from an unofficial server. Novomatic is currently investigating the reported cases, but has previously confirmed that only games offered on win2day are legal for Austrian players.

Das illegale Online-Glücksspiel gerät immer mehr außer Kontrolle. Seitdem Rückforderungen von Spielverlusten österreichischer und deutscher Spieler in Malta-Casinos ohne großen Aufwand geltend gemacht werden können, eröffnen immer mehr Casinos mit einer Lizenz aus Curaçao ihre Pforten. Die wahren Eigentümer bleiben dabei meist im Verborgenen. Die zur Anwendung kommenden Tricks gegenüber den Spielern werden immer dreister. Ein Anwalt aus Curaçao geht nun entschieden gegen diese Unternehmen vor.

Curaçao als Hochburg für mafiöse Online-Casinos

Sieht man sich neue Online-Casinos näher an, fällt sehr schnell auf: Meist kommt eine Curaçao-Lizenz zur Anwendung. Vier sogenannte Master-Lizenzen gibt es, ausgestellt etwa von Antillephone oder Curacao-eGaming. Hinter den lizenzvergebenden Stellen steht aber nicht der Staat selbst, sondern Unternehmen, die ihre erhaltene Lizenz als Sub-Lizenzen weiterverkaufen. Um zu solch einer Lizenz zu kommen, gibt es derzeit nur geringe Anforderungen: Die Zahlung von überschaubaren Jahresgebühren und das Erfüllen von äußerst niedrigen Anforderungen.

Sogenannte Trust-Companies kümmern sich um die Errichtung der dazu notwendigen Firmen, Bankkonten und Lizenz-Beantragung. Die Gesamtkosten sind niedrig. Bereits ab rund 15.000 Euro ist man im Besitz der benötigten Firmenstruktur, der Glücksspiel-Lizenz und den Bankkonten in Curaçao und beispielsweise Zypern, wo die Gelder der spielenden Kunden in einer weiteren Gesellschaft landen. Das Geschäftsmodell der tätigen Trust-Companies lautet: Geheimhaltung. In den meisten Fällen scheint ein Geschäftsführer im Firmenregister auf, der von der Trust-Company selbst eingesetzt wird – auf Wunsch der wahren Eigentümer. Diese bleiben anonym. Herauszufinden, wer tatsächlich hinter einem Online-Casino als ultimativer Eigentümer agiert, ist praktisch unmöglich. Die Anzahl betrogener Spieler wird immer größer. Hilfe von offiziellen Stellen kann ein Betroffener nicht erwarten. Die betrogenen Spieler bleiben mit ihren Problemen allein. Zumindest fast, denn ein Anwalt in Curaçao kämpft unermüdlich für Spieler auf der ganzen Welt, die von Curaçao-Casinos betrogen wurden.

Schmutzige Tricks & gefälschte Spiele

Die Anonymität der agierenden Personen bringt für spielende Kunden viele Gefahren mit sich. Der wahren Eigentümer fühlen sich sicher, agieren oftmals mit diesem Schutz vor Offenlegung der eigenen Identität ungeniert. Kunden werden bei etwaigen Auszahlungen oftmals mit fragwürdigen Methoden vertröstet, willkürlich werden angeblich benötigte Dokumente angefordert, um Auszahlungen zu verwehren. Bestehende Kontostände werden mit unverständlichen Gründen einfach eingefroren oder gelöscht. Agierende Unternehmen arbeiten zu einem guten Teil, wie sie wollen. Konsequenzen müssen sie in den meisten Fällen keine erwarten. Das Glücksspiel auf Curaçao hat bis heute keine ordentliche Regulierung, es mangelt an Aufsicht, Beschwerden bei den Lizenzstellen bleiben oft unbeantwortet.

Die Tricks der Betreiber sind aber keinesfalls auf verzögernde Auszahlungen beschränkt. Der Anbieter Rabidi N.V. beispielsweise, der eine Vielzahl verschiedener Casino-Marken mit Curaçao-Lizenz betreibt, verwendet zum Teil Kopien von Novomatic/Greentube- und Play’N Go Spielen. Diese bei Spielern beliebten Spiele sehen dabei aus wie die Originale, es handelt sich jedoch um Kopien. Für den Normalverbraucher ist diese Kopie nicht erkennbar. Erst bei technischer Betrachtung fällt auf: Die Spiele werden von einem inoffiziellen Server geladen. Novomatic untersucht die gemeldeten Fälle aktuell, bestätigte jedoch bereits zuvor dass lediglich auf win2day angebotene Spiele für österreichische Spieler legal sind

Hello. All these casinos operating under the eGaming Curacao license are unreliable. CURACAO issues licenses to four companies, which in turn issue licenses to thousands of websites without any supervision. Obtaining a license has been very cheap so far. Casinos with a Curacao license are not very trustworthy and there are thousands of articles on this topic. Can you tell me if it is normal that a journalist investigating the case of illegal gambling in Curacao and money laundering is murdered on the beach in broad daylight (9 shots) and politicians were presumably involved in the whole process? Another journalist who was also interested in gambling in Curacao had to leave Curacao and was placed in the witness protection program in the Netherlands. Does this happen in a normal country? Almost all casinos with an eGaming Curacao license are unreliable and violate regulations. I would like to give an example that does not refer to Curacao, but to a license from Canada. I lost over 100,000 euros in this casino. What turned out was that they had a low RTP value and, in addition, they were not allowed to operate in Germany. It was difficult to win anything with them, they cheated the players. I wrote to them but received no response. I wrote to the commission that issued the license, the KAHNAWAKE GAMING COMMISSION. I received the answer that I had to sort it out with the casino, they could not do anything - nothing new, so one hand washes the other. After sending an email to Moicasino support, after a week access to the website from a German IP address was blocked. Since I had no other choice, I wrote to them that I was ready to come to an agreement. They offered me 10,000 euros, I refused. After two months, I had no other choice and agreed. I received 10,000 euros from the casino. Of course, in the documents I signed, they did not admit anything, but wrote that it was an act of goodwill on their part. Now I am wondering if a casino that operated illegally and intentionally lowered the RTP value should refund the player the entire amount? So please don't tell me how honest the casinos in Curacao are, that they operate legally and that the players who lose money at them can ask for a refund if they are not allowed to operate in the respective country. The license from Curacao is worthless and not very trustworthy. There are hundreds of articles on this topic. Rollingslots was not allowed to operate in Germany, they broke the law and should refund the funds. Best regards. This is my personal opinion because when I read some of the comments on CasinoGuru I get angry. I am curious if most people on the forum agree with me. Attached is the confidential contract with moicasino.com as proof. Best regards.

Guten Tag. All diese Casinos, die unter der Lizenz von eGaming Curacao operieren, sind unzuverlässig. CURACAO erteilt Lizenzen an vier Firmen, die wiederum Tausenden von Webseiten Lizenzen ohne jegliche Aufsicht erteilen. Die Erlangung einer Lizenz war bisher sehr günstig. Casinos mit einer Curacao-Lizenz sind wenig vertrauenswürdig, und es gibt tausende Artikel zu diesem Thema. Können Sie mir sagen, ob es normal ist, dass ein Journalist, der den Fall illegalen Glücksspiels in Curacao und Geldwäsche untersucht, am helllichten Tag am Strand ermordet wird (9 Schüsse) und vermutlich Politiker in den gesamten Prozess verwickelt waren? Eine andere Journalistin, die sich ebenfalls für das Glücksspiel in Curacao interessierte, musste Curacao verlassen und wurde in das Zeugenschutzprogramm in den Niederlanden aufgenommen. Passiert so etwas in einem normalen Land? Fast alle Casinos mit einer eGaming Curacao-Lizenz sind unzuverlässig und verstoßen gegen Vorschriften. Ich möchte ein Beispiel nennen, das sich zwar nicht auf Curacao, sondern auf eine Lizenz aus Kanada bezieht. In diesem Casino habe ich über 100.000 Euro verloren. Was sich herausstellte, war, dass sie einen niedrigen RTP-Wert hatten und außerdem nicht in Deutschland operieren durften. Es war schwer, bei ihnen etwas zu gewinnen, sie haben die Spieler betrogen. Ich schrieb ihnen, aber erhielt keine Antwort. Ich schrieb an die Kommission, die die Lizenz erteilt hatte, die KAHNAWAKE GAMING COMMISSION. Ich erhielt die Antwort, dass ich das mit dem Casino regeln müsste, sie könnten nichts tun – nichts Neues also, eine Hand wäscht die andere. Nachdem ich eine E-Mail an den Support von Moicasino geschickt hatte, wurde nach einer Woche der Zugang zur Webseite von einer deutschen IP-Adresse gesperrt. Da ich keine andere Wahl hatte, schrieb ich ihnen, dass ich bereit wäre, mich zu einigen. Sie boten mir 10.000 Euro an, ich lehnte ab. Nach zwei Monaten hatte ich keine andere Wahl und stimmte zu. Ich erhielt von dem Casino 10.000 Euro. Natürlich gaben sie in den Dokumenten, die ich unterschrieben habe, nichts zu, sondern schrieben, dass es ein Akt des guten Willens von ihrer Seite sei. Nun frage ich mich, ob ein Casino, das illegal operierte und den RTP-Wert absichtlich senkte, dem Spieler den gesamten Betrag zurückerstatten sollte? Also bitte erzählen Sie mir nicht, wie ehrlich die Casinos in Curacao sind, dass sie legal operieren und dass die Spieler, die bei ihnen Geld verlieren, eine Rückerstattung verlangen können, wenn sie nicht in dem jeweiligen Land operieren dürfen. Die Lizenz von Curacao ist wertlos und wenig vertrauenswürdig. Es gibt Hunderte von Artikeln zu diesem Thema. Rollingslots durfte in Deutschland nicht operieren, sie haben das Gesetz gebrochen und sollten die Gelder zurückerstatten. Mit freundlichen Grüßen. Dies ist meine persönliche Meinung, denn wenn ich einige der Kommentare auf CasinoGuru lese, werde ich wütend. Ich bin gespannt, ob die meisten Leute im Forum mir zustimmen. Anbei der vertrauliche Vertrag mit moicasino.com als Beweis. Mit freundlichen Grüßen.

Hello.

Provoked by what, please? This is the real situation that has been unfolding, which is closely tied to the entire discussion. Though discussions might be thought-provoking, it is evident that this is a significant issue given the context of the conversation from the outset. If my memory serves me correctly, no one has ever brought up this event before, but some players even indicated they were aware of it.

I believe that every coin has two sides.

I have already noticed that some threads only function when participants have a similar tone; voicing disagreement with others through opinions is not appropriate for everyone. Please let me know if this is what you meant.

I just brought the information here; the rest is up to each and every one of you.

Hello.

That is a really great addition; it took me a while to read it all. 🙂

While casinos are profit-driven businesses, any reduction in fixed costs is generally welcomed, I believe that the main reason Curacao, and other similarly acquired licenses, have become so popular with international and offshore companies is because of their moderate regulations and low costs. Decentralized laws, regulations, and requirements, on the other hand, leave far too many blind spots.

Regretfully, the current approach to locally restricting "illigal" gambling also serves to attract more highly vulnerable players or even casual players to the unregulated websites. A certain amount of international regulation, maybe established for entire continents rather than for individual nations, would, in my opinion, lessen the harm.

Speaking about harm now, I prefer to have the choice to play not just in a locally licensed casino but also in any other casino of my choice. At any casino I like to play at, I am willing to accept the consequences of losing.

This explains why offshore casinos continue to be so well-liked, I'd say.

As a result, they favor welcoming participants from highly regulated markets. Legality is not something that interests me personally, and I am well aware that most players here do not feel the same way I do. However, I see no reason to take the casino to court as long as these establishments treat these players fairly and permit them to play and withdraw just like everyone else.

On a local level, there is also the issue of self-excluded players. I agree that things are entirely different—or, perhaps more accurately, far worse—in that regard. I assume that if I were to develop an addiction, I would view things entirely differently.

The following is likewise a fairly intricate point:

I just had a conversation about "fake games" with our data team yesterday. We both agree that players can hardly tell original games from copies these days, and that certain providers occasionally use what are essentially "unofficial servers." We have seen games loading from strange sources in the past; because we could not keep up with the provider, we added a warning to players. This game provider contacted our Data Team quickly after the warning was released, stating something like, "It is ok, these are our servers anyway, we just do not want to use the usual one."

I have some theories, but I dare not guess why. Well, theories only.

No wonder many players feel like something is not right with the gambling industry. 🙁

In any case, it was nice talking to you. Thank you.

Good morning !

Of course you would have to.

The problem with you is that you agreed to a settlement, certainly with a confidentiality clause. This means that all legal claims have now been settled with the settlement.

Best regards

Guten Morgen !

Na sicher müssten Sie das.

Das Problem bei Ihnen ist aber,Sie haben einem Vergleich zugestimmt, sicherlich, mit einer Verschwiegenheitsklausel. Somit sind alle rechtlichen Ansprüche nun ,mit dem Vergleich abgegolten .

Viele Grüße

According to the latest case law, which many courts now follow, up to the OLG, it is not decisive whether the player knew about it or not, almost all courts in Austria now also judge exactly the same.

Nach der neuesten Rechtssprechung,die Viele Gerichte mittlerweile folgen,bis zum OLG, ist es nicht ausschlaggebend,ob der Spieler davon wusste,oder nicht,genau urteilen mittlerweile auch fast alle Gerichte, in Österreich

I believe I came upon it in an article. I appreciate you bringing that up.

It matters, in my opinion, if the player was aware of the license prior to the deposit. But I said, that's because I'm more focused on overall fairness than legal matters. I am aware of how poorly it fits in here.