Bogus Complaint Intercasino does not pay me

[Tobster]

Hello,

First i wanted to say sorry that my report is that long, i just didnt know how to make it shorter and still get all details in it. So i added cliffnotes at the end of the post for ppl that dont want to spend the time reading all this, which i understand.

I signed up at intercasino.com on the 26th of july. Prior to that i read the terms and conditions to make sure intercasino accepts germans etc etc.
Then i deposited 200 euros and got 200 euros bonus and played a slot called batman which is my favourite slot. Around one hour after having signed up I was winning around 7800 euros and tried to withdraw some of my winnings(3000 euros) after having fullfilled the wagering requirements.

I was then asked for an utility bill and a copy of my ID for verificationpurposes, which i sent to them. They got accepted, i thought i ll recieved my withdrawal, but instead got asked for a second verificationprocess instead, this time they asked for a picture of me holding my ID next to my face and a notarized ID including the name, adress and phonenumber of the notar notarizing it. I was kind of annoyed getting asked to verify myself twice but i then went to the notar, got the notarization including his personal infos and paid for the service.

After i sent the documents i was expecting to recieve my withdrawal now quickly after having sent 4 different verificationdocuments but instead as an answer i got another email, this time asking me about my internetconnection. I said im usually trying to use vpn as much as possible, since my friend told me its safer to surf in the internet like that these days, especially if u expect ur connection to be not safe. I never said i actually used vpn that day, since it has been like a month since i won those 7800 euros and i couldnt remember with certainty if i did or not, since sometimes i forget to use it.

So after i replied that, i recieved the following email:

"Dear Tobias,
Account Number: 1312***
Alias: tobi*******

You have severely violated our terms and conditions(link below) by masking your real IP address. Therefore, your account has been terminated.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Please pay special attention to clause 16. UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR:

Masking IP or location is not allowed. The Licensor reserves the right to close any accounts and void any bets if the account was created through the use of IP or geolocation masking technologies (including but not limited to VPN, Proxy Servers etc).

If the Licensor suspects that you have engaged or attempted to engage in fraudulent, unlawful, dishonest or improper activity while using the Ecash Service or the Games, including without limitation engaging in game manipulation, or the making of any fraudulent payment, or use of a stolen credit or debit card or fraudulent chargeback or money laundering, the Licensor shall be entitled to take such action as the Licensor sees fit, including, but not limited to seizing any funds in your account, reversing any payments made to you, seeking any civil or criminal remedies available to the Licensor and to share the information with authorities and with payment processing partners subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

You shall indemnify and shall be liable to pay the Licensor all costs, charges and losses sustained or incurred by the Licensor or other end-users of the Ecash service or the Games (including direct, indirect or consequential losses, loss of profit and loss of reputation, and payment for the time of any fraud investigation) arising directly or indirectly from your fraud, dishonesty or criminal act.

If you would still like to file a complaint with our regulators - LGA (Lotteries and Gaming Authority) please find below respective contact details:

LGA (Lotteries and Gaming Authority): Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)
Link Removed (Old/Invalid)
Email: [email protected]

Regards,
Leo
Anti-Fraud & Risk Department"


1. In my opinion it is unfair denying a customer his winnings for using a vpn which most people do these days because of safety reasons like i explained before, especially after this user provided 4 different documents verfying his identity. I understand the fact that casinos have to proctect themselfs against fraud, but i sent them every possible verificationdocument a casino could ask for. I wouldnt mind them calling me or come say hello at my home if that helps the case.

2. Like i said, i read the terms and conditions before signing up on the 26th of july and the clause 16 that intercasino relys on didnt even exist back then. I remember exactly the terms and conditions stopped after clause 14.4 and there were no more clauses after this one.

So i read the article in this forum on how to post a complaint and it said that a player should always contact the forummember representing the casino in here first. So i sent a message to the intercasino representative of casinomeister telling him my problem hoping this was just a misunderstanding and they didnt realize they changed the T&C's after me winning the money. I wrote a big report of what happened including all details, but his answer was simply that i broke the term 16 stating no vpn allowed and thats it pretty much. Like he wouldnt even talk about the fact that i explained him im sure this term didnt exist when i signed up, just ignored most of what i said which made me feel quite bad.
So i realized i needed to find proof that the terms were different before and so i got advised in another forum to use the website called waybackmachine.org, which permits you to see what websites looked like in the past. So i took a look at intercasino terms and conditions and there it was, the site had memorized the intercasino terms and conditions. The closest ones the 26th of july when i signed up were the 12th of july and the 26th of june, both show that the terms and conditions were different and the clause 16 didnt exist.

Here is a screenshot of what the terms and conditions look like after the change has been made and what it looks like today:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And here is a screenshot of what the terms and conditions looked like on the 26th and 12th of july:
26th june:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

12th july:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So like i said all in the beginning, the terms and conditions stopped after 14.4 and the term 16 didnt even exist and i was glad having found a way to show that the terms and conditions were different before.
I decided to send the intercasino representative a message asking when exactly they added the clause 16 to their terms and conditions. Here is a screenshot of my message and his answer:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

"The terms and conditions relating to that section have not changed since the last 6 years. "

So now i sent him the screenshot of july and said i have a screenshot of july proving that what you said isnt true, the clause didnt even exist back then, so why do you say the section hasnt changed in 6 years?
He ignored the screenshot and everything i said and just answered i can go complain at the LGA if i want.

I then called intercasino. They gave me the email of the head support manager. I explained my issue and again asked for the date that the term 16 has been added to the terms and conditons, the answer was that the last amendment to the terms and conditions has been made in june 2012, which is not true as u can see in screenshots above. Here is the screenshot of the email of the head support manager:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I feel shocked the way i am being treated by intercasino, especially since they have an accredited status on casinomeister. I always talked in a polite and respectful way with the representatives trying to get them to admit it was a mistake or whatever, but i just get ignored and no real answers to my important questions. I really would appreciate casinomeister helping me with this case.

Cliffnotes:

1. Read terms and conditions, deposited 200 euros at intercasino, got 200 bonus, won around 7800 euros on 26th of july

2. Got asked for ID+utility bill, i sent them, got asked for picture holding ID+notarized ID, i sent them.

3. After having recieved 4 verification documents from me they ask what connection i use, i say i try to use vpn as much as i can for safety reasons, they email back i violated term 16 that says no vpn allowed.

4. Term 16 didnt exist when i signed up, which i told them since the beginning because i remembered reading before signing up, i got ignored.

5. I ask cm intercasino rep what date they added clause 16 exactly, he answers this clause hasnt been changed in 6 years. I ask same question to head support manager, the answer is last amendment to the terms and conditions have been made in june 2012.

6. I used waybackmachine.org to show screenshot of july(12th) that shows term 16 didnt exist, proving that intercasinos claim isnt true, again screenshots and what i said gets ignored.

Kind regards,
Tobias

 

[Googobucs]

It does not matter what the T & C said when you signed up, it matters what the T & C said when you played. Did that term exist when you played?

FYI - This is very common for casino's to not allow VPN's so I would suggest you not use it again any place you play or you will be dealing with this again.

 

[Tobster]

It does not matter what the T & C said when you signed up, it matters what the T & C said when you played. Did that term exist when you played?

FYI - This is very common for casino's to not allow VPN's so I would suggest you not use it again any place you play or you will be dealing with this again.

Hi Googobucs,

Sorry i think i should have pointed that out better, i played and was winning 7800 euros around 1 hour after signing up, so yes the term didnt exist when i won the money.

 

[petro]

I think OP has a case here.

I verified it with Wayback Machine myself.
The available evidence is strong enough to convince me that the terms were changed when he/she went to make a withdrawal.

The Wayback Machine is more trustworthy than a casino rep.

Did that term exist when you played?

It most likely didn't.

so yes the term didnt exist when i won the money.

You might know that but we don't. But I would say it's likely that the term didn't exist.

 

[patricius]

Intercasino is accredited so I will follow this thread with interest.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/online-casinos/reviews/intercasino/

Although when trying to see a rep contact/mail none is found.


Hope everything will be solved the right way.

 

[Finn]

Even if they added that term later, ban on VPN usage could have been implied somewhere in earlier version of terms and conditions, most casinos are against VPN usage.

For example this from July 2014, I'm not saying this would be the most relevant, it was just one of the first terms the "GENERAL PROMOTION TERMS & CONDITIONS" .

Unless otherwise expressly stated in the specific terms of the promotion, promotions are available only once per PC, person, family, household address, e-mail address and credit card number. InterCasino reserves the right to impose further limits in respect of accounts originating from environments where computers are shared (i.e.) university campuses, fraternity, school, public library, workplace, etc.

University campuses, work place networks often use VPN.

 

[Tobster]

Even if they added that term later, ban on VPN usage could have been implied somewhere in earlier version of terms and conditions, most casinos are against VPN usage.

For example this from July 2014, I'm not saying this would be the most relevant, it was just one of the first terms the "GENERAL PROMOTION TERMS & CONDITIONS" .



University campuses, work place networks often use VPN.

I never knew some casinos dont like vpn and i never had a single problem with any casino because of this.
But yes, i agree and understand now that its definatly better to not use it while playing in a casino. However it doesnt change that there was no term against vpn use while i won the money. I read the "new" and "old" terms and conditions several times and didnt find anything that forbids the use of vpn or anything like that.

 

[Googobucs]

If the terms changed after you played, and they are using those terms to deny payment then you should immediately stop posting and PAB.

Link Outdated / Removed

Be sure to read all of the terms associated with this before you do so.
If it's that cut and dry then I think you have a good case and Max may be able to help you resolve it.

 

[dunover]

I can't find the term either so it does seem it was added recently.
If so you have a very decent PAB case as they can't apply terms retrospectively.

I must say that common-sense decrees you don't hide your IP from someone who is potentially going to be paying you their money, especially online casinos. It could be used to get bonuses from bonus-banned countries and to play illegally.

Intercasino aren't rogues and the CS rep isn't lying, they probably genuinely don't know when and by whom the terms were changed. If you PAB they will look into it and give Max an honest answer as to when they were changed.

Good luck.

 

[Finn]

I said im usually trying to use vpn as much as possible, since my friend told me its safer to surf in the internet like that these days, especially if u expect ur connection to be not safe.

Pretty much the only unsafe connection that really benefits from VPN is public WLAN/Wifi and you should not play casinos when using bonuses at public wlan/wifi just like you should not play with bonuses when using university network, workplace network, library network etc.

I never knew some casinos dont like vpn and i never had a single problem with any casino because of this.
But yes, i agree and understand now that its definatly better to not use it while playing in a casino. However it doesnt change that there was no term against vpn use while i won the money. I read the "new" and "old" terms and conditions several times and didnt find anything that forbids the use of vpn or anything like that.

Most legitimate uses of VPN involve connecting to university networks, work place networks etc. Using VPN is essentially concealing your true identity. Outside of the extra security in public Wlan/wifi, this is pretty much the only use of VPN for private citizens.

Private citizens use VPN to conceal their true identity so that national authorities don't tag them for their torrent piracy activities

Nine-year-old's home raided by Finnish police for illegal download

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Also private citizens use VPN to get around country-restrictions, this would be mostly people outside of US trying to see newest episodes of TV shows that are country-restricted US-only, this is also a form of deception.

 

[dunover]

Pretty much the only unsafe connection that really benefits from VPN is public WLAN/Wifi and you should not play casinos when using bonuses at public wlan/wifi just like you should not play with bonuses when using university network, workplace network, library network etc.



Most legitimate uses of VPN involve connecting to university networks, work place networks etc. Using VPN is essentially concealing your true identity. Outside of the extra security in public Wlan/wifi, this is pretty much the only use of VPN for private citizens.

Private citizens use VPN to conceal their true identity so that national authorities don't tag them for their torrent piracy activities

Nine-year-old's home raided by Finnish police for illegal download

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Also private citizens use VPN to get around country-restrictions, this would be mostly people outside of US trying to see newest episodes of TV shows that are country-restricted US-only, this is also a form of deception.

Not in this case, as he has submitted all the documents requested proving his identity.

 

[Beravek7]

Intercasino aren't rogues and the CS rep isn't lying, they probably genuinely don't know when and by whom the terms were changed. If you PAB they will look into it and give Max an honest answer as to when they were changed.

Good luck.

No chance that was a coincidence. The player is very lucky he could find a DEFINITE prove of "casino fraud".

 

[petro]

The player is very lucky he could find a DEFINITE prove of "casino fraud".

My thoughts as well. Having evidence handy at times like these is very lucky.

If you think about it could anyone prove what they were doing 6 hours ago for instance?
Not many could and I've been in situations like that before, a minor traffic offence where I could not prove myself innocent, even though I was.

 

[Beravek7]

Why I say the guy was lucky is because this wayback machine is not always useful with the cases like this. Once I had a similar problem: casino changed the terms and conditions and applied them to my gameplay retroactively. I tried to find a prove at wayback machine website. But it turned out that they only scanned that particular T&C webpage some six months ago so I did not have any definite prove.

 

[Tobster]

Why I say the guy was lucky is because this wayback machine is not always useful with the cases like this. Once I had a similar problem: casino changed the terms and conditions and applied them to my gameplay retroactively. I tried to find a prove at wayback machine website. But it turned out that they only scanned that particular T&C webpage some six months ago so I did not have any definite prove.

Yes thats true, i think the waybackmachine takes more screenshots of a site the bigger its traffic is, so if the site you played was kinda small you might be out of luck i guess . Since intercasino is quite big they saved the site like once a month fortunatly, i really had no idea how to prove it otherwise, big thanks to those guys making the site available for free.

 

[patricius]

Since the waybackmachine worked (

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

) the issue is not vpn, proxy, etc. now but only for the T & C on the date the bets were made and money won ( and money deposited and not refused by casino).

Without a presented limitation/restrition in the beginning by the casino T & C on that date all correct answers/responsabilities must consider those restrictions not valid for this case.

And why request all documents first (as only depending on it to pay ) until arriving to the "different" T & C limitation? And not the opposite at first - even after deposit?

 

[dunover]

Since the waybackmachine worked (

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

) the issue is not vpn, proxy, etc. now but only for the T & C on the date the bets were made and money won ( and money deposited and not refused by casino).

Without a presented limitation/restrition in the beginning by the casino T & C on that date all correct answers/responsabilities must consider those restrictions not valid for this case.

And why request all documents first (as only depending on it to pay ) until arriving to the "different" T & C limitation? And not the opposite at first - even after deposit?

Because it would be a nightmare for the casinos to pre-verify players, and as a result it is done at the time of their first withdrawal to make it efficient. This is when they'll spot any discrepancies.

 

[Finn]

I can't find the term either so it does seem it was added recently.
If so you have a very decent PAB case as they can't apply terms retrospectively.

I must say that common-sense decrees you don't hide your IP from someone who is potentially going to be paying you their money, especially online casinos. It could be used to get bonuses from bonus-banned countries and to play illegally.

Even if the specific VPN ban wasn't in the terms, the casino could argue that adding it was just an extra service to the small minority whose common-sense doesn't tell them that since using VPN conceals your real IP, using VPN is not allowed just like providing any other false or fraudulent information is not tolerated.

If common-sense says that "VPN = IP forgery" it should be pretty easy to find some term that applies from the older version of T&Cs.

 

[Tobster]

Even if the specific VPN ban wasn't in the terms, the casino could argue that adding it was just an extra service to the small minority whose common-sense doesn't tell them that since using VPN conceals your real IP, using VPN is not allowed just like providing any other false or fraudulent information is not tolerated.

If common-sense says that "VPN = IP forgery" it should be pretty easy to find some term that applies from the older version of T&Cs.

I verified my identity multiple times, there is no risk of me being fake or whatever. They can even call the notar and ask about me since i asked him to add all his personal informations to the notarization.
The reason most casinos give why they dont like vpn is to prohibit fraud the way i understand it, but i dont see the risk of fraud in my case because of what i said above, so this doest make sense.
And i stand with my point that there is no valid term that forbids the use of vpn apart from this newly added term 16. I mean this is the reason why they added it, if there was sth forbidding vpn before already, they wouldnt create this additional term to double forbid it. Also in every email i got as an answer they say the reason they dont want to pay is because i violated the term 16, nothing else, only relying on the term 16, if there was any other term i violated they wouldve mentioned it.

 

[Finn]

With some feedback it can be very easy to get extra clarifications added to terms and conditions, whether they are necessary or not.

Let's look at the case of : Markus VS TradaCasino

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/markus-vs-tradacasino-viaden-gaming.48111/?t=48111

Terms and Conditions before this case clearly covered Markus' selfmade casino client hack.

But he tried to be a smart ass with comments like

As an example, this is a specific rule from another casino:

You will place all wagers on Games through the various user interfaces provided on our site and you will not wager through other means, including the use of a "robot" player;

TradaCasino do not have a specific rule like this!

Nowadays TradaCasino actually has exactly this specific rule. Does this mean that TradaCasino conceded that Markus had right to use his selfmade casino client under the previous T&Cs when they copied this specific rule that Markus gave as an example. Of course not.

 

[Finn]

I verified my identity multiple times, there is no risk of me being fake or whatever.

Yeah, but intentionally providing any false information at any stage can and has led to forfeiting of winnings on many accredited casinos, even upon later verification. For example there has been PABs against some other casinos where player had provided obviously made up cell phone number because he thought that is just a nice way to avoid spam, and at verification he provided correct phone number, but that didn't help, he didn't get paid and his PAB failed.

 

[Tobster]

With some feedback it can be very easy to get extra clarifications to be added to terms and conditions, whether they are necessary or not.

Let's look at the case of : Markus VS TradaCasino

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/markus-vs-tradacasino-viaden-gaming.48111/?t=48111

Terms and Conditions before this case clearly covered Markus' selfmade casino client hack.

But he tried to be a smart ass with comments like



Nowadays TradaCasino actually has exactly this specific rule. Does this mean that TradaCasino conceded that Markus was right when they copied this specific rule that Markus gave as an example. Of course not.

They are relying only on term 16, nothing else, so i dont understand why u compare my case to this thread. If intercasinos old terms wouldve had sth forbidding vpn they wouldve used that as a reason to not pay instead of taking the risk of adding an additional term forbidding vpn afterwards, risking to get caught like they did, which is obviously really bad for their reputation.
Also i am not trying to be a "smart ass", im just looking for help to get this solved. I really dont understand how you can act like what they are trying to do is okay.

 

[patricius]

T & C exist to assure Casino/Players the level of safety and confidence one hopes to get from each other relation, in a regulated way ( online gambling in this example ).

Laws ( not common sense or moral ones ) are written and they (must) have a stamp of date/time to entrust those who fall by them in a time frame. If they are elastic they´re useless. Because a written word has a specific meaning not a future intended one ( that´s why laws, and terms change trough adaptation to new situations).

If there´s a clear violation of a term is one thing. Creating a new one to "accomodate" any specific situation not previously defined is changing rules without consent and prior knowledge off all, breaking trust.

 

[paul7388]

I am guessing you came here to get help.

If so then best thing to do is submit the PAB and Max will deal with your complaint quickly. If the casino is in the wrong you will get paid the money.

There is absolutely no point getting into any debate with the members here about whether you are right or wrong. Best thing is to read the rules on submitting a PAB then do it. And once you submit it you should make no more comments about the complaint until it is settled or it can affect your case.

 

[Tobster]

Submitted PAB, thanks alot everyone.

 

[maxd]

PAB received, I'll process it tomorrow morning.

@ Tobster : Please ensure that you have read and understood the Pitch-A-Bitch FAQ. It is required reading for all PABers. Among other things the FAQ details your responsibilities in the PAB process (section 3.11), including NOT posting on our forums about your issue while the PAB is in progress.

If you know and respect the FAQ things should proceed smoothly.

 

[Finn]

They are relying only on term 16, nothing else, so i dont understand why u compare my case to this thread.

Even if the CS rely just on that, it is probably because they don't know when that clarification was added, and can't be bothered to point all the other sections that ban using of any extra software that tampers with normal casino-pc interaction and sections that ban providing of false identity information.

My point is that not everything that is banned by terms and conditions is done in specific examples. Even if the acronym VPN was not mentioned in old terms and conditions, it was probably banned under old terms and conditions because of what the use of VPN is.

Using VPN involves VPN software. When you use VPN when playing at casino, you use a software to conceal your real IP from casino. Usually all casinos have T&Cs that ban anykind of tampering with the normal PC-casino interaction with any extra software and terms than ban providing false identification information. So use of VPN would be banned under most casinos' terms and conditions even if the word VPN is not mentioned.

VPN in private use has been usually associated with creating false identification information to avoid getting nailed for piracy or getting around country restrictions, so casinos haven't felt it necessary to mention it separately, but have thought that the general bans on providing false information and software tampering are enough. This trend of over-use of VPN for supposed extra security is relatively new, and it would be nice if more casinos added mention of VPN to terms and conditions, but most Terms and conditions ban VPN implicitly even if the actual word doesn't appear there.

 

[patricius]

A possible definition of retroactivity:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Just to remember what another member said above about an open PAB: "And once you submit it you should make no more comments about the complaint until it is settled or it can affect your case. ".

Regards to all.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Even if the CS rely just on that, it is probably because they don't know when that clarification was added, and can't be bothered to point all the other sections that ban using of any extra software that tampers with normal casino-pc interaction and sections that ban providing of false identity information.

My point is that not everything that is banned by terms and conditions is done in specific examples. Even if the acronym VPN was not mentioned in old terms and conditions, it was probably banned under old terms and conditions because of what the use of VPN is.

Using VPN involves VPN software. When you use VPN when playing at casino, you use a software to conceal your real IP from casino. Usually all casinos have T&Cs that ban anykind of tampering with the normal PC-casino interaction with any extra software and terms than ban providing false identification information. So use of VPN would be banned under most casinos' terms and conditions even if the word VPN is not mentioned.

VPN in private use has been usually associated with creating false identification information to avoid getting nailed for piracy or getting around country restrictions, so casinos haven't felt it necessary to mention it separately, but have thought that the general bans on providing false information and software tampering are enough. This trend of over-use of VPN for supposed extra security is relatively new, and it would be nice if more casinos added mention of VPN to terms and conditions, but most Terms and conditions ban VPN implicitly even if the actual word doesn't appear there.

Scare marketing is being used by some VPN vendors in order to convince users that they NEED this extra layer of "security" on top of anti virus, firewall, etc. It doesn't help that thanks to Wikileaks it has emerged that a number of former tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories about "big brother" snooping on ordinary citizens have actually been true all along.

VPN is also used as a means to enforce the original specifications of the internet against the efforts of vested commercial interests who want to bugger it up for their own ends. It's only "piracy" because these commercial interests have defined the term's meaning, not because it actually IS something bad in all cases.

I don't think the VPN vendors are being honest with their customers about the NEGATIVE consequences of using this "security enhancing" product, as it enhances the security of one party at the expense of the security of another.

 

[maxd]

Based on good evidence that the casino's Term prohibiting the use of VPNs well pre-dates the OP's time at the casino we conclude that the casino's actions against the OP are fair and fully justified.

Those in doubt should check the same resource the OP used: Wayback. Look at Intercasino's Terms dated 26 March 2014. Clause 16 of the Terms is clearly there and most definitely prohibits VPNs. The fact that the June and July snapshots on Wayback show something different appears to be a failing of Wayback. It is very odd that the Terms are hacked off right at the point where the previous Terms showed a divider.

The debate about VPNs notwithstanding the OP violated the Terms, Terms that are common to most casinos in the business. Stupid mistake or sloppy fraudster, either way the axe fell and rightly so.

 

[The Dude]

I'm surprised it went this far. The "no VPN" term has been there for the past couple of years. The Wayback machine is not infallible. It doesn't archive everything - sometimes pages get truncated or skipped. But this term appears at least back in 2012:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Bottom line is never ever use a VPN when logging into a service that is limited to certain jurisdictions. There are obvious requirements between a casino and its licensing jurisdiction.

 

[petro]

That concluded with a very strange twist in the story.
Maybe it was just a flaw in the wayback machine, it could have been hacked even.

 

[Tobster]

Based on good evidence that the casino's Term prohibiting the use of VPNs well pre-dates the OP's time at the casino we conclude that the casino's actions against the OP are fair and fully justified.

Those in doubt should check the same resource the OP used: Wayback. Look at Intercasino's Terms dated 26 March 2014. Clause 16 of the Terms is clearly there and most definitely prohibits VPNs. The fact that the June and July snapshots on Wayback show something different appears to be a failing of Wayback. It is very odd that the Terms are hacked off right at the point where the previous Terms showed a divider.

The debate about VPNs notwithstanding the OP violated the Terms, Terms that are common to most casinos in the business. Stupid mistake or sloppy fraudster, either way the axe fell and rightly so.

First i want to thank you for your effort talking to the casino in my case. You are offering free help to players which is really nice, so i appreciate that eitherway.

Unfortunatly i find the way you are arguing stunning. Basically u are saying the screenshots before june and july in waybackmachine are legit, but the screenshots from june and july, there mustve been sth that went wrong or the machine didnt work well. really?? Like if its in the interest of the casino the machine is acceptable as evidence, but when its not, it must be a bug and cant be accepted? By the way, i knew the casino would come up with something like that, saying waybackmachine is not reliable, since it is the only evidence i can get a hold off. They know without this i have no chance of proving it. This is sad.

How could this ever be a bug? Like all terms and conditions of june and july screenshot are there, but only the last ones are missing, like someone copied them out or how could this ever be a bug? I guess its pretty obvious whats going here, but saying it out loud probably isnt a good idea, everyone can think for themselfs.

Anyway, thanks to everyone that participated in this thread. I will take my next steps now and keep fighting for my money.

If anyone knows a way to find proof about the terms and conditions of the 26th of june on intercasino PLEASE pm me

 

[The Dude]

...

If anyone knows a way to find proof about the terms and conditions of the 26th of june on intercasino PLEASE pm me

What I was getting at earlier is that the Wayback machine is a useful tool - it is not 100% fool proof. Some pages may be incomplete or truncated. The licensing jurisdiction would have all copies of each and every terms and conditions page. You could contact them for this. We didn't since the Way Back machine confirmed that section 16 of their terms has existed for a least 2 years.

 

[patricius]

The PAB ended. The result was ok because, IMHO, it resulted in the question of the wayback machine validity. And in this case it goes both ways. Honestly I hopped a compromise was attained. That was not the case.

Sometimes I ask myself how many people play at online casinos ( how many read the T & C fully?! ) and play trough proxies, tunneling, vpn, etc. and the casinos accept the money they lose and no money is returned, besides knowing the place ( IP address ) they are playing from...

If I make a connection to a site/internet address the same is traceable - even if to a VPN, etc. So If I as a player use a VPN there are ways to trace If I´m "tunneling" an address or not from the start. Since player deposit.

Many universities, workplaces, etc. only allow internet access trough them ( VPN, proxies, etc) . And not all casinos have SSL secure access ( and that also is not fully secured ) and if casinos want people to play everywhere ( tablets, smartphones, etc. ) they must adapt to time, and not the opposite.

Most sold tablets are Wifi only, and most people use Wi-fi in hotspots. Those change IP frequently and many times are protected trough VPNs ( a VPN is also used in corporate communication networks to secure data and avoid leakage). So I think I will only play online at home. And even there my SP changes IP sometimes ( dynamic IP are for regular/home costumers). Fixed IP are for companies.

Even some casinos won´t allow the creation of password longer than x characters, or with wildcards, minimizing OP protection.

In the link bellow you can check if your connection is trough a proxy and many more helpful info. Use it before playing online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Regards to all.

 

[Beravek7]

So the player identified himself through all possible ways yet he was not paid because he made a mistake (clearly unintentional) of using VPN service? Hmm... Anyway I am glad for Intercasino and congratulate them on inventing more new ways of increasing their casino's overall house advantage!

 

[The Dude]

So player identified himself through all possible ways yet he was not paid because he made a mistake (clearly unintentional) of using VPN service? Hmm... Anyway I am glad for Intercasino and congratulate them on inventing more new ways of increasing their casino's overall house advantage over players!

Ok - we get it - you're pissed because your PAB failed. But you've become a troll. Either knock it off or take a hike. Thank you.

 

[Beravek7]

Ok jokes aside, it looks like the OP somehow sneaked into the past and changed the things there. Reminds me of "Back to Future" Spielberg's blockbuster.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The PAB ended. The result was ok because, IMHO, it resulted in the question of the wayback machine validity. And in this case it goes both ways. Honestly I hopped a compromise was attained. That was not the case.

Sometimes I ask myself how many people play at online casinos ( how many read the T & C fully?! ) and play trough proxies, tunneling, vpn, etc. and the casinos accept the money they lose and no money is returned, besides knowing the place ( IP address ) they are playing from...

If I make a connection to a site/internet address the same is traceable - even if to a VPN, etc. So If I as a player use a VPN there are ways to trace If I´m "tunneling" an address or not from the start. Since player deposit.

Many universities, workplaces, etc. only allow internet access trough them ( VPN, proxies, etc) . And not all casinos have SSL secure access ( and that also is not fully secured ) and if casinos want people to play everywhere ( tablets, smartphones, etc. ) they must adapt to time, and not the opposite.

Most sold tablets are Wifi only, and most people use Wi-fi in hotspots. Those change IP frequently and many times are protected trough VPNs ( a VPN is also used in corporate communication networks to secure data and avoid leakage). So I think I will only play online at home. And even there my SP changes IP sometimes ( dynamic IP are for regular/home costumers). Fixed IP are for companies.

Even some casinos won´t allow the creation of password longer than x characters, or with wildcards, minimizing OP protection.

In the link bellow you can check if your connection is trough a proxy and many more helpful info. Use it before playing online.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Regards to all.

Well, this just shows how inaccurate geolocation is. I have the SAME IP address as yesterday, probably because I haven't turned the modem and router off, yet instead of CORRECTLY being located to Bracknell, this site erroneously has my IP address in POOLE, which is not even in the same COUNTY! It's about 100 miles away, but this was more than the 60 miles away that once tripped out my Neteller account for not looking as though I was not logging in from home (I wasn't, but with dynamic IP, it should not have made the difference).

For some, 100 miles could put them in a completely different COUNTRY. It's less than 30 miles from Dover to France, and this has certainly happened to mobile device users, and resulted in a big bill for "foreign use" even when they were using their device on the south coast of England.

Now, if mobile internet can't be told apart from VPN use, or come to that, work and university internet, then the current system could become unworkable unless casinos give up on the idea of "play on the go" and insist that people ONLY play from home, on their own internet connection, and it being the same connection they used to register the account.

 

[maxd]

The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.

 

[Tobster]

The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.

I understand what you mean. I agree that the waybackmachine is no 100% proof since it could be broken or the site not working correctly maybe, however we both agree i guess that it is way more likely that its not broken, works like its supposed to and the terms actually havent been there in june and july like shown in the waybackmachine like im said since the beginning, right? And im talking about significantly more likely, hard to put it in numbers, but like 99% the machine actually works fine and 1% the website doesnt funtion right etc, sth like that. I saw it with my own eyes when i signed up, those terms just werent there, i know my personal opinion doesnt matter, but i hope u can understand why im so persistent about this.

On another hand i never confirmed that i used vpn. When they asked me what internet service provider and type of connection i use, this is what i answered:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

After i sent that email saying i might have used vpn, their answer was directly your account has been terminated, you violated the terms and conditions. They took it as a fact right away that i used vpn, even tho i never said i actually did! Yes it is more likely that i used vpn, but theres still a decent chance i didnt, since it happened many times before that i forgot to turn on the vpn before opening the browser.

Immediately terminating my account based on the fact I may have used a VPN, seems, at best, a ridiculously harsh line to take. would the casino have taken this line if I had lost? or I had a small amount in my account? it seems to me the casino took this line because my account was a significant (to me) amount and this was enforced purely to benefit/profit the casino. they asked me for all kindsof IDs, upto notarised documents, which I took the time to go and get AND PAY FOR, before this decision was taken. I truly, wholeheartedly appreciate the effort the guys at CM have taken into looking into this for me, please don't think I am ungrateful. I quote Max: "the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it." - it really strikes me that a casino with such an apparently good reputation can take such a stern line over what was an honest answer to what I felt was an innocent question. if I was devious, or a "poor fraudster" I would obviously have known to say "no I did not use a VPN". I did not. I answered honestly and said I wasn't sure.

and now I think about it: why did they ask me this particular question about the VPN AFTER asking me to get (and receive and review) my notarised documents? Surely a request for notarised documentation should be the final request, considering the customer has to take time, effort and money to acquire this. I feel like they were just setting me up at every turn so they could find ANY reason to terminate my account and default my winnings.

 

[vinylweatherman]

The thing with Wayback is that it is flaky. That's my own statement by the way, the casino people simply said they didn't give a toot what was on Wayback and would have nothing to do with it.

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

So, Wayback. As long as Wayback has been around it has been a great resource but it has never been advertised nor promised as a full, formal and reliable copy of the pages it archives. Graphics are missing, links not preserved, pages not spidered correctly, etc.

The bottom line with Wayback is that if you can find the thing you are looking for and it's there before your eyes then yeah, there's a good chance it's worthwhile evidence. But if what you are looking for is not there, as in it is missing or broken or somesuch, then Wayback isn't particularly useful BECAUSE of it's well known history of problems. Are you looking at the full and complete page as it was on the date specified or is it a partial fubar'd copy? No way of telling and there are no guarantees made.

Years ago I contacted Wayback to ask about a page I thought was f'd up. They thought it was a joke that I had the brass to complain about it. "It's a free service," they told me, "what you see is what you get" and made no apologies for it.

So no, Wayback is not a particularly reliable resource. Interesting and often enlightening but NOT to be taken as iron-clad 100% proof of anything.

They must also have been absolutely certain that they were in the right, else it would have been a big risk on their part to bluff and think the OP or yourself would fold, rather than contact the LGA for the formal date stamped copy.

The OP could always do this, and prove either way whether the wayback machine got it wrong, or whether the casino bluffed it's way through a lie. Casinos know full well the consequences of lying to Max or Bryan, and getting caught, so this is why I believe they must have been 100% certain to have simply dismissed the evidence from the wayback out of hand.

 

[patricius]

Timing is all and bellow Tobster sentence resume it well:

"and now I think about it: why did they ask me this particular question about the VPN AFTER asking me to get (and receive and review) my notarised documents? Surely a request for notarised documentation should be the final request, considering the customer has to take time, effort and money to acquire this. I feel like they were just setting me up at every turn so they could find ANY reason to terminate my account and default my winnings. "

Even the classification of the complaint as "bogus" disturbs me regarding the word meaning:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

A non-accepted complaint or not ending in favor of the OP should be called other thing: reserved, unnacepted, lost, closed, etc.


And if presented solely the fact of the LGA ( or any away/distant jurisdiction regulator ) is any kind of "assurance" for me is not enough ( just google players complaint and malta government enquiries to LGA itself to take your conclusions ). In gambling ( and in particular online gambling ) there are no sacred cows.

So as a gambler ( online and B & M ) this case was a valuable lesson.

Thanks to all.

 

[petro]

I saw it with my own eyes when i signed up, those terms just werent there, i know my personal opinion doesnt matter.

I wouldn't classify that as "personal opinion." I would define an opinion as something that is without evidence. (Seems to be the best definition.)

If you saw it with your own eyes that is evidence. But it's only evidence for you.
Your word as well counts for something; it's evidence.

Have a look at this thread here: Link Outdated / Removed

Unless I'm hallucinating the spins on Red Hot Devil did.

It would be good if someone else could confirm what I'm saying.

Usually our senses are pretty reliable evidence but they are not infallible.
I'm not saying you didn't see what you saw. I'm only pointing out the possibility that you could be mis-remembering like I did in that thread.

They must also have been absolutely certain that they were in the right, else it would have been a big risk on their part to bluff

I was going to mention this as well except I would have left out the "absolutely certain" part as I'm pretty sure that's not possible.

 

[Tobster]

Dear Max/Casinomeister

I am respectfully asking that you remove "Bogus Complaint" from the title of this thread. I don't feel there's anything bogus about it and that I have a geniune complaint:

I complied with all of Intercasinos requests which were quite long, including a request for notarised documents which I paid for. Only after they reviewed and accepted these documents did they ask this question about whether I was using a VPN, which I answered honestly and said I didn't know. Why are they asking for notarisation and pictures of ID and everything if their plan was to ask this question and void my account anyway? As soon as I sent this answer my account was immediately closed and balance witheld. That seems a little heavy handed for an "I don't know", doesn't it? Especially since all of my info had already been reviewed and accepted.

Is this really a bogus complaint, or fair? They asked for everything short of my DNA, and when I answered one question honestly without either an affirmative or negative statement they jumped on it. They just refused to talk to me about it and all and basically gave me the middle finger, all over an answering a question with an I don't know? Looking back now, it really looks to me look they were just hoping to catch me on anything.

Im just really amazed I have been dealt with so harshly, but I guess it's because I got "lucky" and won so much. I am really trying to be respectful but I am quite upset and angry and just looking for help

 

[maxd]

My vote is that your request be declined.

I don't believe you used a VPN accidentally, I don't believe that the Terms were fubar'd when you signed on, I don't respect the way you gave selective information from Wayback, and I don't give much credence to your complaints about the documents. I am responsible for the "Bogus Complaint" prefix on your thread, I believe it is appropriate and I believe it should stand.

My suggestion would be for you to use "Report Post" on your request and leave it to Bryan to make the final call.

 

[Tobster]

My vote is that your request be declined.

I don't believe you used a VPN accidentally, I don't believe that the Terms were fubar'd when you signed on, I don't respect the way you gave selective information from Wayback, and I don't give much credence to your complaints about the documents. I am responsible for the "Bogus Complaint" prefix on your thread, I believe it is appropriate and I believe it should stand.

My suggestion would be for you to use "Report Post" on your request and leave it to Bryan to make the final call.

Max, I am disappointed you don't believe anything. How did I give select info on wayback? I just gave all the information I could find on wayback around the timeframe i signed up, i thought those were valid, i would never have imagined that someone would call this proof non valid because the site might be broken. I HONESTLY don't even know if I used a VPN and i never said anything about accidently, i often use vpn intentionally while in the internet, because my friend, who is a programmer, advised me to do so to protect myself while online. I dont know anything about this stuff, but if he says that it must be true. I don't know what I can do to prove my case about this. I am also unsure what is actually being implied here. if I was lying, I would've said I wasn't using one, surely? You don't give much credence about complaints about documents? I'm not sure I fully understand (I'm german my English isn't 100%) but you're saying it doesn't matter they asked for notarised stuff that I went out and paid for, accepted them, then asked more questions?

I want to do anything to prove myself, i could even travel to intercasinos headoffice and meet with the manager, so he can see me in person if that helps.

 

[stokes]

My first thought after reading the thread was that thank God I don't play at Intercasino.

I have made the same mistake (I believe) several times since I have been playing online. I work from home 2 times a week and use company VPN which has IP address from other country. Sometimes during my breaks or after my work I played without logging out from VPN.

I have never had issue about it. No notarized document was ever requested and I was paid 2-4000 USD a couple of times without hassle.

Of course my casino has term against VPN usage, but I think they would only use it against any player if they had any credibility problem with the player's ID. This should not be a question here after providing notarized documents.

 

[bigjohn]

My first thought after reading the thread was that thank God I don't play at Intercasino.

I have made the same mistake (I believe) several times since I have been playing online. I work from home 2 times a week and use company VPN which has IP address from other country. Sometimes during my breaks or after my work I played without logging out from VPN.

I have never had issue about it. No notarized document was ever requested and I was paid 2-4000 USD a couple of times without hassle.

Of course my casino has term against VPN usage, but I think they would only use it against any player if they had any credibility problem with the player's ID. This should not be a question here after providing notarized documents.

Notarized documents don't show where the playing took place. That is the point of not using any VPN service (I'm not saying the OP did) when playing on-line.

The question of what particular instances to apply the T&C's is a moot point, players should always assume that the casino will interpret their terms to the letter as they are justified in doing.

I don't know what happened in this case but the CM PAB decision has been rendered and I really don't think Intercasino has any need to hold back player winnings for no reason as the OP has suggested.

 

[chayton]

As far as the casino is concerned the only full and formal record of what was on a given page of the site at any point is the records held by the LGA. Apparently part of their licence requires that they submit a date-stamped version of a web page when changes are made, hence the record being held there. They invite us, the OP or anyone else to contact the LGA for further info.

Actually that's an interesting tidbit of information. Personally I quite like the fact that a casino licensee can't just change the terms and fudge about WHEN they changed them. I wonder if other licensing jurisdictions have the same type of term and keep those records? If so that would settle a lot of the complaints where a player said "That term wasn't there when I played."

@ the OP, The term was obviously there before the time you played and again after. If you sincerely think you're in the right, why don't you contact the LGA? It's possible that there was a glitch when whoever uploaded that file and maybe the LGA record will prove you right.

Of course if the LGA record proves the term was there the whole time, then you'll have to suck it up and move on. But either way, you'll get your answer. There's nothing to be gained by complaining about it here, Max has done all he can, and your next step should be the LGA.