The player from Germany had won 1200 euros but had requested a time-out period, during which his account was reactivated prematurely after he answered questions. He lost his winnings immediately after reactivation and requested a refund, arguing that the casino had violated its own policy by allowing account access before the break period ended. The issue was resolved by concluding that the casino's actions did not constitute a violation justifying a refund, as a time-out was a preventative measure and not a strict self-exclusion. The player was unable to provide sufficient evidence of a gambling problem, which led to the closure of the complaint.
Igrač iz Nemačke osvojio je 1200 evra, ali je zatražio tajm-aut, tokom kojeg mu je nalog ponovo aktiviran pre vremena nakon što je odgovorio na pitanja. Izgubio je svoj dobitak odmah nakon ponovnog aktiviranja i zatražio povraćaj novca, tvrdeći da je kazino prekršio sopstvenu politiku dozvoljavajući pristup nalogu pre isteka perioda pauze. Problem je rešen zaključkom da radnje kazina ne predstavljaju prekršaj koji opravdava povraćaj novca, jer je tajm-aut bila preventivna mera, a ne striktno samoisključivanje. Igrač nije mogao da pruži dovoljno dokaza o problemu sa kockanjem, što je dovelo do zatvaranja žalbe.
Automatski prevedeno:
