Casino guru unfair practices

I opened a complaint and it was closed due to the casino not responding. The casino reopened the case a year later and I missed it as I was dealing with a terminally ill child. Now I have asked to have it reopened and they said it is past the 6 month time frame. Why did they re-opened it for the casino after the 7 months and not me? Any insights on this.

Unfortunately, there was a change in the practices our complaint team uses, you know.

We used to deal with complaints that were no more than 1 year old but had to change it to 6 months now. It is due to the fact that usually casinos don't keep any documents in their archive for that long, and then we are unable to investigate the matter, you know.

So, now we have to reject all the cases that are more than 6 months old because of this.

I am really sorry for this inconvenience and that it happened to you this way. I wish you and your family all the health more than anything, of course.

Why did you reopen it for the casino then?

This change was made only a few months ago, actually, because many casinos were unable to provide us with information older than 6 months. That is why we don't deal with complaints older than that.

Well, obviously it's not a reasonable and fair way to handle the situation, for 2 reasons:

1) If we are talking about the same procedure, especially one that was started when the old rules were applicable, then the given timeframe should be granted for both parties.

2) If the casino was able to respond to the complaint 7 months later, then obviously they are keeping data for over 6 months, so the case could be handled.

If you are unhappy with our procedures, please turn somewhere where you will be happy.

We are pretty okay with everything we do here and how we handle all complaints.

Thank you.

Why are we not discussing the topic related concerns, Romi?

Please write in one post what else you would like from us.

I just reflected on this specific topic that stamps22 started, Romi.

A forum is for discussing matters, here we have a situation in which Casino Guru used a double standard, because you changed your terms "mid procedure", thereby creating unfair advantage for one party who was already "guilty" of the same deadline violation.

Don't you think it's an unfair way to conclude a procedure? Don't you think that Casino Guru is supposed to provide a reasonable exception for stamps22 to conclude the procedure according to the terms she started it with?

So this is not even your issue we are talking about here.

Are you this user's lawyer or something?

Unfortunately, as we came to the finding that casinos are unable to provide us with information that is more than 6 months old, we had to change the approach. We deal with hundreds of complaints every day, and if there is no point in investigating something for which we won't get any information from the casino, there is no point in losing our precious time to try to get it. All this comes from our long experience.

We surely did not change anything "mid-procedure," as you said. You have wrong information about that.

So, if our complaint team is unable to help, and we know that for sure, it is explained to the user, and it ends there.

So, please stop going round in circles here, because it is only a waste of time.

Thanks.

So this is not even your issue we are talking about here.

Are you this user's lawyer or something?

What kind of approach is that? It's a public forum about complaints and how they are handled. Everyone has the right to share their opinions, reflect on the matter, and try to make this place better.

We surely did not change anything "mid-procedure," as you said. You have wrong information about that.

"Unfortunately, there was a change in the practices our complaint team uses, you know."

"This change was made only a few months ago, actually"

All of these were written by you. So yes, it was during mid procedure, because according to the old rules stamps22 still had time to reflect on her case, and since you took this away from her, you created a double standard, and gave an advantage to the casino.

Please think it through, don't get personal, and answer accordingly.

Thanks.

Perhaps you should concentrate better when reading other users' complaints next time.

This user you write about stopped responding to our team; no one rejected those complaints from our team, so please stop writing nonsense.

It is really my last message to you regarding this because I already have lost a lot of time with this.

You stop whenever you want, but it doesn't change facts.

I'll write it down very simply for you:

1. stamps22 openned the case with terms that include that she has the option to re-open it in 1 year if she has anything to add to it.
2. The casino ran out of time, and lost the case
3. You let the casino to re-open the case a year later
4. stamps22 was busy with other things and didn't reply in about half a year (so she didn't even take as long as the casino)
5. You refused to do this, because you changed your terms all the while according to the old rules, the rules she knew and was applicable when the complaint was created, she still had 5 months to re-open the case.
6. Now the casino "won" because you changed the rules while the procedure was still active according to the rules that you've changed in the meanwhile.You didn't provide the same terms for both parties in the very same procedure.

So it's not fair, it's a double standard.

It's not about justice, and it's not about a neutral, fair ADR, as you don't conclude the procedure according to who is right and who is not, but according to your terms that you create along the way.

Hi LAZZ,

I understand you see it differently, but you are missing some key facts:

• The complaint procedure in question was already inactive because the player stopped responding to our team. There was no "mid-procedure" change affecting an active case.
• The update to our practices was not targeted at any specific complaint or user —it applied to all new and pending cases at the time, precisely because casinos do not keep detailed records beyond six months. Continuing old cases in such situations leads nowhere.
• We treat both parties by the same rules. The casino’s case you refer to was re-opened within the framework that existed at that time. The player’s situation fell under the updated approach, which we apply consistently to everyone.
• 
  

We are not an ADR body and do not make rulings "for" or "against" anyone, we simply investigate where it’s possible to get evidence and a realistic resolution. When it’s not possible, the case is closed.

At this point, we are ending this one-sided exchange, as nothing we explain is being objectively taken into account. Further posts that simply repeat accusations we have already addressed and openly explained will be removed since the right to express an opinion does not mean the right to troll. If you cannot change your approach, this forum may not be the right place for you. Think about that for a second.

I don't understand why you want to cut every dicussion matter short. I'm not trolling at all, but I didn't get answers from Romi to my questions so I had to "repeat myself". You answered to the actual concerns, which I appreciate!

There was no "mid-procedure" change affecting an active case.

As for the case not being active at the time, is not true in a sense, that according to the old rules which were accepted by both the player and the casino it could've been activated again as the player was in the timeframe. If I do something long term, that I have an agreement on, the agreement usually doesn't get changed when the framework changes. The framework change will affect new cases, not cases that are initiated before that change.

The update to our practices was not targeted at any specific complaint or user —it applied to all new and pending cases at the time, precisely because casinos do not keep detailed records beyond six months. 

I'm not accusing you of targeted discrimination towards stamps22, but I say, that the change created an unfair advantage to the casino nonetheless.

Also in this specific case the casino obviously stores data for longer than half a year, as they could reflect on the matter a year later. So a fair solution could be achieved.

Okey so I will repeeat it all once more:

I get that you see my replies as trying to end the discussion quickly but it is really the opposite. Once everything has been explained and it is clear we simply see it differently, going in circles will not change anything and just takes time away from cases where we can actually help.

You mentioned that the rule change gave the casino an unfair advantage. I understand why you might think that but that ignores the real reason behind it. If we accepted complaints long after the events when the casino no longer has any verifiable records, that would not be fair to the player either because without evidence the case cannot be resolved in any meaningful way.

That is why the updated practice applied to all new and pending cases. It was the only way to make sure we work with information that can actually be verified. There is also a difference between a player abandoning their own complaint which happened here and a casino coming back months later to address an accusation. These two things are not the same and the rules reflect that.

If you still feel this was unfair I am sorry to hear that but from our perspective nothing unfair was done here and we have already addressed every point that could reasonably be addressed. I also understand that you are trying to explain to us that things could be done better but a change will not be made based on this forum thread because there is another side to the coin and fair means fair to everyone.

So thank you but there really is nothing more to add. I really hate to say that.

I am writing to express my significant frustration and disappointment regarding the handling of my dispute with power play. I feel that I have not been represented fairly, and a lack of communication on your part has made this process even more difficult.

Lack of Communication and Case Handling

When this dispute was first opened, you informed me that the casino had stopped responding and that there was nothing more you could do. I understood this to mean that the case was closed and I no longer needed to actively monitor the thread.

I was shocked to discover, seven months later, that my case had been reopened without any direct notification to me. During that time, I was preoccupied with a severe family matter. Had I been notified, I would have responded immediately.

The Casino's Unjustified Actions

This dispute is a clear-cut case of the casino refusing to pay me my winnings.

 * Initially, they refused to pay my $1,900 winnings without a valid reason, and then closed my account.

 * Afterward, they sent me an email inviting me to sign up again. I took this as a gesture of good faith and created a new account. However, upon winning again, they once more withheld the money, this time claiming I had "numerous accounts." This is an absurd and illogical claim, as they were the ones who explicitly banned me and closed my original account.

I find it particularly egregious that they paid my husband for his winnings, despite him allegedly violating the exact same "imaginary rule." The only difference was the amount, as he was paid for a $200 win. This suggests that their decision to pay or not pay is based solely on the size of the winnings, not on any consistent policy.

$1,900 is a substantial amount of money for me, but this issue is about more than just the money—it's about the casino's lack of integrity and morality. I am still extremely upset that my winnings have been unjustly withheld, and I feel that you have not truly advocated for me, the wronged party, throughout this process.

.

It seems strange that the casino replied seven months later one month after the cutoff date you had established. If your role is to advocate for players, I urge you to recognize the unfairness of their practices and advocate for my case.

Could you please be specific and tell us about which complaint you wrote here?

I can see that all 3 of your complaints were unfortunately closed due to your unresponsiveness, so it looks like this is not just a one-time thing. 🤷‍♀️