Online Casinos in general: Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Best Online Casinos
Hot Topics19th Dec. 2024 at 12:54 am CET
-
GiJoe2, today at 12:26 am CET
-
Ariana, yesterday at 11:50 pm CET
-
Leemoni, on 11th Dec. 2024 at 02:30 pm CET
-
Dude30, today at 12:48 am CET
-
frapi07, today at 12:08 am CET
-
Anonymus, yesterday at 11:50 pm CET
-
Langhans_innen, yesterday at 11:45 pm CET
-
Theodor, yesterday at 11:41 pm CET
-
heidi444, yesterday at 10:48 pm CET
-
frapi07, yesterday at 10:18 pm CET
-
rambo23, yesterday at 09:42 pm CET
-
Max1989, yesterday at 09:16 pm CET
-
zocker0815, yesterday at 06:43 pm CET
-
SixtyNine69, yesterday at 06:26 pm CET
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 04:47 pm CET
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 04:40 pm CET
-
JJepsa96, yesterday at 04:36 pm CET
-
Donnie, yesterday at 02:18 pm CET
-
ExCaL, yesterday at 01:51 pm CET
-
Goeki72, yesterday at 12:54 pm CET
-
rebirth75, yesterday at 12:00 pm CET
-
Scatters_Support, yesterday at 09:31 am CET
-
miketrey00, on 17th Dec. 2024 at 11:15 pm CET
-
slotliebe89, on 17th Dec. 2024 at 06:15 pm CET
-
SixtyNine69, on 17th Dec. 2024 at 04:53 pm CET
-
Jenn-R, on 17th Dec. 2024 at 01:46 am CET
10 million fraud with manipulated scratch card in ...
Netherlands: Meticulous action against gambling sponsorship ...
GambleJoe Team
JulianCommunity-Manager / Complaint Specialist
CounterSoftware developer
MatthiasProject manager
DanielFounder
Community Forum-Moderators
Members who assist the GJ team in moderating the forum.
Andre
gamble1
Langhans_innen
livecounter_GJTester
Saphira
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
now the Online Casinos are striking back. Money has now been claimed from the casino because gambling was illegal in Austria and the casino has been proved right.
https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000231687/frau-gewann-7000-euro-in-onlinekasino-jetzt-muss-sie-das-geld-zurueckzahlen
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Liked this post: Anonym
Fortunately, that can't affect me because I'm not even close to being in the black at almost any casino.
But it's pretty stupid that the casino got it right. After all, it was the casinos that made their website accessible to players and it was probably their responsibility to be aware of the legal situation. From a purely logical point of view, I can't understand the ruling at all.
And as for the current case: I can't imagine how that would work. If the player sues, then she can only do so if she is in the red overall. So how can the same Provider suddenly demand a refund?
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
Well, just because something is accessible doesn't mean you have to do it or you should find out in advance whether the action you want to take is permitted
About the article :
It's a bit strange, especially since it also mentions the offsetting thing
I can only imagine the player suing for the last 3 years, but the casino paid the player 10k 5 years ago, which is not included in the calculation, so the casino is in the red and demands the money back, which is correct if you keep in mind the point that everyone refers to with the contracts that are null and void
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
Many casinos have advertised directly on the Austrian market, placed advertisements and repeatedly claimed that they are a legal casino. We are talking about a time when there were no lawsuits. Why should a player assume that it is not legal if the casino claims it itself and also advertises on Austrian television, prints advertisements in newspapers, puts up posters or equips footballers with their jerseys?
We're not talking about now, when most people should have noticed this somehow, but about the past. And there was nothing to suggest that the casinos weren't legal. Even when it was already clear, the casinos repeatedly referred to EU law and that they were therefore also allowed to offer their services in Austria. And this was at a time when the ECJ had already ruled that this was not the case. Nevertheless, the casinos kept insisting that they were legal, deliberately gave false information in the chat, etc.
Yes, the case is really strange. But it's probably simply down to the medium in which it was published. They always write completely confused articles, almost none of the editors there have any idea and throw half-knowledge around. The biggest trash paper in Austria.
What I could imagine:
1. Normally, a lawyer only sues for the loss. So the payouts are deducted from the depositors, so far logically. However, a lawyer once told me that, in theory, you could only claim back the entire deposits, regardless of the payouts. Perhaps this is what happened in this case and the casino had to sue for the losses (payouts) again. But it would be a very dubious lawyer if they proceeded in this way.
2. The player may have requested a list of deposits and withdrawals, so the casino knew immediately that they wanted to sue for the losses. It could also be that the list was requested directly by the lawyer and then, at the latest, the casino realized what the list was needed for. It then emerged that the casino had made a loss and not the other way around. The player may have misremembered or confused it with another casino.
Otherwise, I can't imagine anything more than that. The fact that a player sues and is proved right and at the same time the casino sues and is proved right just doesn't make sense, because ultimately only one of them can have lost or won.
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Liked this post:
sippi
I see it differently. You can also buy a knife and not steal one. I even think it's right. They play illegally, collect when you win and then you get money back. Why can't a casino also take back the wins? I think it's the same right for both.
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Liked this post: Anonym
Are you f**king serious? How can you be on the side of casinos or claim equal rights for both? For me, such a judgment is a scandal. It would be the same if the drug Dealer went to court and demanded the drugs back from his buyers
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
What does a knife have to do with it? Knives can be purchased legally, but the online casino's offer is completely illegal. You could compare it to the purchase of an unauthorized weapon and - as far as can be determined - both the buyer and the seller are punished. The seller for illegal arms dealing and the buyer for possession of an illegal weapon: if the buyer has also used the weapon, there will certainly be an additional charge.
This is how one should actually proceed. Both parties are to be punished, similar to illegal employment, the fines would be adjusted.
As far as refunding the money is concerned, I would only consider it fair if neither party gets anything back. You don't get your money back elsewhere either, because you would have to return the service and that's just not possible. However, this is usually not the case because the consumer is often favored.
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Liked this post: Anonym
But you realize that it's often a grey area. If you buy a firearm on the darknet, you will also be punished
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
I thought that players would also be prosecuted. Cash is confiscated and you have to prove the origin, otherwise the money is also gone. I think there's also a charge, but I don't know that 100%. But I know that cash is confiscated because I've seen it in some videos. The police even take photos of the banknotes, where you can also see the serial number of the notes.
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
Maybe my example was a bit strange. Yes, of course you know that you're playing illegally and it's often stated in the terms and conditions, so your solution would certainly be correct.
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Nobody has liked this post so far
Why is the ruling a scandal? Many people know that it's illegal. If you win everything is fine, if you lose you get your money back. It's not right in a way. The drugs thing isn't a better example, by the way.
This post has been translated automatically
Interesting judgment in favor of casino
Liked this post:
Falke
man, because the whole thing is a potentially life-threatening battlefield on which we're all unfortunately lying around here (yes, I don't care if someone shouts that he's not addicted / everything is completely different with him. given)
gambling is NOT ok. end of story. everything in the industry is designed to get people hooked and addicted. it can't make money any other way. everything about the concept is wrong. f**k the iron will / having a grip on yourself whatever.
the machines run - at best - with a 4% house advantage. it's a loss for the player either way in the long term. everyone knows that.
it can lead to total ruin. quickly. financially and socially. everyone knows that.
and for all these reasons, the ruling is a scandal. a huge one.
i have already said this elsewhere: it would be possible to take rigorous measures and put a much harder stop to the whole thing. and not on the side of and at the expense of the players. but it is not being done. there are reasons for this. monetary. lobby. power & money.
and for all these reasons, it is not only surprising but also absolutely questionable when a player takes the other side.
This post has been translated automatically