Online Casinos in general: Refund money? Report from the casino? (Page 2)

Falcon wrote on 03/15/2021 at 19:34
Not going to happen.

Would probably not be legally tenable, since casinos as companies have to know what they are doing.

Furthermore, a casino will never do that, because otherwise they themselves lay the foundation that any player with loss can sue immediately.

Even in Austria where the legal situation is clear and many casinos are already successfully sued, this affects only a small percentage of players.
That is why many casinos remain active in Austria. It's a simple cost-benefit calculation. The small number of players who sue for the money again are already included in the calculation. The majority does not sue and loses quite well. The bottom line is that it still pays for casinos to be active in Austria.

This post has been translated automatically

DerHamburger87 wrote on 15.03.2021 at 19:57
Versteh I, was also just such a little gimmick and fantasy on my part, hence the addition.... "if there ne basis is created"
Let's assume that legal actions would be simplified in the future and that casinos would be overwhelmed with such claims due to new regulations or changes in the law.
It would be interesting - even if only utopian - if casinos could swing back the club in the future and enforce money reclaims from casino players in court.

More than mimimi of the addicts is the whole procedure anyway not, no player would challenge the whole in the case of the win and processes regarding Player protection in a casino question. The club is then swung afterwards, bad loser is called such a thing ugs.

In the future, every player who gets his money back through the courts should be closely monitored and, in the event of repeated participation in unauthorized gambling, sanctioned with harsh prison sentences. Regardless of whether the gambling Provider is allowed to offer its services or not.

This post has been translated automatically

DerHamburger87 wrote on 15.03.2021 at 19:57
Versteh I, was also just such a little gimmick and fantasy on my part, hence the addition.... "if there ne basis is created"
Let's assume that legal actions would be simplified in the future and that casinos would be overwhelmed by new regulations or changes in the law.
It would be interesting - even if only utopian - if casinos could swing back the club in the future and enforce money reclaims from casino players in court.

More than mimimi of the addicts is the whole procedure anyway not, no player would challenge the whole in the case of the win and processes regarding Player protection in a casino question. The club is then swung afterwards, bad loser is called such a thing ugs.

In the future, every player who gets his money back through the courts should be closely monitored and, in the event of repeated participation in unauthorized gambling, sanctioned with harsh prison sentences. Regardless of whether the gambling Provider is allowed to offer its services or not.

This post has been translated automatically

Falcon wrote on 03/15/2021 at 9:47 pm
No, just no.

These are civil lawsuits where it is simply a matter of the contracts being declared invalid and since a contract has never come into being, the casinos must transfer the amounts back.

And rather you want to lock up people (mostly addicts), instead of looking for the fault of the casino. They know exactly what they are doing and offer their games anyway, just with the calculation that more players lose than then later complain back

But also the casinos know exactly that nothing can happen to them criminally, because it is only a matter of entrepreneurial law. It is a small cat and mouse game, it is business if you will

Why you have to immediately breathe a moral note into the whole thing every time I do not understand. The casinos circumvent laws, some players use laws. What is so bad about that now? If anything, you could argue that the casinos intentionally offer contracts that are invalid. And players who find out about it can then sue for exactly that. Period. But even that I do not find particularly bad. No one is forced to play in a casino. But the casinos are also not forced to offer their services in Austria and know just what can come to them. As one comes there at all only on the idea to speak immediately of custodial sentences. No one does anything criminally relevant - but lock up as a precaution. Of course. So that society is protected from the evil slot player who sits at home in his underwear in front of the PC and plays books?

This post has been translated automatically

Falcon wrote on 03/15/2021 at 9:47 pm
No, just no.

These are civil lawsuits where it is simply a matter of the contracts being declared invalid and since a contract has never come into being, the casinos must transfer the amounts back.

And rather you want to lock up people (mostly addicts), instead of looking for the fault of the casino. They know exactly what they are doing and offer their games anyway, just with the calculation that more players lose than then later complain back

But also the casinos know exactly that nothing can happen to them criminally, because it is only a matter of entrepreneurial law. It's a small cat and mouse game, it's business if you will

Why you have to immediately breathe a moral note into the whole thing every time I do not understand. The casinos circumvent laws, some players use laws. What is so bad about that now? If anything, you could argue that the casinos intentionally offer contracts that are invalid. And players who find out about it can then sue for exactly that. Period. But even that I do not find particularly bad. No one is forced to play in a casino. But the casinos are also not forced to offer their services in Austria and know just what can come to them. As one comes there at all only on the idea immediately of custodial sentences to speak. No one does anything criminally relevant - but lock up as a precaution. Of course. So that society is protected from the evil slot player who sits at home in his underwear in front of the PC and plays books?

This post has been translated automatically

Falcon wrote on 03/15/2021 at 9:47 pm
No, just no.

These are civil lawsuits where it is simply a matter of the contracts being declared invalid and since a contract has never come into being, the casinos must transfer the amounts back.

And rather you want to lock up people (mostly addicts), instead of looking for the fault of the casino. They know exactly what they are doing and offer their games anyway, just with the calculation that more players lose than then later complain back

But also the casinos know exactly that nothing can happen to them criminally, because it is only a matter of entrepreneurial law. It's a small cat and mouse game, it's business if you will

Why you have to immediately breathe a moral note into the whole thing every time I do not understand. The casinos circumvent laws, some players use laws. What is so bad about that now? If anything, you could argue that the casinos intentionally offer contracts that are invalid. And players who find out about it can then sue for exactly that. Period. But even that I do not find particularly bad. No one is forced to play in a casino. But the casinos are not forced to offer their offer in Austria and know just what can come to them. As one comes there at all only on the idea immediately of custodial sentences to speak. No one does anything criminally relevant - but lock up as a precaution. Of course. So that society is protected from the evil slot player who sits at home in his underwear in front of the PC and plays books?

This post has been translated automatically

Hidaruma wrote on 03/15/2021 at 22:56

Maybe he was more concerned with those not pathologically addicted to gambling. And I mean really pathological, meaning lost all control over gambling.


With all other people it is rather weak to get the money back.

This post has been translated automatically

DerHamburger87 wrote on 15.03.2021 at 23:13
Correct, perhaps a little unfortunate formulated
Meant with it naturally the persons who act in the case deliberately and fraudulently.
Here must be simply control that it is not possible of Provider A by complaint to reclaim his money and just the funds from which the recovery originates in the vastness of the gambling universe without control again.
Because I hardly think that if the plaintiff gets his money back via the legal process, further control over the funds takes place, as the plaintiff here uses the funds in the future
That is pure double standard
Something like this must be strongly sanctioned. Fraud is punishable by imprisonment and we are very close to that.
If I have pain for days and take pills, it suppresses the pain but does not fight the cause
And no plaintiff, heavy addict, addict, casual gambler, hobby gambler is doing himself a big favor here I think
Regardless of the outcome, the verdict should always be accompanied by a requirement for therapy and a general personal ban on gambling, which, if violated, will result in an appropriate penalty, which can be determined on a case-by-case basis.
That's what it's really about, not about casinos circumventing laws and players using laws. It's more about the fact that this process brings the majority of players nothing at all
Because the player who goes such steps, has far greater problems than his lost 12,000 € he wants to reclaim. As I said before: no hobby gambler or addict WILL put his problem aside with this kind of lawsuit
Fight the cause, not the symptom!

This post has been translated automatically

Falke wrote on 16.03.2021 at 00:28
And you think you fight the cause by locking up someone who hasn't done anything criminally relevant?
Great understanding of the law

And your logic is a bit muddled too.

If someone demands his money back and then deposits it in another casino, then he can only Deposit the money again in another casino because the respective casino ignores the laws and is active in the country in which it is prohibited. You don't know the principle that the Dealer is punished more severely than the consumer, do you?

And now to the legal situation: If someone gets the money awarded by the court then only for one reason - because he is in the right. From this point on, the money belongs to him and it is not earmarked. If the person then pays back into a casino, that is his business. The only thing he is not allowed to do is to sue this casino again, because he could be accused of intent, that he has paid in from the beginning knowing that he will get the money back later. But that is another topic. If it were up to you, he would no longer be allowed to gamble with the money he was legally awarded. And that is wrong


It is true that the purpose of a prison sentence is also to punish, but it is mainly to protect society. This is the only reason why a prison sentence is permissible at all and the most severe means that can be applied. Imprisoning someone who harms NOBODY is against any democratic jurisprudence. Those who immediately cry "lock up" are usually not really familiar with the principle of proportionality and is rather a populist demand of people who rightly (fortunately) are not decision makers.

This post has been translated automatically

Falcon wrote on 03/15/2021 at 9:47 pm
No, just no.

These are civil lawsuits where it is simply a matter of the contracts being declared invalid and since a contract has never come into being, the casinos must transfer the amounts back.

And rather you want to lock up people (mostly addicts), instead of looking for the fault of the casino. They know exactly what they are doing and offer their games anyway, just with the calculation that more players lose than then later complain back

But also the casinos know exactly that nothing can happen to them criminally, because it is only a matter of entrepreneurial law. It is a small cat and mouse game, it is business if you will

Why you have to immediately breathe a moral note into the whole thing every time I do not understand. The casinos circumvent laws, some players use laws. What is so bad about that now? If anything, you could argue that the casinos intentionally offer contracts that are invalid. And players who find out about it can then sue for exactly that. Period. But even that I do not find particularly bad. No one is forced to play in a casino. But the casinos are not forced to offer their offer in Austria and know just what can come to them. As one comes there at all only on the idea to speak immediately of custodial sentences. No one does anything criminally relevant - but lock up as a precaution. Of course. So that society is protected from the evil slot player who sits at home in his underwear in front of the PC and plays books?

This post has been translated automatically